Sitting of 13 January 1913

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
GLASGOW UNIVERSITY (EVENING CLASSES).
Lord BALCARRES, on behalf of the hon. Member for Glasgow University (Sir H. Craik), presented a petition from the General Council of the University praying that the request made at a special meeting on the 8th of January last may be granted to the effect that the Order relating to the evening classes in graduation may be amended.
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE) (UNIVERSITY COURT ORDINANCE No. 39 (GLASGOW, No. 12) (AFFILIATION OF THE ROYAL TECHNICAL COLLEGE, GLASGOW).
Petition from Glasgow, for alteration of Section V.; to lie upon the Table.
CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906 (RULES).
Copy presented of Rules made by the Board of Trade under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ASSURANCE COMPANIES.
Copy presented of Statements deposited with the Board of Trade under Section 7 (1) of The Assurance Companies Act, 1909, during the year 1912. Parts A and B [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1907.
Copy presented of Return giving particulars of Cases in which persons had been reinstated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners during the quarter ended 30th September, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FOR IRELAND.
Copy presented of The Motor Cars (Use and Construction) (Ireland) Amendment Order (No. II.), 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 2Sth October, 1912, in terms of Sections 4 and 5 of The Shops Act, 1912, affecting certain classes of Shops in the burgh of Rosehearty [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (SCHEME FOR REGULATION OF HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT, ETC., IN CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS).
Copy presented of Scheme, approved by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 5 (2) (a) of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1907, for the regulation of the Hours of Employment and Holidays in respect of the Paisley Female House of Refuge, Lady Lane, Paisley, in substitution for the Scheme approved 5th April, 1910 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Memorandum explanatory of Medical Benefit under the German Sickness Insurance Legislation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 11th January, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled The National Health Insurance (Transfer from Voluntary to Employed Rate) Regulations, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 424.]
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 10th January, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled The National Health Insurance (Maternity Benefit) Regulations (England), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 425.]

GRENADA.
Copy presented of Rule made by the Governor in Council relating to the Hours of Release from the Prisons in Grenada [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Opium Cultivation (China).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has information to the effect that at Changsha and Hunan Chinamen have been shot for trading in and smoking opium, and that in Shensi a man has been put to death by the slicing process, a punishment hitherto reserved for parricides, for the same offence; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government regard these methods of dealing with the abuse of stimulants in China as a legitimate expression of the intention of the Chinese authorities keeping their engagements with Great Britain in respect of the cessation of the trade in and cultivation of opium in China?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): His Majesty's Minister at Peking has communicated local Press extracts reporting the infliction of the death penalty in certain provinces, including Hunan, for violation of the opium laws, but he has not officially confirmed these reports. They do not mention the methods employed in carrying out the sentence.
  Sir J.D. REES: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire into the matter and submit to the Chinese authorities representations as to these methods of carrying out the agreement?
  Mr. ACLAND: We think it extremely improbable that the method mentioned by the hon. Member has been employed. For the rest it is a matter of Chinese concern and not one for the House.

  Congo (Judicial System).
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, in the Papers which he has promised to lay upon the Table concerning the Congo, the question of the Congo judicial system and its working will be included?
  Mr. ACLAND: The Papers, which will, I hope, be laid next month, will include such reports as we have received containing references to the judicial system.

  Cyprus.
  Mr. FALLEasked if the Anglo-Turkish Convention, under which this country assumed possession of Cyprus
  1648
  and guaranteed the Asiatic possessions of Turkey, is still held to be binding on this country?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer is in the affirmative. If the hon. Member will read the Convention he will see that the guarantee is conditional and not absolute.

  Government Buildings (Edinburgh).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can state the different Scottish offices for which accommodation will be provided in the proposed new buildings on the site of the Calton Gaol, Edinburgh; and what is the estimated cost of the new buildings?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury;: The First Commissioner regrets that he is not yet in a position to furnish the particulars desired.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    MERCHANTMEN (CONVERSION INTO BATTLESHIPS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps the Government has taken to countervail the privilege of allowing conversion of merchantmen into battleships conferred on Germany by the ratification in 1909 of The Hague Conference of 1907, whereby 128 warships, forty-five of which are over 10,000 tons, and all of which are specially adapted to conversion, will be added to the German fleet when the Empire is at war?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I cannot accept the hon. Member's statement of the effect of ratifying the Convention in question, nor must I be taken as assenting to his figures as regards German merchant ships, or to his inferences as to their use in war. The question of the best means of dealing with the attempts which might be made on our sea-borne trade in time of war is one which constantly engages the attention of the Admiralty, but I am not prepared at the present time to make any statement as to the steps which have been, or will be, taken in the matter.

    PENSIONERS (RECEIPT STAMPS).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty

    1649
    whether he is aware that, owing to recent legislation, naval pensioners entitled to an ordinary pension; and a pension for injuries are required to take their instalments in separate sums, a procedure which necessitates paying a 1d. stamp for each amount, whereas under the old regime they only paid 1d. for the one amount; and whether he can see his way so to arrange matters that the naval pensioner is not compelled to contribute out of his pension an additional sum of 1s. a year to the Exchequer?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Receipts given by naval pensioners are exempt from Stamp Duty under the provisions of the First Schedule of the Stamp Act, 1891. The hon. Member probably has in mind certain civilian pensioners who are in receipt both of pensions for service and allowances for injury, payable at the dockyards, and who, owing to a recent rearrangement of the Votes of the Public Service for Civil pensions, have in certain cases been required to give two receipts. Steps are being taken to ensure that in future only one stamp will be required to be affixed.

    SHIPWRIGHTS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the extra pay for shipwrights only amounts to two-thirds of a penny per day and that for this addition they are asked to give up the privilege of returning to the dockyards, which is equivalent to a sum of £31 4s. down and 4s. 6d. per week pension; and will he explain why the shipwrights are asked to give up a considerable emolument in return for what is in point of fact a much smaller amount?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The extra pay to naval shipwrights amounts, on the average, to £12.7 per man per year, or 8.35 pence per day, and the grant of the petty officer rating will result eventually in an average extra cost for pensions of £13 7s. per man per year, or 9d. per day. By remaining in the Navy they will receive, on the average, increased pay amounting to 4s. 10d. a week for the remainder of their naval service, with a prospect of a naval pension at the age of forty of approximately £52 to £55 a year. For this they give up the prospect of a Civil pension at the age of sixty of approximately £45 a year and an additional allowance of £126. It will be seen that there is no sacrifice of emoluments.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is aware that the naval shipwrights are opposed to the suggestion made that men who were trained as boy shipwrights should relinquish their claims to dockyard employment at the expiration of their first engagement as a condition of accepting the new rates of pay; what steps he proposes to take should these men come back to the yard after twelve years' service and take up their right of establishment; whether he is aware that the first return is due next October, and that in a comparatively short space of time a considerable number of shipwrights will be coming back to the yard, while in all some 700 or 800 are eligible to return; whether the return of these men will interfere with the establishment of dockyard shipwrights who have served their apprenticeship in the yard; and whether he can see his way to meet the objection raised by the naval shipwrights by granting to them the rating of chief petty officer?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In view of the advantage obtained by naval shipwrights who accept the new rates of pay, as explained in the reply to the hon. Gentleman's previous question, it is not considered that any ground exists for objection to the conditions attached to the acceptance of the new scheme. Any men, however, who do not accept the new rates of pay and prefer to return to dockyard employment on the expiration of their naval service, will be placed on the established list additional to the present establishment, and their return will thus not interfere with the existing prospects of establishment of dockyard shipwrights on the hired list.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the House to understand that the establishment list is to be enlarged?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes. If the men do not accept the new rating and go back to the dockyard, they are going on the establishment additional to the present numbers which have been agreed to by us, and therefore they will not prejudice the chances of the dockyard hands.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the First Lord to make that clear on the naval estimates?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have made it sufficiently clear this afternoon.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that misunderstanding prevails among the naval shipwrights as to the meaning of the second principle set out on page 6 of the statement showing the present and new rates of pay to the Royal Navy; will he explain what is meant by the statement that shipwright third class will be a leading rate, and at the expiration of one year, if satisfactory, men will be advanced to the petty officer grade of shipwright second class; and does this mean that the naval shipwrights, who are at present merely leading seamen, will be given the rating of chief petty officer?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The leading rate of shipwright third class will be confined to men who have been trained as boy shipwrights and are undergoing their first year of service in the Fleet. At the expiration of that period, if satisfactory, they will be advanced automatically to the petty officer rating of shipwright second class. The rating of chief petty officer is restricted to chief shipwrights.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the House to understand that shipwrights are not to be allowed to rank as chief potty officers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. The rating of chief petty officers is restricted to chief shipwrights.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether any change is contemplated in the number of skilled labourers to be attached to each gang of shipwrights in the Royal dockyards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No change in existing arrangements is at present contemplated.
    Sir JOHN JACKSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can see his way to grant naval shipwrights the rating of chief petty officer, especially in view of the fact that such a concession would provide an additional inducement for lads of a superior class to enter the Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Under the new scheme for naval shipwrights, all skilled shipwrights (including men who have been trained as boy shipwrights in the dockyards, and have completed one year's approved service in the Fleet) will hold the rating of petty officer, and all chief shipwrights the rating of chief petty officer. It is considered that the inducements
    1652
    provided by this scheme for lads of the right class to enter the Navy in this rating are sufficient.
    Mr. FALLEasked when the reply to the petition of the naval shipwrights will be given?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The petition will be answered when the details of the new rates of pay and conditions of service for naval shipwrights are communicated to the Fleet in the Circular Letter which is now in course of preparation and will be issued immediately.

    DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (PIECE-WORK).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that from Monday last an alteration has taken place in the prices paid for piece-work by hand at Devonport Dockyard, and that, instead of paying pieceworkers 40 per cent. for all work ½-inch and under and 50 per cent. for all work above ½-inch, a uniform rate of 40 per cent, is now being paid; whether he is aware that the change is causing dissatisfaction; and can he see his way to appoint a piece-work board where men and masters can meet together and set prices, as is done in outside shipwright firms?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: An alteration has recently been made in the piecework rates for drilling with pneumatic tools by which certain work which was formerly paid for at the rate of 30 per cent. of the prices in the schedule will in future be paid for at the rate of 40 per cent. of those prices. At the same time, it has been arranged that certain work which was paid for at the rate of 50 per cent. will be paid for at the rate of 40 per cent., the intention being in these cases that in future the men shall invariably be supplied with high speed drills, which will enable them, generally speaking, to earn at the 40 per cent. rate as much as they have been able to earn at the 50 per cent. rate. From certain reports which have come in, this appears to be borne out in actual experience under the new arrangement. My information, however, is not fully complete. When it is, I will go into the matter and take care that any ground for legitimate grievance, if such exist, shall be removed. With regard to the question of appointing a piecework board, the suggestion has been put to me at the annual hearing of petitions, and will receive the consideration of the Board; but I am afraid I can hold out no prospect that it will be found possible

    1653
    under our organisation to follow the practice which the hon. Gentleman refers to as adopted by outside firms.

    Birkbeck Bank.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade when the Official Receiver will be in a position enabling him to make a further distribution of assets to depositors in the Birkbeck Bank?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): A further distribution of 2s. 8d. in the £, making with previous distributions a total of 16s. in the £, will be made by the Official Receiver to depositors in the Birkbeck Bank on 2nd April next.

    Census of Production.
    Mr. HILLSasked whether the President of the Board of Trade intends to continue, as part of the Census of Production, the triennial enumeration, for each county area separately, of persons employed in factories and workshops in the county, seeing that the local figures are of great importance for the local public health service?
    Mr. BUXTON: By arrangement between the Home Office and the Board of Trade the Returns of the numbers of persons employed, which will be required in connection with the second Census of Production, will be made to serve the purposes of the separate Returns of persons employed hitherto collected by the Home Office. It is not proposed to publish figures for separate counties in the Reports on the Census of Production.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked what are now the six largest industries in the country in the order of their magnitude gauged by the number of hands employed therein respectively?
    Mr. BUXTON: According to the Census of 1901 the groups of occupations in which the largest number of persons were engaged in the United Kingdom were (in order)—agriculture, domestic service, conveyance of men, goods and messages, metal, engineering and shipbuilding, clothing, textiles, and building.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we will get the more recent figures in the last Census?
    Mr. BUXTON: I cannot say, but as soon as possible.

    Loss of Steamship "Titanic."
    Mr. FRED HALLasked, in respect of the moneys paid by the Board of Trade for appearances at the recent "Titanic" Inquiry, whether the sum of £750 was paid to Messrs. Helder, Roberts, and Company; and how much of this represented counsel's fees to the hon. and learned Member for East Glamorganshire, and how much for the solicitor's other outlay?
    Mr. BUXTON: The sum of £750 was paid to Messrs. Helder, Roberts, and Company in connection with the "Titanic" Inquiry. Two-thirds of this amount represented counsel's fees, and one-third solicitor's costs.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state, in respect of the moneys paid by the Board of Trade for appearances at the recent "Titanic" Inquiry, whether the sum of £750 was paid to Mr. Alexander Smith; and how much of this represented counsel's fees to the hon. and learned Member for North Sligo and how much for the solicitors' other outlay?
    Mr. BUXTON: The sum of £750 was paid to Mr. Alexander Smith in connection with the "Titanic" Inquiry. Two-thirds of this sum represented counsel's fees and one-third solicitor's costs.
    Mr. FRED HALL: May I ask whether calamities of this nature should be used as an opportunity to distribute largesse to the supporters of the Government?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Arising out of the supplementary question, is it not the case that the fees in the "Titanic" Inquiry were fixed not by the Board of Trade, but by Lord Mersey acting under statutory powers in the ordinary course?
    Mr. MOORE: Is it not the case that the fees were fixed by agreement with the Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown; and is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Nationalist party passed a resolution that no Member of that party shall accept any money from the Government in any shape or form, and yet there is a sum of £500 for the hon. Member for North Sligo (Mr. Scanlan)?
    Mr. BUXTON: I understand that was in his professional capacity, and had nothing to do with his political opinions. In regard to the question of the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle)

    1655
    I cannot answer offhand whether Lord Mersey did make some regulations actually fixing the fees.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Is it not rather strange that Members of the Nationalist party and a Member of the Welsh party—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. Those are questions which the hon. Member can answer for himself.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is it not the fact that the two hon. Members above the Gangway have neither the capacity nor the ability to earn the money?
    Mr. MOORE: We were not ejected by the police, at any rate.
    Mr. HILLSasked the Attorney-General who was responsible for fixing the fees payable to the Law Officers of the Crown, and the other counsel employed in the "Titanic" Inquiry?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The responsibility for fixing the fees paid to counsel representing the public in connection with the "Titanic" Inquiry rests with the Board of Trade. The necessary Treasury sanction was, of course, duly obtained.

    Franchise and Registration Bill.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of his Amendment to the Franchise Bill under which the occupation of premises is not to be a qualification for the Parliamentary Franchise, sleeping in quarters in barracks will constitute residence within the meaning of the Bill?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): There would seem to be no doubt that sleeping-in quarters in barracks would constitute residence within the meaning of the Franchise Bill. The Amendment dealing with occupation makes no difference in this respect.
    Mr. PETOasked whether, if it is the intention of the Government to confer the franchise upon soldiers quartered in the United Kingdom, he intends to define residence in order to give effect to their intention?
    Mr. PEASE: It is not necessary to define residence for the special purpose of
    1656
    the soldiers' franchise, as the ordinary dwelling of a soldier in barracks will no doubt constitute residence.
    Mr. PETOasked what provision the Government intend to make in the Franchise and Registration Bill to enable soldiers to register their votes in cases where they have been moved from one constituency to another within six months of a general or by-election?
    Mr. PEASE: Soldiers moved from one constituency to another will be able, just as any other voters under the Bill, to vote in the constituency from which they are moved during the period in which they are qualifying to vote in the constituency to which they are moved.
    Mr. PETO: Is it not obvious that, in the case of a whole regiment being moved from one constituency to another, they are not in the same position as any other voters moving; is it not the case that soldiers are moved for the purposes of the nation, and, therefore, are not in the same position as civilians; and is it not obvious that in the exercise of the franchise there ought to be special provision to enable soldiers to vote?
    Mr. PEASE: I do not think that any preferential position can be given to any one class of subjects over another. Civil servants, as well as others who perform official duties, have to be moved from one constituency to another, and they are put to exactly the same inconvenience as soldiers.
    Mr. PETOasked the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the intention of the Government, under the Amendments he has put down to Clause 1 of the Franchise Bill, that absence abroad from a residence owned or occupied by a duly qualified voter will disqualify him from exercising the franchise on his return; and, if so, whether the effect of this will be to disqualify many of the few sailors who now have occasionally the opportunity of voting at Parliamentary elections, and also all persons whose business necessitates absence abroad for complete periods of six months, even though they continuously pay rates and taxes on a residence in this country?
    Mr. PEASE: Temporary residence abroad will not disqualify a voter. It is possible that the Amendments dealing with occupation may in some cases have the effect pointed out in the question, though it is very doubtful whether there will be many such cases.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he can put some provision in the Bill which will show, now occupation is to be no longer the qualification, what a residence of six months really means—whether it means residence every night or one or two nights during a period of six months?
    Mr. PEASE: I think that is a matter for discussion on the stages of the Bill. There is a good deal to be said why residence should not be defined, but I prefer to postpone any observations I have to make on that matter.
    Mr. MOORE: Will we be allowed to discuss anything?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I say that the Prime Minister gave me a pledge, when this Bill was introduced, that we should consider the whole question of the franchise for sailors?
    Mr. PEASE: I have no doubt that will be so.

    Telegraph Service (Highlands and Islands).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General if he can give a list of telegraph offices in the Highlands and Islands that are supported by local guarantees, and showing to what extent the local guarantees are supplemented by the Scottish Board of Agriculture?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): I am sending the hon. Member a list of the guaranteed telegraph offices in Scotland. None of these offices is directly guaranteed by the Scottish Board of Agriculture, but I am informed that the Board pays to the guarantors a portion of the deficit claimed by the Post Office in regard to the fifteen offices whose names are marked on the list.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate the list with the voles?
    Captain NORTON: I will consult my right hon. Friend on the matter.

    Exeter Post Office.
    Mr. DUKEasked whether the Postmaster-General has been officially informed that the membership of the refreshment club in the Exeter post office is likely to be greatly reduced by reason of the proposed changes in the arrangements there, and that, on account of the smallness of the
    1658
    number of whole meals taken, the subsidy promised to the club will be of merely nominal amount; and whether he will take steps to ascertain whether the case is similar to those of the branch post offices and telephone exchanges in London, where an allowance for service is made, and suitable to be dealt with by that means?
    Captain NORTON: Refreshment clubs are carried on successfully on the lines proposed for Exeter at offices where the staff is about the same in numbers, and even where it is much smaller, but the reason able support of the staff is, of course, an essential condition of success. The case is not parallel to those of the branch post offices and smaller telephone exchanges in London, where exceptional arrangements are made for small staffs because of their difficulty in getting home for meals. No such arrangements are made now in the provinces, and the system at Exeter is a relic of old arrangements which have been abolished practically all over the Kingdom.
    Mr. DUKE: May I ask whether, as the local difficulties at Exeter have produced these results which have destroyed this provision, the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the position, and ascertain whether there are special local circumstances which make more applicable exceptional treatment of these men in Exeter?
    Captain NORTON: Certainly, I will do that. I believe it is likely that there will be some changes later on, owing to the probable establishment of a sorting office at the station.

    Established Church (Wales) Bill.
    Mr. BOWER MANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether any provision is to be made in the Established Church (Wales) Bill for the maintenance of the ancient churchyards in the Principality; and (2) whether, in the Established Church (Wales) Bill, any provision is to be made and who will be responsible for the maintenance of the ancient churchyards in the Principality.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Burial grounds of ecclesiastical parishes other than those which are the proceeds of private benefactions will, after the determination of the existing incumbencies, be transferred. Firstly, in cases where the burial grounds are situated in areas in which the Burial Acts are in force, or in which burial grounds have

    1659
    been provided tinder the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879, or a local Act, to the burial authorities; or, if the Welsh Commissioners think fit, to trustees on behalf of the burial authorities. Secondly, in cases where the burial grounds are situated in rural parishes in which the Burial Acts are not in force, to the parish councils, or, if no such council exist, they will be vested in the chairman of the parish meeting and the overseers of the parish; and, thirdly, in any other cases, to the council of the borough or urban district in which the burial ground is situated. These respective bodies will, of course, be liable for the maintenance of the burial grounds transferred to them, as if they were burial grounds provided under the Burial Acts. All burial grounds closed before the date of Disestablishment will be transferred to the representative body of the Church if they so request.

    Crown Jewels (Dublin).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary why no criminal proceedings have been instituted against any of the persons implicated in the Report of Detective Inspector Kane on his special business in Ireland in 1907?
    Mr. McKENNA: This question should have been addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I have no evidence whatever that any offence in connection with the Crown Jewels was committed in England.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask, does not the act of pawning the jewels here in London bring the thieves within the jurisdiction of the Home Office?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware of any such act.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Do I understand Inspector Kane is not under the authority of the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. McKENNA: That is not the point. The point whether I have any jurisdiction or not would depend whether any offence has been committed in this country, and I have no evidence that any offence has been committed.
    Mr. WARD: Did the right hon. Gentleman personally or did his Department agree that Inspector Kane should be employed in investigating this case?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot say I personally agreed; but Inspector Kane was lent for the purpose, but that would not bring the matter within my jurisdiction.
    Mr. WARD: Has the right hon. Gentleman Inspector Kane's report on the case?
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes. That question was answered last week.
    Mr. WARD: Can we see it?
    Mr. McKENNA: No.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask if the four persons publicly accused of this crime failed to bring an action against the accuser, thus acknowledging their guilt, and will the ordinary law be put in operation against them?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware that any persons have been publicly accused of this crime.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that four persons have been accused in this House, and that the accuser is under pledge not to avail of privilege if they bring an action?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not know whether the claim of privilege depends on the accuser or not. I always understood it depends on this House.

    Pistols Bill.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recent statement of the Chief Commissioner of Police that a Government Bill was, after the Sidney-Street affair, drafted to deal with the possession of and traffic in pistols, and that the restrictions contained in such Bill are necessary for the protection of the public; and, if so, when he proposes to introduce such measure?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Government hope to be able to introduce a measure, which I trust will be treated as uncontroversial, next Session.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If there should be controversy, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce the Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I will introduce the measure, but I hope it will be taken as non-controversial.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Has the right hon. Gentleman ascertained that it can be brought forward as a non-contentious measure?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not, but from the nature of the Bill I hope it will be treated as non-controversial.

    Macedonia (Mussulman Refugees).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a representation from the Mahomedans of Ran-goon asking protection for Mussulman refugees in Macedonia; and, if so, what action has been taken on such representation?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George, for the Prime Minister): A representation has been received from the President of the Moslem Association of Rangoon, asking for protection of Mussulman refugees in Macedonia from the alleged outrages to which they were subjected. In regard to the second part of this question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 9th January by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Central Hull.

    Judicial Committee, Privy Council.
    Sir J. D. REESasked what steps are to be taken to reconstitute the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and to provide salaries for members thereof, in view of the additional duties to be cast on that body under the Government of Ireland and Established Church (Wales) Bills, should these measures become law?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government are considering the matter raised by the hon. Member's question. I may remind him that by the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill now before this House it is proposed to appoint two addtional Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. If appointed they would add to the number of judges available for sittings in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the salaries paid amount to something like £76,000, and does he not think that is sufficient for the work or oven the new work?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot answer that without notice.
    sMr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Are there any paid members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at all as Privy Councillors?
    An HON. MEMBER: Lords of Appeal are.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Not as Privy Councillors.

    Public Trustee.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been given to the General Report of the Public Trustee, in which certain amendments of the law are declared to be desirable; and whether, with the probability of legislation on these matters proving non-contentious, he can promise the introduction of a Government measure on this subject in the course of next Session?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The matter is receiving careful consideration, but my right hon. Friend can give no pledge with regard to it.
    Mr. A. F. WHYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the raising of the status generally of those who are employed in the Public Trustee's office, especially in the matter of salary?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot give an answer without notice.

    Market Gardeners' Compensation (No. 3) Bill.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the detrimental effect upon market gardeners of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Kedwell v. Flint, depriving them of the benefits intended to be conferred by the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895, and of the fact that decisions founded thereon continue to be given by other Courts to the loss and embarrassment of this class of agricultural producer, he can see his way to take the remaining stages of the Market Gardeners' Compensation (No. 3) Bill, being a wholly non-contentious measure, without delay?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the importance of the matter, but he can make no statement at present.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    LORD LIEUTENANT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister why the term of office of the Lord Lieutenant is restricted to six years under the Government of Ireland Bill?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The term of six years was chosen because it follows the precedent of 1893 and is longer than the normal duration of Parliament.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is there any particular reason why this office should be expressly restricted in its duration, whereas no such restriction is imposed in the case of other Viceroys and Governors?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question.

    Railways (No. 2) Bill.
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Prime Minister when the Government intend to take the Railways (No. 2) Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not yet possible to fix a date, but, as recently stated, it is not likely to be before next month.
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is really alive to the fact that the definite pledge given by him on behalf of the Government in regard to this matter is now sixteen months overdue, whilst the railway companies have incurred very heavy expenses in carrying out their part of the bargain?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am certainly alive to the fact that I gave a very definite pledge on behalf of the Government when settling the railway dispute, but nobody knows better than the Noble Lord the difficulties which have occurred in carrying out that pledge. The objections have by no means been confined to one side of the House. We have experienced very great difficulties, but the Noble. Lord knows perfectly well that the Board of Trade have been doing their very best to redeem the pledge which the Government gave.
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: I know the Board of Trade have done their best, but it is the measures of the right hon. Gentleman which have interfered with the Board of Trade in bringing forward the Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I really do not know what the Noble Lord means by my having interfered with the Board of Trade. He has no right to say that, and,
    1664
    on the contrary, I have done my very best to assist the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade will confirm what I say, in carrying out the pledge. I consider it not merely a pledge of the Government, but a personal pledge of mine; and I shall stand by it whatever happens.
    Mr. HUNT: When the railway companies agreed to settle the strike by concessions, were they told they were to be put off for a year and a half?

    Blocking Motions (House of Commons).
    Mr. MORRELLasked when the Government will carry out their expressed intentions with regard to Blocking Motions?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The matter has not been lost sight of, and my right hon. Friend hopes shortly to be able to give a date.
    Mr. MORRELL: Do I understand that a day will be given for an actual discussion on the Motion for altering the Standing Orders?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I really do not like to say, but my recollection is that it was suggested that if there was general agreement as to the character of the Motion to meet the wishes of hon. Members there would be a discussion late one evening.
    Mr. MORRELL: Has a sufficient measure of general agreement yet been arrived at?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think my hon. Friend had better put that question to the Prime Minister.

    Camp Hill Prison.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Home Secretary whether the habitual criminals detained in Camp Hill Prison receive more privileges and comforts than are allowed to poor debtors committed to prison for non-compliance with judgment summonses; and, if so, whether he can see his way to place debtors who have committed no criminal offence in a position of at least equality with these habitual criminals?
    Mr. McKENNA: The two cases do not admit of comparison. The principles affecting the treatment of prisoners committed for a period of days or weeks for the purpose of enforceing the payment of debts have no bearing upon those which should regulate the treatment of convicts

    1665
    confined for a period of years for preventive purposes after they have served a term of penal servitude. If the two classes of prisoners were treated alike, debtors would have to begin serving their sentences under the conditions imposed by penal servitude.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Is it not the fact that the one is a notorious criminal and the other has committed no criminal offence at all?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes; but the notorious criminals have already been punished by a period of penal servitude, and it was only after they have served that punishment that they come under the provisions applicable to preventive detention.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Why cannot a debtor have such things as shaving-water?
    Mr. McKENNA: If a debtor goes through a period of penal servitude, he will subsequently have all the amenities which the hon. Gentleman thinks attach to preventive detention; but it would be unfair to put a debtor in the first instance under the conditions of penal servitude.

    Condemned Convict, John Williams (Marriage).
    Mr. ASTORasked the Home Secretary whether the convict, John Williams, who was sentenced to death at Lewes Assizes on the 17th December, applied in writing to the Home Office for permission to marry Florence Seymour in order that the child whose birth she was expecting should be born legitimately; whether his application was refused without any reason being given; whether Florence Seymour gave birth to a child, of which the prisoner acknowledged himself the father, on the 29th December; and, if so, whether he will state the grounds for his decision in this case?
    Mr. McKENNA: The application of the prisoner was made verbally through the Governor, not in writing. Applications by prisoners to marry while in prison have not infrequently been made and on grounds similar to those advanced by Williams, but they appear from the records of the Home Office to have been invariably refused. There were special circumstances in this case against my setting aside this unbroken rule. An appeal was then pending and marriage would probably have had the legal effect of preventing the woman, who
    1666
    was a principal witness for the prosecution, from being called to give evidence if so required by the Court of Appeal. Moreover, it must be remembered that in all capital cases after conviction and before execution the question of the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy has to be considered. It is impossible for me to know, and I cannot discuss, the motives which prompted the request for leave to marry, but the effect of such a marriage would have been to introduce into the case an element which was likely to excite strong expressions of sentiment, but which had no true bearing on the prisoner's guilt and culpability. In these circumstances, I was satisfied that it would not be in the public interest that the marriage should be allowed to take place.
    Mr. FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether John Williams is an Englishman or a domiciled Scotchman?
    Mr. McKENNA: I believe that Williams is of Scotch parentage, but whether he is domiciled in England I cannot say.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a doctor who joins a panel under the National Insurance Act after the official list of the panel has been published can begin to undertake work immediately he joins, or whether he will have to wait till the next publication of the names on the panel; and whether a county insurance committee can refuse to pay him for services rendered under such circumstances?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): In any district where the normal panel system is in force a doctor can join the panel at any time. His name would not be included in the published list until such time as the insurance committee issued a revised list of practitioners on the panel. He would be entitled to receive payment in respect of insured persons who elect to be treated by him, and whose treatment he undertakes as from the date on which he joins the panel. Those insured persons who do not express a wish to be attended by any particular doctor will be assigned by the insurance committee to doctors on the panel, and as far as possible under arrangements made by the practitioners on the panel at that time.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, that the doctors who join the panels late will also get their share of the insured persons who do not choose their own doctors?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Not necessarily for the first three months.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Under the Regulations they will receive payment for any services they undertook immediately after joining the panel?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes. They will receive payment in respect of insured persons whose treatment they undertook as from the date of joining the panel.
    Mr. CASSEL: Does not the Act provide that every doctor shall have the right to join the panel at any time?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly. My first statement was that in any district where the normal panel system is in force a doctor can join the panel at any time.
    Mr. CASSEL: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state that for the first three months he would not have the full opportunity?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will refer to my answer.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether approved societies or the insurance committees will be allowed to provide medical benefit for insured persons over sixty-five at the commencement of the Act; and, if so, whether the extra grant of 2s. 6d. will be payable in respect of them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: By Section 49 (3), persons over sixty-five at the commencement of the Act who come under the special provisions of that Section and are members of approved societies are entitled to such benefits as the society determines, and can provide out of their employers' and their own contributions, and the State 2d. As far as I am aware, however, all the approved societies have chosen that this money should be devoted to the provision of sick pay rather than of medical treatment. Insurance committees have the same powers and duties in the case of persons of this class who are deposit contributors as the societies have in the case of members of approved societies.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Did not the right hon. Gentleman issue to societies two forms of alternative benefits, neither of which included medical benefits, directing the societies to choose one or the other?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No. They were purely optional for the guidance of societies giving actuarial figures of what could be provided if they chose either of them.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether the proposed extra grant of 2s. 6d. will be allowed to provide medical benefit for existing members of friendly societies who do not become insured persons because they were over sixty-five at the commencement of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative. Societies which have decided to devote the 9d. a week (or 8d. in the case of women), under Section 49 of the Act, to sick pay rather than to medical benefit will make their own arrangements for medical treatment of their members outside the Act.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the 2s. 6d.—the £1,6.50,000—will also be available for such benefits?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Not outside the Act.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked why the Statutory Rules, No. 17 and 19, relating to the administration of medical benefit, dated 5th December, 1912, and the Forms 21 and 22, relating to persons desiring to make their own arrangements for medical treatment, were not sent to Members of Parliament until the 8th January, 1913?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Medical Regulations (S.R.O. 1719) were laid on 5th December as H.C. 386, and were available to all Members through the Vote Office on 7th December. The stock of forms Medical 21 and 22 (apart from some advanced copies) was only received from the printers on 6th and 7th January, and copies were immediately sent to Members.
    Mr. KINGasked whether insured workers under the National Insurance Act must expect that records of their ailments, even of a delicate nature, will pass into the hands of local and State officials, as stated widely in certain quarters; and

    1669
    whether the Insurance Commissioners will take measures to prevent any infringements of the reticence and secrecy which the medical profession are supposed to observe concerning their patients' cases?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The statements to which I am very glad that my hon. Friend has called attention are absolutely incorrect. The only records which are to be kept are those which will be entered in the prescribed form of day-book. This daybook will be in the sole custody of the doctor. Nobody except the doctor can have access to it. Those leaves of the daybook which pass out of the doctor's hands are perforated, so that while the part containing the name and address of the patient and the attendances (but not the nature of the illness) is sent to the insurance committee, the other part, containing the nature of the illness and certain other particulars (but not anything by which the patient can be identified), will not go to the committee, but will be used for statistical purposes only. In this way absolute secrecy will be secured, and any danger of breach of professional confidence entirely avoided.
    Mr. KING: In view of the publicity given to these statements, will the right hon. Gentleman circulate these facts to the approved societies or take other steps to make them widely known?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the approved societies know these facts, but I have seen statements in the newspapers which seem to show that the newspapers, or some of them, do not. I will take such steps as I can to see that they shall know them.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate this information to the newspapers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, on behalf of the Insurance Commissioners, he is now in a position to state that, except under certain defined and special circumstances, insured persons are not entitled, under the terms of the National Insurance Act, to make arrangements with any medical practitioners not serving on the panel in the district in which they reside?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to an answer I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for St. Pancras West, on the 6th January.

    VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORS.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the number of persons who have availed themselves of Section 1, Sub-section (3), of the National Insurance Act and become voluntary contributors?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The total number of insured persons who are voluntary contributors is not available until all the cards have been received from the societies and have better scheduled classification by the Commission.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some approximate idea as to how many out of the 12,000,000 are voluntary contributors'? Can he say whether the number is large or small?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I have no information. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question asking for an approximate answer, I will try to find out.

    INDEX TO ACT.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury when the Index to the National Insurance Act, the publication of which was promised by him many weeks ago, will be circulated to Members of Parliament?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Index has been presented as promised and was made available to all Members through the Vote Office on the 2nd November last.

    GERMAN SCHEME.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked when the Paper dealing with the cost and scope of medical benefit in Germany and giving collections of agreements entered into by the German doctors and the association under the German insurance scheme, publication of which was promised by him in July last, will be issued; and what is the reason for the delay?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: An officer was sent to Germany to conduct during the autumn a detailed investigation with a view to the preparation of a report on medical benefit under the German State Insurance legislation in accordance with my promise of 24th July last. The publication of the report has been postponed in consequence of the protracted illness of the officer in question. It will, however, be laid on the Table of the House to-day.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS (GIRL CLERKS).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that girl clerks employed by the National Insurance Commissioners at the Central Office, Maida Vale, are kept at work on Saturday afternoons until four and five o'clock without any extra pay; whether he will state what are the actual hours these girls of sixteen years of age and upwards are supposed to work on Saturdays; and if he will arrange that any time worked above the regular hours shall be paid for at overtime rates and that overtime already worked shall at once be paid for?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Established Civil servants are allowed a half-holiday on alternate Saturdays provided that the interests of public business do not suffer. The hours of the officers referred to in the question are eight on an ordinary day and four on days allowed as half-holidays. In fact, a half-holiday has been granted to the girl clerks referred to in the hon. Member's question on four out of the last eleven Saturdays, and it is intended to grant extra half-holidays later in the year in compensation for any half-holidays lost. All the overtime of these girls has been paid for at ordinary overtime rates, but work on a Saturday before, five o'clock, when the interests of the public service do not permit of a half-holiday, cannot be paid for as overtime. The question of substituting a weekly half-holiday for a fortnightly one in the Civil Service is now under consideration.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich): It it is proved that the interests of the State do not permit of these girls having a half-holiday every week, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of employing additional hands?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think they will all get a half-holiday in alternate weeks, or a half-holiday to make up for any lost, unless the whole Civil Service receive a weekly half-holiday.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of employing additional hands?

    HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, inview of the medical and nursing necessi-
    1672
    ties of the Highlands and Islands, disclosed in the Report of the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Inverness, he can make some temporary arrangement by which doctors will receive adequate remuneration for their attendance on insured persons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The extra Grant for mileage in the case of sparsely-populated districts is now receiving the attention of ray right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and an announcement as to the conditions of the Grant will be made in due course.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the doctors in certain parts of the North would only come into the insurance scheme on the understanding that a fair mileage fee would be paid, and that it is impossible to carry out the provisions of the Act unless it is paid; and will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter attention?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is to meet these cases that this Grant has been promised. We are now receiving reports from these districts as to the particular steps to be taken.
    Mr. MUNRO: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when this Report will be made available to Members of the House?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know that it ever will be made available. The reference is to reports from the insurance committees in these districts, saying what they think will be a fair amount to allow in these cases.
    Mr. MUNRO: I meant the Report of the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Inverness?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That Report, I understand, has been presented to the House, and can be obtained in the Vote Office.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to act upon the recommendations of that Report?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I cannot make any statement as to that; they are far-reaching in their effect.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEES (EXPENSES).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Treasury what provision can be made for payment of expenses of members of insurance committees in

    1673
    cases where the levy from insured persons is inadequate to meet such expenses?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The amount available for the travelling expenses of members of insurance committees under the present provisions of the Act depends upon the number of insured persons in the areas of the different committees. The exact numbers of these persons will not be available for a few weeks. In the meantime, the Commissioners are making special inquiries to ascertain the exact position in such districts as the Orkneys and Shetland, and until this information is obtained I am unable to make any statement as to the necessity of any special provision.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some of the North counties it takes two days for some of the members of the insurance committees to get to a central part for the discussion of insurance matters?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is just because of such facts as those that we are making special investigations.

    ISOLATION HOSPITALS TUBERCULOSIS).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury what provision has been made for the supply of beds for cases of tuberculosis in the event of the beds in isolation hospitals approved by the Local Government Board under the National Insurance Act being required in an outbreak of infectious disease?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The arrangements vary in different cases, but they have generally been made with a view to diminishing the likelihood of its being necessary to vacate the beds on an outbreak of disease. A large proportion of cases of tuberculosis which are receiving residential treatment could, however, be given other treatment should it be necessary at any time to remove them.

    INSEPCTORS AND MOTOR CARS.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked whether any motor cars have been purchased for the use of inspectors under the National Insurance Act; and, if so, how many cars have been bought, and what is the total cost?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether regulations have been made under which inspectors under the National Insurance Act are to work; whether there is any provision or recommendation that two and sometimes three inspectors travel round a district together in a motor car; and, if not, will he take steps to see that public money is not spent in this way?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Instructions as to travelling have been issued to inspectors under the Act similar in character to those issued by other Government Departments having an outdoor staff. These instructions provide that the most economical method of locomotion shall be adopted consistent with due provision for the duties to be performed. If the hon. Gentleman has any instance in which he has evidence that public money has been unnecessarily expended, I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is not two or three inspectors going round together an unnecessary expense?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should think that two or three inspectors going round together would save money that would otherwise be spent.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the time of these inspectors, who get £700 a year, is worth so little that they use the motor cars in the way I have suggested?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should have thought motor cars would be adopted to save that valuable time.

    REMUNERATION FOR EXTRA WORK.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked what rate of remuneration has been fixed for village postmasters and postmistresses for the extra work and responsibility entailed by the National Insurance Act; whether, in many instances, the remuneration for the first Quarter reached the sum of 1s., and in others, when this reward was considered by the recipient to be inadequate, the sum has been raised to 1s. 8d.?
    Captain NORTON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question, and I beg to refer the hon. Member to replies given to similar questions on the

    1675
    25th of November and 6th instant. In no case has payment been increased on the ground that the rate has been recognised to be inadequate.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the additional shilling was not the sole remuneration that many postmasters and postmistresses did receive in many country districts for administering the Act; will the right hon. Gentleman answer that?
    Captain NORTON: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question.
    Mr. GWYNNE: That is just what I have put down.

    INSTITUTIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS APPROVED.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the number of institutions or associations which have applied for approval and been approved by the Insurance Commissioners, respectively, under Section 15 (4) of the National Insurance Act, in which provision has been made for medical attendance upon both insured persons and their dependants, and the rates payable by the members of such institutions for medical benefit for themselves and for their dependants?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand that local insurance committees are now dealing with applications for approval from institutions of the kind referred to in the hon. Member's question, but I am not at present able to give any information as to the number.

    GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL (DISCIPLINARY POWERS).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the Medical Act, 1858, Section 29, gives the General Medical Council disciplinary powers enabling them to strike off the medical register practitioners who shall be judged by the council to have been guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect, and that the council have regarded advertising by a medical practitioner as constituting an offence under that Section, he will report to the General Medical Council, with a view to disciplinary action being taken, the names of those practitioners who have entered into signed and stamped contracts with insurance committees to treat insured persons, and who now break their contracts and decline to carry out their legal obligations?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not believe that any doctors who have signed an agreement to treat insured persons for three months will break that agreement before the period of the contract, is completed unless they are released from the obligation by the committee with which such an agreement has been made. If they were to take any such action a serious situation would arise. The question of whether such conduct would be infamous in the professional respect would be for the General Medical Council to consider.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Have the insurance committees here entered into a binding agreement with the doctors?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Oh, certainly, and they would not break it without the doctors releasing them from that agreement.

    COUNTY MEATH INSURANCE COMMITTEE (IRELAND).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the monthly meeting of the county Meath Insurance Committee, held at Navan, on the 8th instant, when a telegram was dispatched to the Insurance Commissioners stating that, owing to lack of funds, the committee must decline all applications for sanatorium benefit, and remove patients then in sanatorium; and whether he will state what action the Commission have decided on in order to give insured persons the benefits for which they are called on to make contribution?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed that the telegram referred to was sent by the committee through a misunderstanding of a communication they had received from the Irish Insurance Commissioners. The Commissioners at once explained the situation and informed the committee that money would be available to pay for the treatment of insured persons and their dependants through sanatoria and dispensaries.

    MEDICAL ASSISTANTS AND PANELS.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether two medical practitioners named William and Harry Groom have been invited by the Wisbech Insurance Committee to engage a number of assistants to form a panel of practitioners to work the Wisbech area; whether the two practitioners named are brothers residing in the same house; whether the professional qualifications and salaries of the assistants to be

    1677
    engaged is left to their discretion; and whether he will state the number of practitioners required to complete the panel?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Isle of Ely Insurance Committee has reported that the panel is adequate to provide medical attendance for insured persons throughout their area except in the districts of Wisbech and Chatteris. In order that medical attendance may be provided for insured persons in these two districts they further invited all the practitioners in the neighbourhood to accept service under the Act, with an intimation that if they declined other alternative arrangements would have to be made with the doctors who had accepted service. The Commissioners are awaiting a further report from the committee as to the exact position, and until that report has been received I am unable to answer the last part of the question. It will be necessary that any assistants utilised by doctors on the panel shall be duly qualified medical practitioners.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Who is to give an opinion that these assistants will be fully qualified practitioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think there is any doubt as to whether a certain man is or is not a duly qualified practitioner; if he is, he has a light to have his name on the panel.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is there any way by which the insurance committees can decide upon the recompense that the assistants will receive from the medical men who employ them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure what the arrangements are. If the assistants are on the panel in the ordinary way they will be selected in the ordinary way by the insured persons for treatment.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any authority over or knowledge of an advertisement which appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" on 1st January, 1913, as follows: "Wanted, clerk (male); 18 to 20 years; shorthand, typewriting, and knowledge of book-keeping; salary, 18s.—Apply, by letter only, Medical Secretary, British Medical Association, 42, Strand, W.C."?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it not necessary for the doctors' assistants who are to treat insured persons to be on the panel?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That depends upon the arrangement. If the panel is abolished there will be no panel for them to be put on. If the panel is maintained, then, I think, they have to be on the panel.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In a case where the panel is considered adequate, will it be necessary for any assistant who treats an insured person to be on the panel?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that?

    DISPENSARIES.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether, under the terms of the National Insurance Act, a dispenser who may have been regularly employed by a general medical practitioner for a number of years, but who is unregistered and not actually in the employment of a doctor at the date of the passing of the Act, is debarred from going on his local panel, while a doctor's groom, occasionally employed as an assistant dispenser during the past three years, is entitled to be placed on the panel; and, if so, whether it is intended to take steps to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Neither of the classes of persons mentioned by him could be included on a panel for the purpose of supplying to insured persons medicines requiring to be dispensed. The question whether persons of the first class could dispense as assistants would depend in each case upon whether they had acted as dispensers to a medical practitioner or public institution for three years immediately prior to the 16th December, 1911. Persons of the second class mentioned would in no case be qualified by such occasional services to themselves supply medicines requiring dispensing or to dispense as assistants.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. REDDYasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the grounds upon which the pension officer at Ferbane, King's County, made his valuation of the living of Mrs. M. Flannery, as a result of which her pension has been fixed at 1s. per week, which, having regard to the fact that this woman's place has passed into the hands of her son, is of no value to her; and will ho call for a report, with a view to this woman's pension being increased?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am making inquiry in this case and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

    Premature Publication of Report.
    Captain GILMOURasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain why the Report of the Commission presided over by the hon. Member for Inverness-shire was published in Scotland and appeared in the Scottish Press several days before it was available at the Vote Office?
    (Unstarred) Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Report of the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Inverness is not yet obtainable although it was presented to the House several days ago, and if he can state the reason for the delay and how a summary of the report appeared in the Scottish papers last Wednesday; and whether, in view of the importance of the Report and its bearing on the National Insurance Act, he can state when it will be available for hon. Members of the House of Commons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I regret that owing to a misunderstanding a summary of the Report appeared in Scotland on the day after the Report was presented and the order to print given. The Report is now available for hon. Members at the Vote Office.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Report was first made public in Scotland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I cannot, but I think it was a misunderstanding as to the presentation. The Report was presented in dummy, and I think it was thought that it was presented to the House of Commons complete.

    Estates of Licence-Holders (Scotland).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the number of estates of licence-holders in Scotland upon which Estate and Death Duties were levied during the last two years for which the figures are available; the number of deceased licence-holders who held their licensed premises on a yearly tenancy; the number of cases in which the value of goodwill was treated as nominal for the purpose of levying the duties referred to, and where the goodwill was valued at more than a nominal figure; and the average number of years' purchase at which the value attached to the goodwill works out, on a basis of the net profits
    1680
    earned during the last year in which the business was carried on by the deceased licence-holder?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The number of estates of licensed holders in Scotland in which Estate and Death Duties were levied during the last two years for which some figures are available was about 150. Of these rather less than one-third included licenced premises on a yearly tenancy. The average number of years' purchase of the net profits at which the goodwill in these cases works out is approximately four. In the case of grocer licence-holders, the values would be less, and the above figures do not include the cases in which the value of the goodwill was treated as nominal, for which no statistics are available.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. MOOREasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), if he is aware that the police at Moy and at Poyntzpass, in the county of Armagh, on Friday and Saturday last, the 3rd and 4th instant, prevented cattle being brought into these fairs from county Armagh, and thereby ruined the sale of cattle; whether the Order removing the restrictions was made on the 2nd January; why it was not notified in time for these fairs to the police in these districts; and if steps will be taken to prevent a similar recurrence, and consequent loss to farmers and others?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: The Order to which this question has reference was made and issued to the police on the 31st December. It did not affect the restrictions then applying to the Parliamentary Division of Mid-Armagh, which continued in force till revoked by a later Order on the 7th January. Consequently it was not allowable to move cattle from that Division to an external fair on either 3rd or 4th January. It was only movements from Mid-Armagh that the police seem to have interfered with in relation to the Moy and Poyntzpass fairs, and they acted correctly in doing so in the circumstances.
    Mr. GINNELLasked when the restrictions on the movement of animals still in force in the Mullingar scheduled area will be wholly removed?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Probably within the next fortnight (except from the places on which the disease actually occurred) unless

    1681
    something unexpected happens in the meantime.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether, having regard to the new Regulations enforcing a period of detention at British and Irish ports of twelve and two hours, respectively, and having regard to the loss and inconvenience which this will entail upon Irish stock owners, he proposes to take any steps to compel Irish railway companies who undertake to convey live animals to markets or ports to deliver their freight within a stipulated time and without unnecessary delay?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The enforcement of a requirement that railway companies should deliver animals carried over their lines to markets and ports of shipment within a stipulated time (assuming that there is power to prescribe such requirement) would in the view of the Department be impracticable. Other traffic besides that in live stock has to be dealt with by the companies, and apart from unavoidable delays that must from time to time occur en route it frequently happens that cattle specials cannot be dispatched at a given hour owing to late arrivals of the animals from fairs. When, however, specific cases of unnecessary delays in transit are brought under notice, the Department are ready to cause due inquiry to be made into them.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President whether he will consider the advisability of empowering inspectors at Irish ports of embarkation to dispense with the feeding of animals in cases where the farms from which they came is in the vicinity of the port?
    Mr. RUSSELL: It is not proposed to take the course suggested.

    County Courts.
    Mr. JOYNSON - HICKSasked whether, owing to the complexity and importance of cases now tried in the County Courts, he will consider whether the time has come to increase the salaries of a certain number of the judges of such Courts to £2,500 per annum, which would also permit the promotion of those judges who most efficiently carried out their duties?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The proposals of the Government with reference to the County Courts and the judges of those Courts are before the House in the County Courts Bill, which
    1682
    benefits the judges in a substantial degree. It is impossible to say more at present.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether in the County Courts, as opposed to the practice in every other civilised Court in the world, whenever the Court of Appeal directs the retrial of a case it is heard again before the same judge in consequence of whose wrongful decision the retrial was ordered; and whether he could see his way to alter this position of affairs, by legislation if necessary?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am not prepared to assent to the view that when upon a point of law retrial of a case has been ordered the same County Court judge should not again hear the case. The matter could be conveniently discussed upon an Amendment to the County Courts Bill when it comes before the House.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any possibility or probability of the County Courts Bill coming before the House?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I made every effort when it was before the House even to sacrifice the controversial Clauses to secure its passage.

    Poor Law Administration.
    Mr. HILLSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will not sanction the draft Order for regulating workhouses, Poor Law schools, and indoor relief, prepared by the Departmental Committee of the Local Government Board, until it has been laid before Parliament, and published, so that all persons interested may have an opportunity of considering it and making suggestions thereon?
    Mr. BURNS: I will give careful consideration to the hon. Member's suggestion when the proposals of the Committee are before us.

    Winterbourne Zelstone Estate (Housing Conditions).
    Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the housing conditions of the small holders on the Winter-bourne Zelstone estate under the Dorset County Council; and if he will order an inquiry with a view to the demolition of such houses as may be found to be unfit for human habitation and their replacement by safe and sanitary houses at the cost of

    1683
    the county rate, so as to compensate the tenants for being charged for useless expenditure by the county council?
    Mr. BURNS: My attention has been directed to this matter, and formal consent was given last month to the borrowing by the Dorset County Council of sums amounting to £920 for the provision of two new cottages and for a number of repairs and improvements on the estate.
    Mr. BARNES: Will this excess cost fall upon these poor people, who are already burdened by the county council?
    Mr. BURNS: No. The usual loan will be granted to the local authority, as in ordinary cases, for the building of cottages and the putting of cottages in repair.
    Mr. BARNES: Will these cottages be given to the tenants as substitutes for those for which money has been spent already in the discharge of their rent?
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member must give me notice.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is not £900 a very large sum for the building of two cottages?
    Mr. BURNS: Yes, but there is to be proper repairs for the others, as the hon. Member will see when he reads the answer.

    Vaccination (Liverpool Workhouse).
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the operation of vaccination is performed in the Belmont Road Workhouse, Liverpool, upon boys who have been sent there for detention from the Liverpool and Bootle Police Courts whilst on remand, and without their consent or the consent of their parents; whether the medical officer of the workhouse receives a fee for each of these vaccinations; if so, from what source is such fee derived; what steps are taken to ascertain whether these boys have been vaccinated within the previous ten years; and whether he will give instructions for the immediate discontinuance of the practice, seeing that accused adult persons whilst on remand in His Majesty's prisons are not subjected to revaceination?
    Mr. BURNS: I understand that children in the home referred to, including boys sent from the Police Courts while on re-
    1684
    mand, are vaccinated or revaccinated at the discretion of the workhouse medical officer, who receives fees for the operation in accordance with his contract with the guardians. It is the duty of the medical officer to vaccinate such of the children in the institution as require vaccination, and I am informed that no objection has ever been raised to his action. I am suggesting, however, to the guardians that the practice in regard to remand children might in ordinary cases be assimilated to that which obtains with regard to other accused persons on remand.

    Nigerian Bitumen Company.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the present condition of the Nigerian Bitumen Company; whether he has been approached by the company for a renewal of the Government Grant-in-Aid; and what steps the Government intend to take?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Yes, Sir. The Government of Southern Nigeria have already lent this company £25,000, and have recently agreed to the company suspending boring operations for six months. The company has applied for further financial assistance, and its application has been referred to the Governor.

    School of Architectural Design.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been given to the movement, supported by many eminent British architects, to establish in London a school of architectural design similar to the Atelier des Beaux Arts in Paris, and to the statement by Mr. E. L. Lutyens, a member of the Delhi Town Planning Committee, and other artists that such a school was essential to placing architecture in Great Britain on a sound theoretical basis; whether he has been approached with regard to this proposal for teaching architecture; and whether he proposes to support this scheme by a Grant or otherwise?
    Mr. PEASE: I have seen a newspaper report giving an outline of the scheme referred to in the first part of the question. I have not been approached on the matter. I cannot say, therefore, whether the schools established under such a scheme would or would not be available for Grant.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, say what business is to be taken on Friday?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, Sir. The Committee stage of the Established Church (Wales) Bill.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Has the Government decided when they will bring before this House the recommendations of the Committee in connection with the Seat of the hon. Baronet the Member for White-chapel?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would kindly put that question to the Prime Minister tomorrow.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall be glad to do so, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Prime Minister himself gave as his reason for taking the course that was adopted, that he desired to avoid any unnecessary delay?
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Is Friday to be another solitary occasion for the Established Church (Wales) Bill, or will it be taken again early next week?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Bill will be taken again on Monday.

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

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

  CLAUSE 40.—(Arrangements between Departments of United Kingdom and Irish Departments for Exercise of Powers and Duties.)
  Arrangements may be made by any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom for the exercise and performance on behalf of that Department of any powers or duties of that Department by officers of an Irish department, or by any Irish department for the exercise and performance on behalf of that department of any powers or duties of that department by officers of a Department of the Government of the United Kingdom on such terms and conditions as may be agreed:
  Provided that no such arrangements shall diminish in any respect the responsibility of the department by which the arrangement is made.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, to leave out this Clause, which proposes to make arrangements for the exercise of the powers and duties thrown upon a Department over here to be deputed to officers of the Irish Government, and which allows officers of any department of the Irish Government to make arrangements with departments for the management of Irish affairs over here. This Clause is entirely a new one, and it was not in either of the Home Rule Bills of 1893 or 1886. It received no explanation in the Debate upon the Guillotine Resolution dealing with the Home Rule Bill. I think it is an important Clause, because it is not merely a transitory one; it is not one which has to be in operation for only a year or two in order to tide over the difficulties between the inception of the Home Rule scheme and the coming into force of a permanent Clause, but it is to be included in the Bill for all time. This Clause will enable permanent arrangements to be made between the two sides of St. George's Channel without any control by this House or by any Department of the Government. So loosely is the Clause drawn that it does not even include the Department making these arrangements, that is the corresponding Department. For instance, it would be possible for the Post Office here, which has to deal with foreign telegrams in Ireland, to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture to look after that portion of Post Office work. One would imagine that the Government draftsman might have taken pains to secure that a Department having some knowledge of the matters in question would have been chosen for the making of such arrangements. The Clause applies to all Departments in both countries. The importance of this Clause lies more in its possibilities than in its probabilities. It was understood in Committee that it was not proposed to transfer the dual duties relating to Customs and Excise to an Irish department, but it will be perfectly possible to do so under this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman may have said that it is not the intention of the Government of the United Kingdom to transfer the control and management of Irish Customs and Excise to the Irish department, but we have no pledge to that effect, and even if we had it would be a mere expression of opinion. The right hon. Gentle-

  1707
  man might easily say that he thought differently, and he might perhaps transfer the whole management of the Customs and Excise to an Irish department.
  There is an Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), and others, exempting Customs and Excise Duties from the provisions of this Clause. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary is going to accept one of those Amendments or not. There are several Amendments down on the Paper exempting certain special duties from this Clause. Of course, I do not want to anticipate the discussion upon subsequent Amendments, but what I want to impress upon the House is that under the provisions of this Clause all the benefits which the United Kingdom was to derive from the arrangement about the reserved services will be completely done away with. In Clause 2 we have especially reserved to Great Britain certain specified services. We begin with the Army and the Navy, which could never be transferred to any Irish organisation. There are, however, such things as coinage, legal tender, trade marks, merchandise marks, and copyright which we know now as reserved services which never can be transferred only under certain conditions, but they may be transferred by a stroke of the pen, as far as I can gather, under the provisions of this Clause; they may be transferred even by a telephone message from the head of the Board of Trade here, who deals with copyright and trade marks, without any notification whatever to this House, or the general public. A letter or a telephone message may be sent to Ireland authorising a particular Department to make arrangements on behalf of the English Department for the management of all these services. There are two services around which a great deal of controversy has raged, and one of those services is the land purchase system throughout Ireland. That has been rightly reserved to the Imperial Government, but even that may be transferred without the leave of this House and without any notification to this House. It would be quite possible for the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to make arrangements with the Estates Commissioners in Ireland—or with any Department in Ireland, with the Post Office or the Board of Agriculture—authorising them on his behalf to manage and control the whole system of land purchase in Ireland.
  1708
  4.0 P.M.
  I need hardly say that the collection of the Imperial taxes is now an Imperial Service, but under this provision it is open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer here to say, "I do not want the bother of collecting these Irish taxes; we have told the people of Great Britain, I know, that we are going to retain the collection of Imperial taxes, and we have made it a reserved service," but under the provisions of this extraordinary Clause 40, it would be open to them to write a postcard to say to some department, "On our behalf, please manage and collect all the taxes in Ireland; make what arrangements you see fit, and do not bother the Imperial Parliament." The more important question of the Royal Irish Constabulary can also be dealt with in this way. The constabulary in Ireland is a service reserved for the control of the Imperial Parliament for a period of six years, and after that, under certain circumstances, they go over to the control of the Irish Government There is nothing whatever in this Bill, in spite of the Royal Irish Constabulary being a reserved service, to prevent the right hon. Gentleman telegraphing or merely by word of mouth sending a message to the Irish Home Secretary saying, "Would you kindly make arrangements under Clause 40 for the exercise and performance by your Department of the powers and duties of the Royal Irish Constabulary; arrange them, control their promotion, and pay. I have the right, as an officer of the Imperial Government, to manage them for six years, but under Clause 40 I appoint you as my deputy to control and manage that force." With the greatest ease and certainty you can drive a coach and four through the Bill. Lawyers often try to drive a coach and four through Acts of Parliament, but the Government have provided a Clause, I will not say for the express purpose of driving a coach and four through the Act, but any Government official has authority under the provisions of this Clause to drive not merely a coach and four, but a traction engine through any provision in the Act. In this way the alleged benefits of the reserved services are done away with, and under Clause 40 dual control can be established between all the Imperial Services and all the local services in Ireland. A Post Office official in Ireland is bound to occupy a dual capacity. When he is delivering Irish letters he is an Irish officer, but when he is delivering foreign correspondence or foreign telegrams he is an English officer amenable to the control of the English

  1709
  Department, but the whole of the English side of the Post Office can, under the provisions of this Clause, be handed over to the Irish Department. Take the case of an Irish postman driving a cart with mails running over somebody. If he is carrying Irish letters to an Irish Department, he would be responsible to the Irish Government; if he were carrying foreign telegrams that would be an Imperial service, and I assume the Imperial Department would be responsible to the person run over; but it is quite possible, if this Clause is to be taken advantage of, the unfortunate person run over would not know in the first place whether the postman was carrying Irish or foreign correspondence, and, in the second place, whether he was responsible to an Irish or an English Department. The Clause is entirely vague. I do not like to accuse the Government, but I think one might call in aid here the very celebrated phrase of the Prime Minister, "incurable sloppiness." Has there ever in a Bill presented to this House been a better example of "incurable sloppiness"? How are the arrangements to be made? How are they to be carried out? By whom are they to be made? It could be done by word of mouth, or by writing, or by telephone. There is no provision for Parliamentary control. There is no provision even that this House is to be consulted. It may know nothing about the arrangements. The right hon. Gentleman or the head of any Department—I do not think it is necessary that it should be the head of a Department, it might be any officer—which has control of any reserved service in Ireland might of his own motion agree with any Irish Department, whether a corresponding Department or not, and make arrangements with it for the carrying out of that service, giving no public notice of the fact. He might, indeed, drive a complete coach and four through this Act. Such arrangements might involve this country in financial liabilities. If there is one thing of which this House should take special care it is its financial responsibility. This Clause would enable any Government Department in England to incur financial responsibility in Ireland without any cheek by this House, or, so far as I can gather, without the expenditure coming on to the Estimates. An hon. Member shakes his head, but I should be most delighted if he would get up and explain any point
  1710
  where I have gone wrong in my interpretation of this Clause, and especially of the financial side of it.
  When another Government started a Home Rule scheme of its own, they were much more careful about carrying out the provisions of the Act. It was considered it might be necessary under the South African Act, 1909, that certain arrangements might have to be made with regard to certain officers of State, although there were no reserved services and none of the extreme difficulties which are bound to occur here in the management of the reserved services as between England and Ireland and the management of complicated financial relations between England and Ireland. The Governor-General, by Section 141 of the South African Act, 1909, was directed to appoint Public Service Commissioners to make recommendations for such reorganisation and readjustment of the Departments of the public service as might be necessary. Everything was to be done in due order, and there was a public body set up to manage all these things. Why have we not got some such public body here? The Government need not answer that it would involve another long Clause. They could Closure it. They could insert half a dozen more Clauses in the Bill without giving any more time, because they could Closure them all. They could set up a Commission, as they did in South Africa, responsible to this House, in order, if anything went wrong, that somebody might be called over the coals. We should then know what the arrangements were. Nothing of the kind. The Government does not even treat this House as well as the Government of the South African Federation treated their own House and their own subordinate Legislatures. The whole Clause emphasises the difficulties in the scheme itself. The Government have tried to minimise those difficulties as far as possible by granting Home Rule which is only a sort of Home Rule, Home Rule with these reserved services, with this dual control between England and Ireland, and with the administration as between the various Departments in England and Ireland inexticably mixed up. They seek to save this trouble by saying to any Department in Ireland, "Just manage this for us. Do what you like and what you think right. The Imperial Parliament will never hear of it and will never have any control over it." Under these circumstances I beg to move the omission of the Clause, and, unless the

  1711
  right hon. Gentleman can give us his promise that at least a considerable number of the Amendments limiting the operation of the Clause will be accepted, I shall certainly ask my hon. Friends to follow me into the Division Lobby.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): We have now got to Clause 40 of this Bill, which is, as we might have expected, having regard to its position in the Bill, a purely business Clause. We have got by the previous Clauses certain important services reserved to this Imperial Parliament, which are called reserved services, and we have got a number of important services transferred to the new Irish Parliament and Irish Executive, which are called transferred services. We have, therefore, got these two sets of services. If the hon. Member had simply been content to say it is always better to have one thing than two and that there are certain difficulties, business and otherwise, which will arise from the fact that we do by this Bill divide the Irish services into those which are reserved and those which are transferred, I should have been at no pains to contradict him. We have got these Departments over here and we have got Departments in Ireland both charged with duties which are carried on in Ireland itself, and, therefore, we found it necessary to insert this Clause.
  "Arrangements may be made by any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom for the exercise and performance on behalf of that Department of any powers or duties of that Department by officers of an Irish Department, or by any Irish Department for the exercise and performance on behalf of that Department of any powers or duties of that Department by officers of a Department of the Government of the United Kingdom on such terms and conditions as may be agreed."
  Then in order to meet the criticisms of the hon. Member and his Friends we inserted a proviso, although I think it would have gone without saying, providing—
  "that no such arrangements shall diminish in any respect the responsibility of the Department by which the arrangement is made."
  Thereupon, the hon. Gentleman, exercising his critical faculty which by this time is
  1712
  well developed, proceeds to say we ought to have elaborated this Clause—he suggested it would probably have taken half-a-dozen Clauses—by stating all the infinite variety of possible ways of arranging business which, although not involving points of principle, do involve convenience of detail endless in imagination and probably very numerous in fact, but in themselves insignificant. You ought, the hon. Member says, to say how these arrangements are to be made. Take, for example, old age pensions. That is a reserved service, managed by the Treasury and by Excise officers, but the pension itself, a not unimportant part of the operation, is paid through the Post Office. It might very well be desirable that the Treasury over here should make arrangements whereby the Irish Post Office would continue to be the office where this interesting transaction takes place. They are not bound to do so, they may make other arrangements, but, if they are minded to employ the Irish Post Office for that purpose, they can do so. Can anything be more reasonable than that The hon. Member asks how it is to be done, and says that under the sloppiness of this Clause it might be done in writing or it might be done by word of mouth, and then he proceeded further and said it might be done by telegram or by telephone. It matters very little. I do not think you require another Clause or the sanction of an Act of Parliament to say how a responsible Imperial Department here should make this convenient arrangement with a department in Ireland having machinery at its disposal to carry out this business. It is an arrangement carried out by payment and by agreement. I can hardly imagine it will be left to word of mouth.
  I should imagine it will take place with all the glories of red-tape. I think it would be most undesirable to get into too free and easy a way of transacting business as between public departments. I do not think the habits of the Treasury here will be revolutionised even by the passage into law of this Bill, and I imagine they and all the departments here who have charge of reserved services will be very careful indeed in carrying out their arrangements to see they are carried out properly, so that there will be no dispute as to what the terms are. It is really impossible and foolish to attempt in business relations—and these are big business relations, just as big as those between

  1713
  private firms, or bigger—to lay down a code of conduct which would extend over more than half a dozen Clauses and all the rules which are to govern sensible business men in endeavouring to obtain in Ireland their own agents for carrying out a job for which they will remain responsible to this Imperial Parliament. The hon. Member says that under the wording of the Clause you could defeat the object of this Act. You could calmly hand over all the War Office and the Admiralty, and all the things expressly left outside the purview of the authority of the Irish Executive. He says you could by some loose and ready agreement hand them all over in such a way as to obliterate Clause 2 of the Bill altogether and upset the whole scheme. That is not the reading which anybody, lawyer or anybody else, could possibly give to a business Clause of this sort, which is simply to enable persons who have a particular job to transact in Ireland to transact it in the easiest, best, and most effective manner. To suppose that you could transfer to an Irish department something over which the Bill says no Irish department is to have any authority or power whatsoever is another example, as my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General said the other night, of the fact that there is nothing so technical as the law of a layman. But I remember the hon. Member is not a layman, and therefore I withdraw that remark.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The whole illustration against me just now was that of old age pensions, which is one of the reserved services.
  Mr. BIRRELL: You cannot transfer that reserved service, but you can make arrangements whereby the actual payment of the pensions shall be made on the responsibility of this Imperial Parliament by an Irish Department, and, in the same way, you can still continue, in the Irish Post Office, to exhibit those enticing pictures of Grenadiers and Hussars in order to show the people who go to the post office what fine services they may enter if they only think fit to take advantage of them. In the same way with the Admiralty, there may be a number of small petty services—not petty in the sense of unimportant—in connection with the payment of pensions and other things which might, for the mere purpose of convenience, and in order to satisfy all the parties concerned, be transferred to an Irish department. The idea is simply to allow an Imperial Department
  1714
  freedom in the choice of its agents. We hope to have in the Irish Executive a body which will be trusted by and enjoy the confidence of the people, and to say it is never to be employed at all for the purpose of carrying out details by an Imperial Department the responsibility of which it is not affected, is going too far. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that there were certain possibilities which ought to be guarded against, and he gave one or two examples. He spoke of the case of a person injured by a motor car employed by the Post Office, and he said the man would want to know whether that car was carrying Irish mails or foreign mails. All I can suggest is that he would be a lucky man if the motor were carrying both, because then he would have two Treasuries against whom he could press his case. He will at any rate have one, but, if he is a Unionist I have no doubt he would prefer, if he is run over at all, to feel that he can go against the British.Treasury rather than against the Irish Treasury. In any case, however, he will not be injured in his pocket, and, therefore, I do not think the hon. Member can make much of that point.
  Then he referred to land purchase, and said that that might be transferred to the Estates Commissioners. They already are a reserved service to carry out land purchase. But do you suppose we are going to transfer the whole machinery of land purchase, which goes to the root of Irish society, in that way? It cannot be suggested. It was hinted that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General might instruct the Board of Agriculture to look after postal telegrams. Such a suggestion is an absurdity. I can suppose nothing of the sort. The hon. Member says there ought to be a provision that the transfer should be to an analogous service. But there again you would have difficulty in deciding what is an analogous service. It would be a ridiculous thing for the Postmaster-General in this House to get up and say that he has handed over the duty of dealing with telegrams to the Board of Agriculture. He would be subject to a good deal of criticism and ridicule, and I think no Postmaster-General would wish to expose himself to that. Does the hon. Gentleman really ask the House to believe that, under cover of this Clause, an attempt is being made to undo the preceding provisions of this Bill, and that, under these harmless words, all kinds of important duties are contemplated to be transferred to the Irish Departments, which are to

  1715
  have no responsibility for them, the responsibility still remaining in this Imperial Parliament? Is he going to suggest that these duties are to be handed over to an Irish Department which is not to be responsible and which can snap its fingers at the Imperial Parliament? I really cannot believe that. I cannot give the hon. Member the promise he sought—that I would accept subsequent Amendments on the Paper. I cannot do anything of the kind. I can only ask the House generally to regard this as a business Clause, coming at the close of a long and difficult Bill, and simply enabling responsible persons either here or in Ireland, when they are selecting the right kind of agent to perform certain duties, to choose the best agents they can, reserving full responsibility to themselves. That, I suggest, is a proposal which would commend itself to all business men. It is not desirable to multiply this Clause into five or six Clauses, because that could only result in leaving many gaps in the Bill, and in raising more doubts than it would solve. It is, I suggest, a course no business man would recommend.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of this very interesting speech, made one remark with which I agree, and that was his approval if not of red tape, of some methods of procedure which are described by that term. When I first came to this House I was one of those who had a great prejudice against red tape, but whether it is a result of evil communications or a result of the slap-dash methods adopted by the present Government I have changed my view and am now in favour of some kind of regularity of procedure in all matters affecting, at any rate, the Government proposed to be set up in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman complimented my hon. Friend on having developed a highly critical faculty. I am prepared to pay the right hon. Gentleman a compliment of a somewhat similar nature. Probably by reason of practice he has, in the last few months, developed a capacity not of answering but of evading the points put before him. What is the defence the right hon. Gentleman has just advanced? He treated the whole matter as if it were merely one of difficulty connected with machinery; as if it were purely a matter of business arrangement, and as if no question of substance could arise out of it. I do not think that that is the case at all. I hold that, under this Clause, there is not
  1716
  only a possibility but a probability—and a great probability—that the intentions of this House in regard to this Bill will be evaded by the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out quite truly that under the Clause the responsibility will rest on the heads of the Imperial Department. That is quite true, but in effect, though the responsibility may rest there if the whole duties of management of the reserved services are transferred to the Irish Department they become no longer reserved services in the sense in which this Bill intended them to be.
  Let me deal with one or two of the illustrations quoted. Take the case of the Customs. There has been a good deal of discussion as to the possibility of protection by Customs regulations in regard to goods which are manufactured in bond where there is a duty. The danger of such a course has been admitted by the Government. But they said that these regulations would be entirely under the control of this House and of this Government. What, however, will be the position if those carrying the regulations out are not directly in the service of the Government, but are under the transferred Customs and Excise service of the Irish Department? The whole possibility will depend on the way in which the regulations are made and carried out. Can anyone doubt that, if they are in the hands of the Irish Department, even although nominally the control is on this side, representations would be made, pointing out that there ought to be an alteration in the regulations, and that the result will be to give to those in Ireland Protection as against similar industries in the United Kingdom? The right hon. Gentleman says that that will not be the effect, but he can only fulfil his promise by making certain that the regulations are precisely the same in the two countries, and that cannot be the case if the working is under the direction of two Departments. Then, again, take the case of old age pensions. It is not merely a question of using the Irish Post Office to pay these pensions. That is not the point at all. Suppose you transfer to the Irish Service the whole control of old age pensions. Then they will have to decide whether or not a man is to get a pension, and under what conditions, and, if yon make the transfer, what will happen under this Bill? The Irish Parliament will have the right, on two years' notice, to take over any reserved service, with certain

  1717
  exceptions. Suppose they decide to take over old age pensions. The Postmaster-General of the Irish Parliament will consider that his first duty is to the Irish taxpayer, and, in the event of deciding to take over the service in two years, he will say, "We have now the management of it; we will make it amount to as much as we can, so that when the transfer takes place at the end of two years the amount will be not what we now pay, but what we can raise it up to in that time." The result will be that an additional burden will be placed on the British taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman may suggest that in this we are assuming the Irish will be very unreasonable. I am doing nothing of the kind. Does anyone imagine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would trust the local authority with the control of old age pensions if the Imperial Exchequer had to pay for them? He would not; he would not allow the local authority such control, because he would know that they would not exercise it in the same way as if the money came out of their own pockets. Therefore, it is not merely a machinery difficulty, and there ought to be some means of making certain that such a change shall not be carried out without the express approval of the House of Commons.
  Then take the case- of the constabulary. Here we have a still more striking instance. The object of keeping that force under the control of this House for six years is to convince the British people that property and life will be under the direct control of this House. But suppose the Home Secretary hands this over to agents in Ireland, does anyone believe that the same control will exist? Of course it will still be possible to raise questions in this House, but the fact that the work is carried out by men who are not responsible to the Government and who are responsible only to the Irish Government will make all the difference in the world. If such a change were made, it is perfectly obvious that the intention of Parliament in reserving these services would not be carried out. I quite recognise that this should not be too minutely carried out. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that no Government of the day should have power, if it chooses, to practically override the whole of this Act of Parliament, but is it too much to ask that, in this Clause, something should be inserted to show in some way that no reserved service shall be transferred unless
  1718
  it is agreed to by this House of Commons? That surely is reasonable, and that is not a big demand to make upon the Government.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: After the admirable speech of the Chief Secretary I cannot add much to the particular point we are on. Indeed, I should not have intervened in the Debate at all, had it not been for the hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) who challenged me when I shook my head when he said that this Clause did away with all Government responsibility. The hon. Member has apparently not studied the Clause, for the latter part of it says that any arrangement which may be made by any Imperial Department for delegating powers to officers in Ireland shall be made provided that any such arrangement shall not diminish in any respect the responsibility of the Department by which the arrangement is made. Nothing could be clearer than that. As the Chief Secretary pointed out, it is a business Clause, giving power to the Imperial Departments to utilise officers in Ireland. It is specifically provided that the responsibility shall remain with the particular Department which uses the men in Ireland. As to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, he apparently does not seem to understand either the Bill or this particular Clause. He drew a lurid picture of various services which might be transferred under this Clause to the Irish Government. Those services cannot be transferred under this Clause, for there are specific provisions in the Bill relating to the transfer of those reserved services. We have always been led to believe that the Leader of the Opposition is a business man, therefore this Clause ought particularly to appeal to him, because it is a business proposition. Instead of having to create new Departments, it enables the Government to utilise those already existing. It is in essence a business arrangement, which ought to command the right hon. Gentleman's admiration. He accused the Government of being guilty of slap-dash methods. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is very easy to applaud that sentiment, but you must show where those slap-dash methods were used.
  Mr. MOORE: All through.
  Mr. D. MASON: On the contrary, we on this side of the House have just cause to believe that the arrangements made

  1719
  for the gradual transfer of certain services, for the reserving of others, and the provision that, after a certain period of years, as the Home Rule Parliament gains experience and as there is a development of local self-government because of that experience, there shall be a gradual increase in those powers—we have cause to believe that that is a businesslike and a sensible arrangement. The hon. Member spoke with scorn of dual control. If you had given Ireland under this Bill supreme and entire control of all services straight away, would there not have been a great deal of criticism, probably just criticism, to the effect that Ireland was not ready for such a measure, and that it was a foolish thing to hand over such powers at the outset to Ireland? If, on the other hand, you had given only narrow powers, you would have had objections from hon. Members from Ireland, who would have said, "This is no Home Rule scheme, but a very miserable Home Rule Bill, which does not provide full self-governing powers." But you have in this Bill an admirable arrangement, because you can easily satisfy the timid critics who complain of too great powers being given by reserving certain services, and you satisfy hon. Gentlemen from Ireland by holding out to them that if the measure is a success it will increase their powers and that they will develop in future if they show themselves, as we believe they will, able to properly exercise the powers given to them under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Chief Secretary evading criticism. I do not think there is any justification for that remark, because the Chief Secretary went to the root of the matter when he explained what the Clause was for, and pointed out that the proviso still reserved to the particular Department concerned all the responsibility. The speech of the Leader of the Opposition seemed to be unworthy of a leader. There was no point in his criticism, and on every count he failed to make good his criticism. He was good enough to admit that the particular Department would still remain responsible. If he admits that, what complaint has he to make of this particular Clause? The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of a Department being able to transfer old age pensions. You cannot transfer old age pensions under this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman evidently does not understand the Bill. Provision is made for transferring old age pensions in another part of the Bill,
  1720
  but this Clause is a purely business Clause.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Why cannot they be transferred under this Clause?
  Mr. D. MASON: Because another Clause provides for it. Old age pensions do not come under this Clause at all.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Why not?
  Mr. D. MASON: For a very good reason—they do not. If the hon. Member will read the Bill he will find out why not. If the hon. Member will read this Clause he will find it provides for Imperial Departments utilising officers in Ireland for carrying out certain services, while the responsibility is still to remain with the particular Department. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the mere utilising of officers did away with the responsibility, but the responsibility will still remain with the original Department. That original Department can easily use its business instincts and common sense if they find that the Irishmen they utilise for the carrying out of the particular work do not perform it in a businesslike manner. They would surely have sufficient courage and common sense for that. The responsibility will rest, as specifically stated in the Clause, with the original Department. It is puerile and childish for the Leader of the Opposition to deny it at this stage of our proceedings, after we have been hammering away at this Bill, and have been supposed to be discussing it. He has attended some of these Debates, but evidently he has not profited from them, or he would not have made so absurd and foolish a speech. He threw scorn on the provision with regard to the constabulary. That was all beside the mark. This Clause has nothing to do with the constabulary, and, as the Chief Secretary has said, it is a purely businesslike Clause which ought to appeal to the common sense of all business men.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I hope the hon. Member who has just sat down will not think me unusually lacking in intelligence if I venture to submit a few remarks to the House, because there is nothing that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said with which I do not agree, and as the hon. Member has cast opprobious reflections upon my leader I have no doubt he will apply them to myself. Since the hon. Member is not the only person in the House to whom I address my remarks, perhaps the House

  1721
  will allow me to say a few words on this Amendment. The House undoubtedly realises that there may be some difficulty in the working of this Clause, even if they believe in it. For instance, if it is the the Chief Secretary evidently allows, that the whole of the duties, not any or any particular duties or powers, of any Department, but the whole of the duties, may be transferred—
  Mr. BIRRELL: I did not say the powers of the Department.
  Sir G. PARKER: My right hon. Friend, during the course of his speech, addressing his remarks directly to the Chief Secretary, said that the whole of the duties of any Department might be transferred, the Department reserving its responsibility. It is like a commander-in-chief sitting in London and sending out an army, and then transferring all the duties a commander-in-chief would naturally exercise, and saying to the generals in the field, "I transfer all my duties and powers to you, but I still take the responsibility."
  Mr. BOOTH: Sign a memorial.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: The shadow Cabinet.
  Sir G. PARKER: That is a most extraordinary position. Does the Chief Secretary really deny that all the duties and powers may be transferred? May I ask him to answer that question now? Is it the case that all and any of the duties and powers of any Department may be transferred to an Irish Department, or that any and all of the duties and powers of an Irish Department may be transferred to an Imperial Department?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I certainly think that the transfer of a reserved service in a lump to a Department in Ireland would be an unfair and improper reading of the powers conferred by this Clause.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Unfair in its exercise?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Contrary to its meaning.
  Sir G. PARKER: The right hon. Gentleman says he thinks—
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot do more than that.
  Sir G. PARKER: But the right hon. Gentleman does not assure the House positively that all the duties may not be transferred.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I certainly say that the transfer of the duties specially reserved by this Bill—and this Bill provides the only means by which their transfer can be effected—to transfer them all bodily in a lump under this Clause would be an illegal and absurd thing to do.
  Sir G. PARKER: Of course I am not a lawyer, and I am not a legal authority, but I have as much opportunity for realising the English of this Clause and, perhaps can apply as much intelligence to it as an average Member of Parliament can apply to the information at his disposal. I interpret it in this way: that any of the powers or duties of a Department may be transferred. We have the Chief Secretary's assurance, but with all my respect for his sense of responsibility, the assurance is not quite sufficient, because he does not bulwark his assurance by reference to the fact that the Government agree with him in his interpretation. He granted that the Department reserves its technical responsibility and reserves some portion of its powers. Can you not see in what grave difficulties you are engaging yourselves when you part with the greater number of your powers and only reserve for yourself a technical responsibility? Though you may be legally correct in interpreting the Clause so, you will certainly open up a great field for difficulty and misunderstanding.
  Suppose the Clause did not exist in the Bill, or, as he would have the House believe, that it was only intended to grant the Imperial Government power to delegate or depute certain powers and duties of a Department to certain officers in Ireland to carry out Imperial duties. I should like to ask the Chief Secretary if it is not a fact that at present in some of our Oversea Dominions federal duties and powers are carried out by provisional Governments. But it is not in the Constitution. Note the difference. When these duties and powers are given by this federal Government or the Union or Commonwealth Government to the provincial Government it comes directly under the view of the House of Commons, the federal Parliament or the Union Parliament, and the action of the Government is subject to immediate criticism, and the Government cannot fall back upon the constitution of the Bill of 1913, or 1914, or whatever it may be that is to be given to Ireland. This Clause is absolutely unnecessary. It opens up difficulties which would not exist if the ordinary course of constitutional proce-

  1723
  dure had been followed, and it was left to the Imperial Government to do what it would have power to do, and make a bargain with the Irish Government if it so pleased for the employment of Irish officers to carry out Imperial duties, for that is what occurs at the present time in Canada, in Australia, and in South Africa. The Clause is unnecessary, and, being unnecessary, it ought not to be included. It opens up the way to great difficulties which could be avoided if it were not included, for there remains to the Imperial Government the power to do the very thing that this Clause empowers it to do, but with this difference, that once you grant the authority under this Clause to the Imperial Government to transfer its services, the Imperial Government ceases to be directly and immediately responsible for the employment of any Irish officers to do any particular duties, whereas if the Clause were not in, the action of the Imperial Government every time it gives to the Irish Government its authority to exercise certain powers and duties would come under the immediate survey and criticism of this House, and, because of that, because of the uselessness and the danger of the Clause, I support very strongly the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. LARDNER: I have listened with considerable interest and not a little amusement to the speech of the Mover of the Amendment. He talked about the inherent sloppiness of the way in which the Bill is drafted, and I think I might apply the same remark without any offence to the argument which he addressed in support of his Amendment. His principal argument was based on this, that Jihere was nothing to prevent the transfer of any duties or powers by an English Department to the officers of an Irish Department by telegraph, by telephone, or by letter, and that the matter might never be questioned by anyone. I think he must have forgotten to read Clause 45, or perhaps he was not advised of it in the proofs of his speech. Clause 45 deals specifically with this particular point. It reads as follows:—
  "His Majesty may by Orders in Council (in this Act referred to as Irish Transfer Orders) make such Regulations as seem necessary or proper for setting in motion the Irish Parliament and Government, and also for any other matter for which it seems to His Majesty necessary or proper to make provision for the
  1724
  purpose of bringing this Act into full operation or for giving full effect to any provisions of this Act or to any future transfer under or by virtue of this Act of a reserved service; and in particular His Majesty may by any such Order in Council—…(d) on any transfer under this Act of the public services in connection with the administration of the old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 and 1911, make provision for securing the payment of an old age pension to any person who is entitled to the payment of such a pension at the time of the transfer, while he continues so entitled;"
  I think it is perfectly clear from that that the matter has been considered, and that it is impossible that such a method as the hon. Gentleman suggests could be adopted.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the hon. Member suggesting to us now that the arrangements which the Chief Secretary suggested in regard to old age pensions, which is a reserved service, would need an Order in Council?
  Mr. LARDNER: I was trying to deal with the point of the transfer of duties and powers by letter, telegram or telephone, and I am going to argue afterwards that in regard to these particular matters to which he refers, the reserved services, this is purely an administrative Clause and the powers and duties which are or may be transferred are purely of an administrative character. The Leader of the Opposition said very frankly, and with the precision for which he is noted, that under this Clause there were no longer any reserved services. Where does Clause 2 stand? He must know, as also must the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), that where you retain the responsibility as it is specifically retained in this Clause, you also retain the exercise of your discretion. No trustee can delegate his discretion. When a public Department retains responsibility it also retains the discretion for the direction of the policy of the matter which they have under their control. The only matter that can be delegated from an English to an Irish Department, or vice versa, is the administrative acts of the office in accordance with the settled policy of the English Department at the time. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that the whole administration of old age pensions, as has been suggested, could be transferred to an Irish Department, and that they could turn round and say, "Because we are authorised to do the

  1725
  administrative acts necessary for the payment of pensions and for the management of the scheme in Ireland, we are going to say pensions should be paid at sixty and not at sixty-five." The right hon. Gentleman frankly admitted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is made to transfer Customs and Excise over to an Irish Department or management. Why? Because the responsibility rested with him, and in him was vested the sole discretion which directed the management and the policy of Customs and Excise. The same remark applies to every one of the reserved services. I think I may go a little further in the argument than perhaps hon. Gentlemen may appreciate. I am going to argue that the insertion of this Clause is beneficial from the British standpoint, and that it makes for economy and efficiency. Take the Clause and see what it means. The hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) suggests that the Post Office, I think, will be managed by the Board of Agriculture. I forget exactly what was the extravagant example he put forward. It was too extravagant to be worthy of serious consideration, because, after all, you have to recollect that even if Home Rule is passed, you have an Imperial Government. Surely an Imperial Department is not going to be managed by lunatics or fools.
  An HON. MEMBER: I am not so sure.
  Mr. LARDNER: I have greater faith in my own country and my own Government than the hon. Member has. They are going to transfer to Irish Departments administrative acts of a similar and analogous character. The hon. Member says that is not provided for in the Clause at all, and that you can give it to any Department, but surely if an English Department is to relieve itself of any of these duties and administrative acts, if they are going to relieve themselves of the collection of pensions and of the transaction of various small things which could be better done on the spot, they are going to do it having regard to the best interests of this country and the best interests of the British taxpayer and the efficient management of the Department for which they are responsible. It is a very simple answer to the outrageously extravagant argument that the hon. Member put forward, that the Department of Agriculture could or would be given, under any possible Government sitting on these benches, the management of the Post Office in Ireland. It was also suggested by the hon. Gentleman, though not
  1726
  directly, that all this could be done either by telegraph or telephone, or by letter, and that no one might know of it, and even if they did know of it, they could not stop it. The hon. Member appears to have omitted to read Clause 46 of the Bill, because there is still a House of Lords left to them if this House should fail them, Clause 46 says:—
  "Any Irish Transfer Order in Council made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom within forty days next after it is made if Parliament is then sitting, or if not, within forty days after the commencement of the then next ensuing Session; and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either of these Houses within the next subsequent forty days praying that any such Order may be annulled, His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same."
  The remarkable thing about the Clause is that it is an Address from either House, so that if the House of Commons should refuse the Address the hon. Gentleman has still the House of Lords, and I am sure there will be no difficulty in the present Parliament of advising that anything done by this Government is absolutely wrong and should be annulled immediately. I think I have made it clear in the first place, that you cannot do it by telegraph, or telephone; and, in the second place, that if you do, it is not irrevocable; and in the third place, I think I have shown that this is not a delegation of discretion where you retain the responsibility, but it is only a delegation of administrative Acts, and that it is in the interests of efficiency and economy.
  5.0 P.M.
  I should like to develop that a little further and examine it in the light of practice to see what it would mean and how it stands at present in regard to Ireland. You have given the Post Office over to the management of the Irish Government, but you have retained the Post Office Savings Bank. At present in the Post Office in any country village in Ireland, at one counter you can send a telegram, you can buy your postage stamps, you can draw your old age pension money, and you can also draw your savings bank money. If this Clause is omitted the inevitable result will be that the Post Office will have to erect in every town and village in Ireland a separate office for the savings bank. They have no power to continue the work in

  1727
  the Irish Post Office once it is transferred to the Irish Government, because their service is a reserved service and must be carried out by officers of the Imperial Government and not the Irish Government. Old age pensions can no longer be paid unless with the assent of the Irish Post Office and the Irish Government. I want to ask the hon Gentleman if he looks forward as a British taxpayer with equanimity to the possibility of having to set up two distinct sets of officials, for which he will have to pay out of his own pocket, for administering an Irish service, which by this Clause can be carried on efficiently at the same cost at which it is carried on at present. That is a concrete example, and one which cannot be got away from at all. Take another example. You have reserved as a reserved service all the public loans made before the passing of this Act. Very often small sums have to be collected under these public loans from persons who are in default with the payment of their interest. At present they are collected through the Board of Works, which is a branch of the Treasury Department in Ireland. Under the Government of Ireland Bill you will have a separate branch of the Treasury, presumably with its own staff, and an Irish Office of Works, or perhaps a Department of Works. Are you, then, to ask the British Treasury to maintain a separate Irish Department with a separate Irish Office and a separate Irish staff to collect small sums which may be in arrear in the repayment of these sums? The hon. Gentleman says it can be done without this Clause. If it can be done without this Clause, what harm is done by its insertion? I deny that it can be done without this Clause. It is absolutely impossible to do it, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. The amount must be sued for in a Court presumably, and the debt must be proved. What would happen if the hon. Gentleman's contention is correct? The Irish official would go down to the Court and say, "There is due on the loan made before the passing of the Government of Ireland Act a certain sum for interest. I am an official of the Irish Treasury." It would immediately be pleaded, "You have no right to come and claim that sum. This is a reserved service under the control of the Imperial Parliament, and nobody can give a valid receipt for the amount unless he is a duly authorised official of the Im-
  1728
  perial Parliament." The official of the Irish Government would not be an official of the Imperial Parliament, and therefore would not be in a position to sue for the amount or to give a discharge for it
  I have taken as illustrations the Post Office and the Office of Works. There are various other matters that might be dealt with. Reference has been made to land purchase. The Land Commission is transferred under certain limitations to the Irish Government. But the Imperial Government has reserved all matters relating to land purchase. The arrears in connection with land purchase in Ireland are very small indeed. The Irish tenants have shown a record for prompt and regular payment unexampled elsewhere. The point I am going to make is a very small one, but the smaller it is the more important it is that there should be authority for this proposed interchange of duties between the Departments. The arrears of annuities must be collected as an Imperial service. There should be nothing to prevent the Land Commission delegating authority to collect the money and give receipts on behalf of the Imperial Department. That would save the necessity for another set of officials in Ireland. That example shows what is exactly meant under the Clause. It occurs to me that there are other matters of very grave importance to us in Ireland which, though they may seem small matters in a discussion of this kind, are also covered by the Clause. For instance, there are the Grants under the Road Board. These are made to the various local authorities, and if this Clause is omitted from the Bill the result will be that the Road Board will have to establish an Irish Office and an Irish staff. Why? At the present time you have the Road Board Grants made to the public authorities, and they are all vouched for by the Irish Local Government Board. I do not know anybody acquainted with administration in Ireland who will question the authority of the Local Government Board, or its fitness to do the work they have hitherto done. If this Clause is omitted, you will make it impossible for that Board to do it with the staff of officials they have at present, and you will impose the necessity of setting up a separate office with other officials to audit the accounts.
  Take the administration of the Factory and Workshops Act. That Department of the Board of Trade work is at present done by English officials in Ireland. The

  1729
  working of the Factory and Workshops Act, and the amending of it, comes within the scope of the Irish Government. There will be presumably a Department for that work. Take it that there are breaches of the law—are you going to hinder the English Board sending over officials to the Irish Department in regard to cases where the common interests of a particular trade are at stake in the two countries? There is another and more serious example which, I think, has not occurred to any person, and that is in connection with the administration of the Criminal Law. I should like to know, if you omit this Clause, what is going to happen in the case of a person who breaks the law in Ireland and escapes over to this side. It appears to me that the state of things would then be that you would have to wait until an Irish officer came with an Irish warrant before you could arrest that person. Therefore, you see that the omission of the Clause would absolutely strike at the economic and efficient working of the whole Act, whether on the civil side, or in regard to the administration of the Criminal Law. There are other cases which might be mentioned, but I do not intend to trouble the House with them. I think those who are anxious for the efficient working of the Bill, and for harmonious co-operation between the new Irish Government and the Government of Great Britain, and who desire efficient management and economical administration in the interest of the British taxpayer as well as the Irish taxpayer, will support the retention of the Clause, believing that to strike it out would be to set up a certain cause of friction between the two Governments.
  Mr. MOORE: I do not think the hon. Member (Mr. Lardner) fully appreciates the point. Our case is this: We do not say that you are going to transfer the reserved service under this Clause at all, but we do say that while you nominally keep the reserved service as it is, you are going to put the whole administration and working of it in the hands of the Irish Parliament. It is the grievance occasioned by this that causes the fraud upon the Act—for a legal fraud it would be—and the injury to Ireland. The hon. Gentleman does not meet that when he quotes Clauses 45 and 46. It only arises, as the House will see by looking at the proposal, when you have set the machinery in operation by which you can transfer the administration of a reserved service. You have to get the
  1730
  approval of both Houses, as provided for in Clauses 45 and 46, but that has nothing to do with the case we have put forward. Where you retain a service in your own hands, you transfer the administration of it to the Irish Government. See how this matter really works. Those reserved services are put in because the theory is that the Government, who are quite prepared to hand over, the control of the Irish Protestants to hon. Members below the Gangway, are not going to trust them with the Savings Bank and the Land Purchase Department, because they have an interest in them. It is altogether to maintain credit for these particular departments, because the Government cannot afford to have public confidence shaken in them, and they say they are going to keep these in their own hands. I was going down the road early last year before this Bill was explained, and I met a poor old woman who said to me that she and her sister had been saving all their lives and had their money in the Post Office Savings Bank. She asked, "Would you advise me to take it out"? and I said, "I would not touch it. I would leave it in the Post Office Savings Bank, because it is still under the control of the British Government." In fact, when I gave her that advice the Bill had not been printed, or, at any rate, it was quite early in the proceedings. At that time I was not conscious of Clause 40, but if I had been aware of its existence, I would not have given that advice, because we have it now made perfectly clear by the hon. Gentleman what the view of the Nationalist party is. The Government may say, "We are going to reserve the Post Office Savings Bank as a reserved service, and the people will have the same confidence as ever," but the hon. Gentleman says, "We are going to have the administration of it."
  Mr. LARDNER: I never said anything of the sort. I said it would be much cheaper for this country to carry out the administration of the Post Office Savings Bank through the Irish Post Office than to set up another set of officials all over the country.
  Mr. MOORE: I do not think there is any difference between us. The hon. Gentleman said it would be impossible to have an Imperial official with a separate office for the Savings Bank in every part of Ireland. He said that in little country towns where a woman sells stamps you

  1731
  will have to allow her to do the duties of the Post Office Savings Bank. He said that the Government are not transferring the service, and that this is a mere matter of administration. He also stated that the Clause is to enable the transfer of the administration to the Irish Post Office. I am not misprepresenting the hon. Gentleman. He said there is only to be one official in Ireland for these services—what the Chief Secretary calls petty services. Hon. Members below the Gangway never seem to realise—or if they do they are the last people to tell the House about it—that there is a large section in Ireland who have the most profound distrust of their administration, and if you take the Savings Bank depositor and tell him that the security of the bank will not be affected by allowing the British Parliament to appoint the nearest head of the United Irish League, or of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, to conduct his deposit business—for the appointments will go on political lines—that at once would hit at all confidence in the Post Office Savings Bank.
  The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the security of the Post Office Savings Bank would be in any way affected?
  Mr. MOORE: I was talking of the administration by those officials—people they do not trust.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: You said "security."
  Mr. MOORE: If I was wrong in saying "security," I agree that under this Clause, while the Post Office Savings Bank remains a reserved service, the Post Office in London is, of course, responsible for every penny. I never suggested otherwise. [An HON. MEMBER: "You said security."] The point I was making was that it is perfectly plain that if you put in the hands of a local opponent knowledge of a depositor's private affairs, and if she is asked to subscribe to the league, and says she has no money, the official will be able to say, "Why I got £10 from you on deposit last week." Then a person who is asked to subscribe to this or that, and declines, may be subjected to persecution. Every depositor is entitled to have a sense of security that his affairs will be carried on in secrecy when he deposits in the Post Office. There are two sorts of security
  1732
  One is about getting one's money back. I do not think that that is affected because the Department retains responsibility. But, after all, what trust is left when the Postmaster-General hands over, under this Clause, the working of an Irish Post Office Savings Bank to persons such as I have described, or rather to a Department which makes appointments such as I have described? The Postmaster-General may say, if anything goes wrong, "I am very sorry, but I was here in London and could not do any more. The Irish Department appointed a wrong person; I am sorry it did not appoint a better person. I am responsible for the money, but I had to delegate the duties."
  What relief is it to the person who is suffering to say that you keep on responsibility for the money deposited? You may think you have discharged your duty to the public by saying so, but I say you have not. You have no right to put a depositor in the position that he is subject to illegal pressure and disclosure of his private affairs. The very instant you begin to delegate what you say you keep yourself, namely, the reserved services, all this will come. Of course, the Postmaster-General says he does not believe it. It-does not suit him. When we say we believe it we are called prejudiced, but suppose it does happen, what relief is there for the depositor? It is made perfectly plain now in the case put forward by the hon. Member for North Monaghan that in every one of those reserved services the Irish Parliament is going to grab the administration by arrangement with the Government under this Clause. If that is so, this Clause is a fraud on the Bill, which says you are going to keep yourself the reserved services, while you are giving command of the working of them entirely over to the Irish Parliament. If the Chief Secretary represents not his own mind only, but the mind of the Government, something ought to be put in this Clause to limit it to merely ancillary matters and cases where there is no other way out of them, but not to leave it in the large form in which it is here, that although the Government is given no real control, it is willing to remain responsible and absolutely indifferent to the working of the thing. Some limitation or safeguard should be inserted to show that the Chief Secretary's assurances are not mere words, but are something which, in the view of the Government, ought to be carried into action.
  Mr. AMERY: The House knows very well that again and again during these Debates right hon. Members on the Government side have appealed to the representatives from Ulster to ask what safeguards they required, and they have promised to introduce any reasonable safeguards. Here you have a Clause which, in their opinion, and certainly in my opinion, goes behind every existing safeguard of the Bill, slight as it is. All you are asked is to have the Clause so altered as not to go behind those safeguards. The right hon. Gentleman said, in his airy manner, as usual, that this Clause dealt with trifles, and was not meant for anything serious, but dealt only with administrative matters. Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that in November I asked him a question on this Clause as to the various matters not within the legislative purview of the Irish Parliament, which I specifically enumerated, and I asked if the administrative and Executive powers could be transferred to the Irish Government under the provision of Clause 40? The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, said:—
  "The provision of Clause 40 are wide enough to include the making of agreements between Irish Departments and Departments of the United Kingdom Government with respect to the administration of the subject-matter enumerated in these two questions in any particular instance. Whether ouch an arrangement will be made will be a question to he determined if and when it arises by the Departments concerned with the consent of their respective Governments."
  It is perfectly clear that it was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman that the administrative control of all the most important services in Ireland may at any time, without the slightest reference to or consultation with this House, be transferred to the Executive Government in Ireland. It is true that, theoretically, responsibility remains with this House. Questions may be asked in this House, but what in fact will be the kind of answers given, or that the head of some Department in this House can give, after a transfer of a service has been in operation for some years? All he can say is the Irish Parliament advised him so and so. The answer may not be satisfactory. He may not think it satisfactory himself, but he cannot do anything. He cannot dismiss anybody who gives him an unsatisfactory answer, or acts in an unsatisfactory manner. This is not purely a speculative case. We have already had a most striking instance of it in the case of the Post Office. Hon Members on that side of the House pressed the Government very
  1734
  strongly, both here and outside this Chamber, as to the inadvisability of transferring to the Irish Government a matter like the Post Office, which is not only a matter of business convenience but a great question of strategy and defence, and in deference to their strong views the Postmaster-General has introduced an Amendment which reserves the whole postal service, in so far as it is a United Kingdom service, to this Parliament, and only leaves it open to the Irish Parliament to institute a local service. As far as the Bill stands, apart from Clause 40, the effect of the Bill will be to leave the Post Office in Ireland and the postal service exactly where they are to-day, in the hands of the United Kingdom Parliament, though the Irish Government may afterwards, if they like, set up a local service between Dublin and Belfast on their own responsibility in their own new offices, or if they like to approach the United Kingdom postal service in the post offices of the United Kingdom.
  We have also had it made plain by the Postmaster-General, the Chief Secretary, and the Attorney-General that the Government have already made up their minds to transfer the whole postal service and the Post Office staff to the Irish Government. In other words the whole administrative power is to be transferred and the responsibility will remain. How is it going to be exercised. Suppose two or three years after the transfer a great deal of petty pilfering went on in the post offices in Ireland, what power has the Postmaster-General got? He will be responsible for the United Kingdom postal services, but if people post letters here and they do not arrive safely, what can he do to make them arrive safely? He can complain, but what redress can he get for his complaint? Take again the case of war, or the danger of war. It may be a vital matter in a critical period, if a member of the postal service is suspected of carelessness or laxity to dismiss hint on the spot or transfer him to another place. How can you do that in Ireland when the whole thing has been handed over? How can you insure that if secret measures are taken to open letters for the purposes of censorship, which is an absolutely essential precaution in time of war, those measures will be effectually taken in Irish post offices? So yon have here already a very vital reserved service under the Home Rule Bill, which, nevertheless, we are already told by the right hon. Gentleman opposite is going to be transferred in fact to the Irish

  1735
  Parliament. This is not one of those minor points which the hon. Member for North Monaghan mentioned. This is a great Imperial interest; it may be a very vital Imperial interest that all correspondence should be opened, stopped, or otherwise dealt with as the safety of the Empire demands.
  If that is done already to-day, when there is some desire to attempt to make people believe that there are safeguards in the Bill, what will be the position a few years hence when a Government, again in the plight of the present Government, dependent for its existence on the votes of Irish members, transfers other services. The right hon. Gentleman says they would not be transferred in a lump. Nobody suggests that these services should be transferred in a lump. What we fear is that inch by inch, service by service, the administration will be given over, while the pretence of responsibility is kept up, and later on the pretence of responsibility is thrown aside, and the Minister will get up in this House and say, "After all, hon. Members must recognise facts. This service has been administered by Ireland for several years. Unless you ask us to have an open breach with the Irish Government and take it over again by force, we have no redress; we must recognise the situation." One of the things we complain most of, over and above the complications and difficulties which the Bill itself creates, is that there are vast areas of possible difficulty left open to private arrangements and private treaty and negotiations between the Governments. You have had all through the discussions on finance the continual answer of the Postmaster-General that it would be settled by the House of Commons at the time whether certain things are Imperial or domestic services, and so on and similarly the question of what are called the reserved services will be really a matter for the Executive Government at the time to settle at its own convenience whenever it wants the necessary number of votes.
  Mr. BUTCHER: The questions raised by this Clause are very serious and of great importance, at any rate on the assumption that this Bill ever passes into law. The position under the Bill is that the Imperial Government is responsible for the reserved services, including such important matters as land purchase, old age pensions, national insurance, and the collec-
  1736
  tion of taxes. Under the Bill the Imperial Government is appointing no staff of Executive officers to deal with these services, and instead of making provisions, as the Government ought to have done if they wanted the Bill to be effective, enabling them to appoint Executive officers who would be responsible to them for carrying out the services, this Clause proposes that the powers and duties of the Imperial Government in regard to reserved services may be delegated or handed over to an Irish Department. The question has been asked of the Chief Secretary, would it be possible under this Clause for the Imperial Government to hand over all its duties and powers in relation to a reserved service to an Irish Department. My hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, has referred to an answer which the Chief Secretary gave to that question in last November. Certainly it is surprising, after the answer which the Chief Secretary gave to the effect that these powers can be delegated or transferred without any exception, to find the right hon. Gentleman telling us to-day that such a transfer would be "absurd and illegal." I think I am right in saying that those were his words. As regards the absurdity, when a particular interpretation of a Clause of this Bill leads to absurdity, and it is said that therefore the interpretation must be wrong, to my mind that is a very strong assumption indeed, and if the test were applied to all the Clauses of this Bill, then all I can say is that it would be found that is not the experience we have had in the course of these Debates. The Chief Secretary tells us further that such a transfer would be illegal. I suppose he means that it is contrary to the terms of the Bill, on the assumption that it is going to become an Act. The words of the Bill provide for the transferring of any powers or duties in relation to the reserved services. Where does the right hon. Gentleman get the limitation? If the Imperial Government can transfer any powers and duties, why should it not transfer all its powers and duties in relation to the reserved services? The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Lardner) came to the rescue of the Chief Secretary, and said he noticed that the only powers and duties that could be transferred under this Clause were administrative powers and duties. I observed that the Chief Secretary cheered that statement, and I understood from those cheers that he agreed with the view of the hon. Member for Monaghan.
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is what I said in answer to a question put to me. I said that with respect to administrative matters referred to there was no restriction in this Clause as to what could be transferred.
  Mr. BUTCHER: If that is the meaning, is there any objection to putting words into the Clause to make it. clear that only administrative powers are to be transferred?—"the exercise and performance on behalf of the Department of any administrative powers and duties." If that be the meaning of the Clause, there can be no objection to saying it. If that is not the meaning, and if it is intended to give some wider power of transference, then I cannot understand the Chief Secretary's observations. It seems to me essential that some words should be put into the Clause to make that sure.
  Again suppose those Irish officers who are to carry out duties in connection with a reserved service fail in their duty, suppose they do not obey the order of the Imperial Government, or suppose that, without disobedience, they are neglectful of the duties they have to discharge, what is the remedy? The Imperial Government cannot dismiss them because they are not their servants. What is the Imperial Government to do? They can withdraw some of the duties from those officers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not think that will carry hon. Gentlemen much further. Supposing they withdrew those duties from the servants of the Irish Government, who are to be appointed? [An HON. MEMBER: "Others."] They have no power to appoint their own officers, and therefore they would have to go to the Irish Government and say, "You have got such incompetent servants under you that they do not carry out the duties which we delegated to them. Will you kindly appoint some competent officers to act under us."
  I can understand the answer of the Irish Government, who would say, "We are the best judges as to whether our servants are competent or incompetent, and we certainly shall not dismiss them." There may be an answer to this point, but I do not know what it is. I ask the Postmaster-General to tell us, supposing those Irish officers do not discharge the duties delegated to them in a satisfactory manner, what is the real remedy of the Imperial Government? As I have pointed out, the Imperial Government cannot dismiss them and appoint others, and certainly, if the
  1738
  Irish Government would not dismiss them and appoint others, the result would be an entire deadlock. Let us remember that this is a matter which not only affects Ireland, but affects Great Britain, which I think has been very often too much neglected in the course of these Debates. Great Britain is certainly responsible for these reserved services, and the taxpayers of Great Britain have got to pay for them, and unless the reserved services are properly carried on, and their duties properly discharged, Great Britain will greatly sutler. Therefore I do ask the Postmaster-General to consider for a moment the interests of Great Britain, and tell us how, under this Clause, these interests can be safeguarded, and how we are to get Irish officers who are competent to discharge the duties which will devolve upon them. The truth is, and the remark is applicable to many of the Clauses of the Bill, that this Clause was originally drafted badly, and without sufficient consideration. It was never discussed for one moment in Committee, which is the only real opportunity for discussing and amending complicated provisions of this description. Now we are driven, on the last day of the Report stage of this Bill, to consider a Clause of which no adequate explanation has yet been given, though many difficulties have been pointed out, and we have tried to induce the Government, at the eleventh hour, to make some alteration and Amendment so that it may work properly. This is all part and parcel of what I may call the scandal under which these proceedings have been conducted throughout, and I trust the Postmaster-General will be able to give us some explanation.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member who has moved this Amendment proposes to the House that this Clause should be altogether omitted. I submit to the House, on the contrary, that the Clause is essential to the smooth and businesslike administration of the matters which have to be dealt with. My own Department perhaps affords the best illustration of the way in which one Department of the State may assist other Departments. The Post Office is to some extent maid-of-all-work for other Departments. For instance, on behalf of the Treasury, we pay week by week many hundreds of thousands of pounds for old ago pensions. On behalf of the Board of Trade we assist the working of the Labour Exchanges Act. For the local authorities we collect motor licences. In aid of the War Office we exhibit notices

  1739
  with regard to recruiting, and so forth. And the most recent duty which has been thrown upon us is to assist, as we are very glad to do, in the administration of the National Insurance Act. Only within the last day or two I have been asked to give permission for the exhibition in our post offices of lists of doctors for the insured. As to this, my officers inform me that they were rather reluctant to give permission in London, because the list of doctors is so bulky that the smaller offices might be overcrowded when people were turning over the pages. These are merely matters of illustration of the way in which one Imperial Department does assist other Imperial Departments in their duties. It is a right and proper thing, if we establish Home Rule in Ireland and there are Irish Departments, that those Departments also, where it is convenient for both parties, should render similar assistance to the Imperial Departments which have functions to perform in Ireland. That is the purpose of the Clause. The hon. and learned Member opposite has mentioned the Savings Bank. It has been made quite clear from the beginning—I have myself stated again and again in answers to questions—that there is no intention whatever of maintaining over the whole of Ireland a network of Savings Bank agencies apart from the Irish post offices. The hon. Gentleman opposite pointed out very forcibly that such a scheme would really be quite impracticable and most wasteful, and just as post offices in England, Scotland, and Wales act as agents for the Savings Bank—which is really a distinct organisation, with its own office, its own balance-sheet, and its own correspondence, so in Ireland the post offices there will act similarly.
  Then it was suggested by the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) that if it was really intended to carry out the provisions of the Act with regard to the Post Office being under the control of the Postmaster-General here in respect of foreign correspondence and in respect of the United Kingdom correspondence, we should require two separate Post Offices all over Ireland. Hon. Members will have seen places where there are double pillar-boxes and persons are requested to post in one orifice letters intended for London, and in the other orifice letters intended for the provinces or abroad. I am not quite sure whether that is the correct division, but it is something of the kind. It really can-
  1740
  not be suggested that in every town and village of Ireland there shall be two Post Offices, and that if a person wants a 2½d. stamp to send a letter to a foreign country, he must go to the Imperial Post Office, and there post the letter, and if he wants a penny stamp to send a letter to some town or village from Dublin or Belfast, he must go into the Irish Post Office next door. Obviously the method proper for adoption is that the Irish Government should have their own local Post Offices, and, in the administration of those Post Offices, in so far as correspondence was intended to be Imperial, they would act on behalf of the Imperial Post Office. That is the intention of the Bill, and that will be the application of this Clause. There will be no more difficulty in making such arrangements than there is now in sending letters from here to France, which will be delivered in France by the French Post Office, though that Post Office is not under the control of the British Postmaster-General. It has been suggested that this Clause might be twisted to serve a much more formidable and a quite illegitimate purpose. The Leader of the Opposition, in the speech he made earlier in the afternoon, used these words, which I noted at the time:—
  "There is a great probability"
  I emphasise those words—
  "that theintentions of this House will be evaded. It the whole of the duties of the reserved service are transferred then those services will no longer he reserved at all."
  I listened with care to the latter part of his speech in order to follow the development of his argument, and to hear the proof that there was great probability that these things would occur. He offered no such proof; he advanced no such argument; he was able to indicate no case in which there was any probability of these things occurring. What he did say was that if the Imperial Government were to transfer to Irish Departments the administration of the collection of Customs and Excise, that then certain regulations might have to be altered and results which this House did not desire would follow. He gave us as a second illustration if the Imperial Government chose to leave to an Irish Department the determination of the persons who should have old age pensions, that then old age pensions would become much more expensive. No doubt that is very true. He gave us as a third illustration that if the Imperial Government were to transfer to an Irish Minister control of the constabulary during the first six years,

  1741
  that then that constabulary would not be under the command of the Imperial Government as it otherwise would be and as it is intended to be by this Bill. But not one solitary proof did he give, or attempt to give, and I am within the recollection of the House that these things, which undoubtedly are conceivable possibilities, are to be regarded as great probabilities, not a reason he advanced for thinking that any of these things would in fact be done. He said that our answer would be that we should say to him, "You are assuming that the Irish would be very unreasonable to ask those transfers" That is not our answer. Our assumption is that the Imperial Government would be exceedingly foolish to make such transfers, and the Imperial Parliament would be very neglectful of its duties if it were to allow them, under such circumstances.
  True, those things are quite possible—quite true, as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment said, that the Postmaster-General under this Clause might have the legal power to hand over the administration of the affairs of the telegraph service to the Irish Board of Agriculture. I dare say that the Postmaster-General now at this moment in this country has the power to hand over all his functions, so far as Statute is concerned, to the President of the Board of Agriculture. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] I do not know that there is any statutory bar to doing so. The suggestion is absurd, but not more absurd than the instance given by an hon. Member opposite, who solemnly mentioned the transfer of the telegraph to the Board of Agriculture. I dare say there is no Statute which prevents the First Lord of the Admiralty transferring the care of his duties to the First Commissioner of Works. Those things, in fact, are not done and cannot be done, because if any Minister attempted a folly of that character he would receive an early intimation from the Prime Minister that considerations of health rendered it advisable he should seek a rest, and if that course were not taken by the head of the Government one may be quite sure this House would immediately demand the Minister's head upon a charger. So it would be in these cases. Really, I suggest to the House that hon. Members opposite are straining possibilities too much when they suggest we should deliberately tear up one of the plain provisions and disregard the obvious meaning of this Bill, and transfer wholesale to Irish Departments, in defiance or in forgetfulness of the control over Minis-
  1742
  ters which always resides in this House, functions which are clearly intended by the Bill to remain in the hands of Imperial officers.
  Mr. BUTCHERWill the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? What is to happen if the Irish officers do not do their duty?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The first people to suffer would be the Irish themselves, and they would very soon bring them to book.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not wish to refer to the nature of the responsibility of the Irish Ministers, as that has been pressed by my hon. Friend, but there are three questions which I desire to put to the Government, and which I think arise out of this discussion. First, let me say that the right hon. Gentleman's defence consists in drawing a line between what we may call major and minor duties of administration. He says that this Clause is intended for minor duties. That line of demarcation exists solely in the Postmaster-General's imagination. It does not exist on paper or in the Bill. I do not think there is anything to prevent any or all of the powers of an Imperial Department being transferred at any time to the officials of an Irish Department. My first question is whether there is any precedent for this Clause. When it is convenient we hear a great deal about Colonial precedents and analogies. The only precedent quoted so far was that by my hon. Friend, who moved the Amendment, from the South African case, and that was against the Government. I should have thought that by this time the Government might at least have been able to say whether there is any precedent. My second question has reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. Lardner). He said, if I understand him aright, that my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment was talking nonsense when he said that these arrangements might be made by telegraph or telephone, and that it was quite absurd to say that arrangements could be so made. The view of the hon. Member for Monaghan is that those arrangements for transfer would have to be made by Order in Council under Clause 45. I own personally that is not my reading of Clause 45. I am curious to know whether I am right in thinking that these arrangements could in fact be made, I do not say by telegraph or telephone, but by minute of a Depart-

  1743
  ment, and do not require the whole machinery of an Order in Council. Am I right, or is the hon. Member for Monaghan right? I believe that could be done by minute.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not myself think that it would be necessary to obtain an Order in Council to enable a department in charge of a reserved service to employ an Irish Department to do some administrative act.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is a perfectly frank admission. I only wanted to get that in order to show how entirely beside the mark was the whole of that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Monaghan, which was founded on the assumption that we should have behind these transfers of administrative officers what he called the security of the Order in Council. He was very strong on the fact that it would have to go before the two Houses. The plain fact, which the Chief Secretary admits, is that these transfers can take place by minute of the Department.
  Mr. BIRRELL: With the consent of both Governments.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: With the consent of the heads of the Departments. The Chief Secretary docs not suppose when he is going to make an arrangement of this kind with the Irish Local Government Board, he is going to consult formally with the Prime Minister or the Cabinet. Everybody knows the sort of arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, and which are Departmental matters. My third question is this: The House will have noted that these transfers are to be made on what the Bill calls agreed terms. I
  take it agreed terms means payment by the Imperial Government for the discharge of duties by the Irish Government. I take rather a serious view of that matter. I do not think financial arrangements of that kind ought to be made by minute of the Deparement behind the back of the House of Commons. I think it is all the more dangerous when we consider that the political situation in future may be not at all unlike the political situation in the present. If this Bill went through there might be a Ministry in this country dependent for its existence on the support of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. Is it not, at all events, a possible assumption which we are to guard against that those Gentlemen from Ireland might demand, as the price of their support of the Government, the transfer of certain administrative services to Irish Departments. That is a contingency which is more than possible. It is not even so remote as some hon. Gentlemen appear to think. I should not be a bit surprised if it should happen in the near future, and I suspect strongly that in those conferences which took place before the Bill was introduced that there was something of the kind suggested.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Not a word.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: At all events, I think those financial arrange-arrangements ought to be carefully scrutinised, and ought not to be done as this Clause proposes, behind the back of the House of Commons by minute of the Department.
  Question put, "That the words of the Clause to the word 'duties' ["any powers, or duties"], standpart of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 129.

  Division No. 510.]

  AYES.

  [5.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brady, P. J.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Crean, Eugene

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Alden, Percy

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Cullinan, J.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

  De Forest, Baron

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Delany, William

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Devlin, Joseph

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Clough, William

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Clynes, John R.

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Doris, W.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Duffy, William J.

  Boland, John Plus

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  Leach, Charles

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Falconer, J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Reddy, M.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lundon, Thomas

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)'

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Field, William

  Macdonaid, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  McGhee, Richard

  Roberts, Sir H. (Denbighs)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Maclean, Donald

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Roch, Walter F.

  Ginnell, L.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Glanville, Harold James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Rowlands, James

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Kean, John

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Greig. Colonel J. W.

  Markham. Sir Arthur Basil

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Schwann, Rt. Hen. Sir C E.

  Guiney, P.

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Hackett, J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Sheehy, David

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Meehan, Francis (Leitrim, N.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Shortt, Edward

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Millar, James Duncan

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochale)

  Molloy, M.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

  Molteno. Percy Alport

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morrell, Philip

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West).

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morison, Hector

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

  Hayward, Evan

  Munro, R.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hazleton, Richard

  Murray, Cant. Hon. A. C.

  Thomas, J. H.

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Neilson, Francis

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholson, Sir G. N. (Doncaster)

  Verney, Sir Harry

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wadsworth, J.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

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

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nuttall, Harry

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hinds, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Wardle, George J.

  Hodge, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Dowd, John

  Webb, H.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Grady, James

  Wedgwood. Josiah C.

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

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

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  White, Fatrick (Meath, North)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Malley, William

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Wiles, Thomas

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Joyce, Michael

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Keating, Matthew

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  King, J.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Pointer, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bull, Sir William James

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Craig, Charles (Antrim, S.)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Butcher, J. G.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Niniari

  Baird, J. L.

  Campion, W. R.

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Croft, H. P.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cassel, Felix

  Dalziei, Davison (Brixton)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Cator, John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Cauticy, H. S.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Fell, Arthur

  Biglaud. Alfred

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Blair, Reginald

  Chambers, J.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Cooper, Richard Ashmola

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  1746

  1747

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Sandys, G. J.

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir clement

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Grant, J. A.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Harris, Henry Percy

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Malcolm, Ian

  Touche, George Alexander

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

  Moore, William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Nield, Herbert

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

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

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

  Hills, John Waller

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Peel, Captain R. F.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hope. James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Joynson-Hicks and Sir J. D. Rees.

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, after the word "duties" ["duties of that Department by officers of an Irish Department"], to insert the words, "not being powers or duties relating to Customs or Excise Duties."
  My excuse for moving this Amendment, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), is the very great importance of the subject. That which the Amendment seeks to prevent is clearly within the intention of the Government, because the Chief Secretary in answer to one of my hon. Friends on 4th November, said:—
  "The provisions of Clause 10 are wide enough to include the making of arrangements between an Irish Department and a Department of the United Kingdom with respect to the administration of the subject matters enumerated—"
  and one of the subjects enumerated is the collection of taxes. Both the Government and the Nationalist party place very great importance on the question of Customs and Excise. We know very well that the Nationalist party were very anxious that they alone should have the control of the Customs and Excise in Ireland, and it was the Government who resisted that claim, and especially a large part of their followers, as was evidenced by an Amendment moved the other day. But I rely still further in support of this Amendment upon a statement made by the Postmaster-General on 20th November on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution. I must trouble the House by quoting what was stated on that occasion, because it is really my chief reason for urging the Government to fulfil now the promise then given. On the previous even-
  1748
  ing the Leader of the Opposition had made a speech in which he argued that under this Bill the Irish Government could setup a system of Protection. In the speech from which I am about to quote the Postmaster-General gave reasons why the Irish Government could not under this Bill set up any system of Protection, and he alluded to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in these terms:—
  "The right hon. Gentleman hits given no proofs at all—"
  that is no proof that Protection could be set up.
  "The proof he gave last night from Sir Thomas Pittar, in which what he said was based on the assumption that the Irish Parliament would have the control of revenue restrictions—would have the management of the bonded system in Ireland, and would be able to differentiate the regulations with respect to tobacco in bond. I interrupted him, as he had obviously been misled by his informants, to point out that such powers were not vested in the Irish Parliament, that they had no control over these matters, and that all Customs and Excise restrictions were in the hands of the Imperial Government as a portion of the machinery for the collection of revenue.
  "Mr. Bonar Law: That may be the intention of the Government, but I do not find it in the Bill nor in the Amendment, for this reason: It is a reserved service. So are old age pensions. Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that because old age pensions are a reserved service, therefore it will be done by' British officials? In the same way does he now say that the Irish Government will have nothing whatever to do with the appointment or control of any officials in Ireland dealing with Customs or Excise?
  "Mr. Herbert Samuel: Certainly, I say that.
  "Mr. Bonar Law: It is not in the Bill.
  "Mr. Herbert Samuel: It has been clearly stated from the beginning that that is the intention. As it is a reserved service, and as there is nothing in the Bill to transfer it to the Irish Parliament, unquestionably these officers are retained in the hands of the Imperial Parliament, and, until this moment, through all out-long Debates no one has ever suggested for an instate that the Excise and Customs officers are to be officers of the Irish Government. All our Debates have proceeded

  1749
  on the assumption of the contrary, and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends have again and again pointed out the inconvenience, as they regard it, of having the Excise officers appointed by the Imperial Parliament, while the police officers would be controlled, after an interval of years, by the Irish Government."
  Then comes the statement to which I wish to call the attention of the Government and of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) interrupted and said—
  "Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say-that the British Government do not intend to avail themselves in regard to Customs and Excise of the provisions of Clause 40?"
  That was the question interjected. What did the Postmaster-General say in reply?
  "Mr. Herbert Samuel: Certainly, we do.
  "Mr. Bonar Law: Why not put it ill the Bill?
  "Mr. Herbert Samuel: There is no reason to put it in the Bill. We should have put it in the Bill if it were otherwise."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 20h November, 1912, cols. 318–9, Vol. XLIV.)
  By my Amendment I say that there is reason why it should be put in the Bill. It is certainly in the power of the Government to make arrangements for the fulfilment by Irish Departments of the duties connected with Customs and Excise. Is that a thing which this House can ever permit? It is clearly impossible. The first reason is that there will be no officials in Ireland competent with knowledge of how to administer Customs and Excise. They will have to get gentlemen quite unaccustomed to those duties and ignorant of them. But there is a still stronger reason against this proposal. It is this: Under this Bill the whole revenue and taxes in Ireland is to be paid into the British Exchequer, and the only part, the share, going back to Ireland is that which represents the Transferred Sum, which is only about half, or, rather, more than half of the whole amount. That is the fixed sum which the Irish Government will receive from the British Government. It is fixed at the time of the passing of this Act, with no allowances for any increase. Therefore all the revenue received outside that sum will be revenue coming to this country for the benefit of the British Government and the British taxpayer. I think that is perfectly clear. If that is so, it is also clear that the interest of the Irish Government only goes so far as to collect money which will cover the Transferred Sum. There will be no object or inducement to exceed that or to make a good selection, because the money will go, not for the benefit of Ireland, but for the benefit of Great Britain and the Imperial Government.
  That is, to my mind, a very strong reason why this provision should be put
  1750
  into the Bill. It makes it impossible that the British Government should make arrangements whereby men in Ireland, ignorant of the duties, should be allowed to collect the taxes and the revenue which the object of the people in Ireland would no doubt be to make the least possible sum. There would be no inducement to make a good selection, simply because the money collected would come over for the benefit of Great Britain and for Imperial purposes. That is the main reason why I venture to urge this Amendment upon the notice of the Government. The present position of this Clause is one of the great disadvantages the Government are labouring under in not following out the recommendations of the Primrose Commission. We know that the main principle of the Primrose Commission was that the same country should raise the money that spends it. That was the main principle of the Primrose Commission. That principle, as we all know, the Government refuse to follow. Instead of that we have a Bill here which is neither one thing nor the other. The money is to be collected by this Government in Ireland. Part of it is to be handed over, and this exactly the same sum each year, without any provision for expansion. Therefore all moneys raised outside that Transferred Sum, all future taxation put by this Parliament on to the Irish taxpayer, will come over to Great Britain for the benefit of Great Britain and not for the benefit of Ireland. I think myself that it will probably—I am afraid very probably—in future years be a very great cause of discontent among Irish taxpayers to find that that extra and increased taxation will not come back to Ireland, but come over to Great Britain for Imperial purposes. They will say, "We are raising money, the money is charged to us, and we are not going to get any benefit; we resent it." Certainly it is perfectly clear that there will be no inducement for the officials who collect the tax to make a good collection; in fact, the inducement will be all the other way—to make the collection of revenue over and above the Transferred Sum as little as possible. For these reasons I venture to hope that after what I have quoted from the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the Report stage of the Financial Resolutions he will now see his way to think that this Amendment is sufficiently important that an exception should be made in its favour.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to second the Amendment so clearly and ably explained by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield. I would not detain Members at all were it not that it seems to me that there are one or two considerations which can be urged on the Government in addition to those which the hon. Member has put forward. The first consideration is this, that there is no doubt, no matter what has been said in previous Debates in the Committee, that the Government have in this Clause taken power to make arrangements which will affect the collection of the Customs and Excise Duties and other matters connected with the revenue, because they say distinctly—
  "Arrangements may be made by any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom.…"
  In effect, that means that any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom may delegate to others, to Irish officials, any duties which belong under the principle of the Bill to this Parliament, and to those Departments of the Government. The words my hon. Friend quoted seemed to be a conclusive argument in favour of the acceptance by the Government of this Amendment. He quoted the fact that the Postmaster-General said that it had been clearly stated from the beginning that it was the intention of the Government practically to do what we ask them in this Amendment to make clear. Surely there are sufficient opportunities for discord and for dispute among the various details in one Clause and another of this Bill without here deliberately leaving out words that are essential to make it clear that Irish officials will never be entrusted with this delegated duty. I think there is one pitfall which the Government can avoid by accepting this Amendment. We have to consider that, without doubt, this question of Customs and Excise will be, if this Bill ever becomes an Act of Parliament, a very burning question, and a source of much discord and dispute in Ireland.
  It. seems to me the Government should welcome the opportunity of making it perfectly clear that, whereas it is a principle of the Bill that this Government undertakes all duties in connection with the collection of the revenue and matters of that kind, that there will, with people receiving applications for the payment of revenue, or people who are in various ways brought in contact with Government officials, never be any doubt in their minds
  1752
  that they are dealing with Government Departmental officials under the Executive Government, responsible to this Parliament, and not to any other Parliament. If this is not to be so, then I think you introduce another possible source and cause of grave difference in the working of this Bill after it becomes an Act of Parliament. I cannot conceive what answer the right hon. Gentleman is going to make. He has stated clearly that it is the Government's intention to carry out the purpose of this Clause precisely as if the words of the Amendment were included in it: that he has no intention of doing any thing else. I cannot see therefore what argument there can be for leaving this matter vague and indefinite, as it is in the wording of the Bill as at present. Surely there are enough things that are vague and indefinite and that will require to be threshed out and settled in the future! Many of these might, and ought to, be made perfectly clear before the Bill leaves this House, and it is a mistake deliberately to go out of the way to leave another loophole of dispute and of difference. I would just like to point out on this question that in the possible introduction of some technical principle, quite apart from the variations of the duties themselves, that there is no doubt, even if this Amendment were accepted, it would still be possible for the officials responsible to the Departments to give advantages here and there and help individual trades and industries by the remission of rates and in various other ways, which would give them advantages over either this country or one part of the country over similar industries in other parts. If this Amendment is accepted, it will be perfectly clear therefore that in matters concerning powers or duties relating to the Customs and Excise we shall have officials who are directly responsible to the Government here, and that we shall not have Irish officials, who might in the exercise of the duties delegated to them have the strongest possible reason—purely local it might be—to give every advantage they possibly could in one direction and to withhold a similar advantage in another.
  It is extremely undesirable in this question of Customs and Excise Duties—which we know is bound to be a grave source of difference between the North-East of Ulster and the rest of Ireland—that there should, in the first instance, be no official not responsible to the British Government. I admit, of course, that under this

  1753
  Clause, although these duties maybe delegated, that does not take away the final responsibility of the Government here. But these questions of Customs and Excise should have nothing to do with the administration of the officials directly responsible to the Government that is to be set up in Ireland. If you do not make this thing perfectly clear there will always be a doubt in the minds of those who will be the taxpayers in Ireland that possibly some advantages will be given in the duties that have been delegated to people who would look upon questions through coloured glasses—coloured by local considerations, prejudices, and so forth—without wishing to go into other and even more potent reasons that might influence them. On that account it seems to be clear that the Government should accept this Amendment, so that it might go, as it were, to the people over whom they propose to place this new Government, that it will have perfectly clean hands in the matter of the collection of Customs and Excise Duties; that the Government will be able to say that at any rate they have taken special precautions to insert these words into this particular Clause to make it clear, after the Bill becomes an Act, that in these matters at any rate they are keeping entire control, not only the main overriding control, but the control of the right to appoint their subordinate officials, and that these officials will be in every case directly responsible to the Government of this country and to no one else, and that there shall be no question of the delegation of these important duties.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Let me say at the outset the Government fully adheres to the statement made in these Debates which the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment quoted. There is no intention whatever to neutralise this Clause in order to transfer the appointment of Customs and Excise officers to the Irish Department or to allow the Irish Government to interfere with the regulations which relate to the Inland Revenue Acts; and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment showed very forcibly, if I may say so, and quite conclusively, that it would be wrong to do so. He told us that the officers of the Irish Government would not have any real interest to collect the revenue up to its full extent, and that if there was any slackness in collection the loss would fall, not upon the Government appointing these officers, but upon the Imperial Exchequer
  1754
  here, and he ended by saying, "It is quite clear that it would be quite impossible for this House to permit it." In that I entirely concur, and, furthermore, I would add that it is quite clear that it is impossible that any Minister here should sanction it because the loss he foresees would be one for which the Imperial Ministry under this Clause would be responsible. He would be accountable to this House for any deficiency in revenue resulting from his action, and it would obviously be impossible for this House ever to permit such a thing, and it is also inconceivable that any Minister would ever propose it to this House or do a thing for which probably this House would afterwards bring him to book. It may be said, in these circumstances, why not accept this Amendment, and make it quite clear in the Bill that such a thing is impossible. The reason is because we have in view contingencies of a very much humbler character, but still not without their importance. I will give three instances which occur to me now as possible in the future working of the Act to arise.
  Possibly the Board of Inland Revenue may desire to supplement their staff in certain districts by police officers, and they may require the police in some cases to check the removals of spirits or beer or to inspect premises upon their behalf. If the work was badly done, of course it would have to be stopped; and if there was any real danger that it would be badly done, the duty would not be conferred upon them. My second illustration is this. The Post Office at the present time issues game and gun licences, and establishment licences, and acts as agent to collect the revenue to that extent, where certain amounts may be paid over the counter in regard to particular taxes. That is going on now, and very likely it would be convenient to continue an arrangement of that kind. Here again, if there was waste or insufficiency it might be possible to report to other measures, and the responsibility would rest with the Minister here to see that the working was properly performed. But I am sure hon. Members opposite will agree if the Irish Government does not do its work badly it would not be an unreasonable thing for the Post Office, subject to proper appointment, inspection, and collection, to continue doing the work now done in the collection of these very Excise Duties. There is a third small restriction suggested to me. The Board of Customs is charged with the duty of collecting statistics of trade. It has not

  1755
  got officers at every little place and it may require local harbour officers to supplement the work of its own officers and to supply statistics relating to the incoming and outgoing of small ports.
  These are a few illustrations, but it is very likely there are other cases similar in extent and similarly small in importance, but none the less real eases which cannot now be foreseen in which there would be convenience from such a course in the future. Therefore, I suggest to the House that this Clause should not be limited, as proposed by this Amendment. With respect to the possibility of its being abused and of duties which we have clearly set out, which are not to be transferred to the Irish Government, nevertheless, being transferred, such as the collection of Customs and Excise or the control of regulations relating to duty upon articles in bond and so on, the answer which was given by the Chief Secretary and myself to the last Amendment on this subject applies here; also, namely, that for maladministrations, Ministers are subject to the control of this House, and that if such impropriety occurred the Ministers can and would be brought to book here. Therefore, in conclusion, I ask hon. Members not by this Amendment to create a real inconvenience in order to guard against what we believe and suggest to be an imaginary danger.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, has in the least allayed the anxiety of hon. Members upon this side, or that he gave any answer to what seems to be the unanswerable argument put forward by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. He has given one or two cases which possibly might occur in the future. He instanced inspection by police officers, game licences, and the collection of statistics, but, after all, this Clause leaves it open, as far as I can understand, for the whole of the Excise and Customs work, which presumably is to be done by Imperial officers to be handed over to Irish authorities. If you leave it open, and in that condition, it seems to me that all the Amendments introduced into Clauses 15 and 16, in reply to criticism from this side of the House are absolutely valueless. If you leave this Clause as it stands at the present moment, and allow the whole of the work of the Customs and Excise Departments, which are Imperial Departments, to be
  1756
  handed over to Irish authorities, you immediately set up the possibility of a protective policy on the other side of the water. Supposing this Clause comes into operation, who will the Irish officers be? The Irish officers who will look after Customs and Excise will be officers in sympathy with the Irish Executive, and they will do their best to interpret the revenue restrictions in favour of the Irish manufacturers against the British manufacturers. In fact, in the future, under this Clause, the Irish Department will be delighted to do this work of Customs and Excise of the Imperial Government for the benefit of Irish industries and manufactures.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these revenue restrictions are enormously difficult to collect, and enormously difficult to check. Not so very long ago, in 1905, a report was issued by a Departmental Committee on Industrial Alcohol, and they gave a list of the various revenue restrictions which had to be taken into account, and amongst those restrictions one finds "prohibition against brewing and distilling simultaneously; prohibition against mixing of worts during fermentation; compulsory stoppage of work between Saturday and Monday; separation of distilling and rectified premises; and the loss of duty upon spirits rectified;" and the gentlemen who drew up that report said this:—
  "From this enumeration of factors which have to be taken into account it will be obvious that anything like precise accuracy in fixing the value is unattainable."
  The Joint Exchequer Board under the Bill have to decide what these revenue restriction are to be, but they will have to base the whole of the result of their investigation upon information brought to them by the officers in charge, and if these officers are Irish officers under Clause 40 the whole of the information brought to the Joint Exchequer Board may be absolutely wrong and inaccurate as regards the true value of these various restrictions. Again in the year 1904 a Departmental Committee on tobacco drawbacks sat and reported practically exactly the same thing. They drew up a list of these restrictions and their words were these:—
  "The list does not include all that some manufacturers may have to provide for, such as agency in payment, the payment of duty, and the collection of drawbacks."
  And they went on to say—
  "To estimate precisely the average value of all these contingent charges is out of our power, nor could very definite particulars be given by members of the trade whom we consulted."

  1757
  What I should like to know is how, if this Clause takes effect, is the Imperial Government in the future going to check and supervise attempts that may be made to benefit Irish industries at the expense of British industries, and if the Imperial Government fail to check these attempts you immediately set up a protective policy in Ireland. Up till now all these revenue restrictions, as the House knows, have been in the hands of a central authority, but in the future if this Clause takes effect there will be two administrative bodies with various conditions and divergent interests, and the revenue restrictions will, of course, vary with the peculiar kind of establishment set up. To take only one instance. Supposing Clause 40 goes through in its present form it is quite conceivable that the Irish officers who will be put in charge will allow less costly, less elaborate, less suitable buildings for warehousing, for Irish manufactures, and the result will be that the Irish manufacturer will immediately have a competitive advantage over the British manufacturer. As hon. Members know, the fiscal burden on manufacturers at the present day is made up of two factors—the duty on raw material and the costly revenue restrictions on the manufacture of articles in which these buildings are included. Therefore, if the revenue officers under Clause 40 choose to relax these restrictions, you immediately give the Irish manufacturer an advantage over his competitor in this country. Again, I should like to ask if this Clause goes through, and this is my final point, how will the Imperial Government check the improper assessment of articles for duty? Because you have to remember who the duty goes through, and if the Imperial Government take advantage of this Clause the whole of these matters will be in the hands of the Irish officers in sympathy with the Irish Exchequer. Take, for instance, a bale of tobacco.
  Mr. BOOTH: "Oh!"
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Member says "Oh!" but I would remind him that this is really a business question, and I should be very glad after I have sat down if he would tell us what he thinks would be the safeguard if this Clause goes through in its present shape. Take a bale of tobacco weighing a thousand pounds and standing in an Irish warehouse. In the course of time, as always happens if it is left there for some time before assessment of duty, the moisture sinks to the
  1758
  bottom of the bale. If an Irish officer comes round, and draws his sample from a moist part, the rate of duty per pound to be paid will necessarily be less than the rate of duty upon a pound drawn from the dry part. If, therefore, duty is assessed upon the whole of that bale of Irish tobacco drawn from the moist part, it is perfectly clear that the merchant owing that bale will have protection as against the British manufacturer. The right hon. Gentleman will probably say, and did say in his speech, that the position is safeguarded by the proviso at the end of the Clause, which says, "that no such arrangements shall diminish in any respect the responsibility of the Department by which the arrangement is made." I submit that this is really no safeguard at all. In reply to a question asked, I believe, by the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) on 26th November, the Prime Minister said:—
  "In the event of such powers being handed over to the Irish Department, Irish officers dealing with these Imperial matters would be subject to the jurisdiction and disciplinary obedience of the Irish Executive, and would not be amenable to the Imperial Government."
  So that if any maladministration took place on the part of the Irish officials under Clause 30, it would be absolutely outside the power of the Imperial Government to dismiss them at all. Having once handed over the whole of this business to an Irish Department, it might be perfectly possible to withdraw the powers at very short notice, and it would be quite conceivable that the mischief would have to go on and continue for a considerable period of time before the matter could be rectified. The fact is that this Clause, like Clause 78 of the Insurance Act, can be utilised to repeal practically any provision in the Home Rule Bill, and it has merely been framed to get over difficulties created by the Government themselves owing to the indecent manner in which they are running this measure through the House of Commons. To my mind the chief objection to this Clause is not that it gives the Imperial Government power to make arrangements which under the terms of the Bill itself are after all inevitable, but that it will introduce enormous complication into the machinery of British and Irish Governments, and more serious still it leaves open the power of destroying the spirit of the Bill itself and gives the Government an opportunity—I do not say they will take advantage of it—of putting back into the Bill what they have taken out owing to the criticisms made on this

  1759
  side of the House. For these reasons I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. BIGLAND: When I listened to the Debate on the previous Amendment I received a considerable shock, and I think many other people in the country will also receive a considerable shock, when they read that it is possible under any condition that this Excise and Customs Department may be delegated from the Imperial to the Irish Government. I agree that so long as the Gentlemen who at present sit on the Treasury Bench conduct the business which falls to their lot that this wholesale transfer will not take plaec, but it must be remembered that we are now legislating for years to come, and it is quite possible that in a number of years that the entire Customs Duties will be altered.
  Let me suppose, for example, that there is an Import Duty put on foreign manufactured goods in Ireland and in this country. According to this Bill, as I read it, the Irish Parliament will have power, after we have put a 10 per cent, duty on foreign manufactured goods, to increase that to 15 per cent., and they will naturally say to the Executive of that day, "Why should you trouble to have officers here? We will collect the 5 per cent., and we will also collect the 10 per cent, for you at the same time," and in that way future Governments may be very drastically pressed to allow the collection of those duties to pass out of their hands into the hands of an Irish Parliament. I cannot express in language too strongly my desire that the present Government should prevent the possibility of that ever happening. The Postmaster-General said to-day that there are three little occasions upon which the present conditions may be used to advantage. Surely a responsible Government, knowing that more than half of the revenue of Ireland is collected through Customs and Excise, and knowing that the vast sum of millions of pounds is at stake, will not in any way allow the possibility of the loss of these paltry little sums to form a possible leakage whereby the whole system can be changed. This Amendment is a most reasonable and necessary one, because there is nothing that business men are more jealous about than the possibility of an opponent getting an advantage over them in trade. Take the case of Huntley and Palmer's, in Reading, and the case of Jacobs', in Dublin, both biscuit manufacturers. Under the Customs Regulations these
  1760
  firms receive considerable sums in the form of a rebate on the sugar they use in regard to their exports to foreign countries. If a different system of arriving at that result took place in Dublin as against London, Reading, or Glasgow, there would be jealousy as to whether other manufacturers were receiving fair conditions and treatment as compared with the manufacturers in Dublin.
  It is absolutely necessary that these regulations must be under one authority and one authority only, because if once we begin to allow anything of this kind I can conceive how Clause 40 might be made a useful adaptation to put in. Surely the Government must see that wherever the coll lection of money is part of the administrative work on that ground they must retain the control absolutely in their own hands, or otherwise these jealousies must increase. My hon. Friend has already mentioned several cases. The complications where Excise is to be allotted are enormous today and will be greater in years to come. The Irish Members have asked over and over again for special Excise regulations in regard to the growth of Irish tobacco. I, for one, would be willing to give them 9d. in the £ as against tobacco grown in the United States. But it would be impossible for us to give that rebate if the collection, allotment, and calculation of the rebate was left to people over whom our own Treasury had not entire control. The same thing would happen with regard to the sugar beet grown in Ireland. Do the Irish Members think it is fair for this country to give a rebate to farmers in Ireland who grow beet while our Imperial Exchequer should not appoint (he officers to gather all the statistics and weights and particulars on which that Excise shall be based? We roast keep these things entirely under our own control, and I appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. If they lose a few paltry thousands in the matters which the Postmaster-General has already named—three little matters, one where they might save a little in the calculation of statistics and another where a few county officials who grant licences for the use of guns and such other matters—is he going to leave not his Government but for a future Government to come to decide whether they will transfer the control of an administrative power which we say should always be kept in the hands of the Imperial Exchequer? I sincerely hope that the Government will accept this Amendment.
  Mr. AMERY: The answer to the Amendment given by the Postmaster-General was practically a demand from this House for a blank cheque in order to buy three pennyworth of pepper and salt, or a demand to use a steam hammer in order to crack a nut. Without this Clause it seems to me perfectly easy to provide for the minor matters upon which the right hon. Gentleman laid so much stress. Is it reasonable to entrust this and future Governments, which may be in a very difficult position politically, with a power to transfer the administration of Customs and Excise to an Irish Government, with all the consequences which my hon. Friends have so ably put before us? I do not wish to traverse again the ground they have covered, but I will just give one more instance of the sort of difficulty which may arise. The House knows well enough that there will be very serious difficulty from time to time in deciding what is the real result of Irish variations of Imperial taxation, whether the increase in the yield of a duty has been due to an addition to that duty by the Irish Executive or whether the duty was rising on account of good trade. When the Joint Exchequer Board consider a question of that kind they must try and get some evidence. They will go to the Excise officers and ask for specific instances to see how far good trade or the additional duty has been responsible for the additional yield. Their evidence would naturally be given so as to please their own master, the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I will put the matter on even broader constitutional grounds. I would ask what is the ultimate future which the right hon. Gentleman contemplates with regard to the finance of the United Kingdom? We have been told over and over again that this Bill is a provisional instalment of a great federal scheme in the future. Now you cannot have a federal scheme without federal finance. This Bill implies that its finance is absolutely provisional, and the ground which the right hon. Gentleman has given is that at the present moment, owing to the deficit we hear so much about, it is impossible to make a real allotment between federal and State finance. You have practically to give Ireland the yield of the Customs because, unlike England and Scotland, she cannot stand alone on her internal revenue. What is to be the future? Are we really going to have a
  1762
  federal system in the future? If so, then, when the revision of finance comes, obviously your Customs and your Excise too must be perfect; and in that case you will want to make sure that your Customs and Excise officers are the same as in the United Kingdom, bred and born in the same condition, and working under the same rule, and applying absolutely fair principles between one part of the United Kingdom and another. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman means, surely it would be disastrous to leave it in the hands of a weak and embarrassed Government to hand over that important service which you want to retain for federal purposes and hand it over temporarily to Ireland, and perhaps make your federal scheme an impossibility, and thus prevent the thing you say you want so much to bring about. The only answer the right hon. Gentleman gives is that, after all, no Minister would be foolish enough to do such a thing, because he is accountable to the House for the revenue, and it is inconceivable that any Minister would propose anything which meant bad finance. Really is it inconceivable that a Minister could introduce land taxation which costs £500,000 to collect and yields less than £40,000 a year? It might have been inconceivable once, but it is not inconceivable now. This very Bill adds £500,000 to the present Irish deficit. Is it inconceivable that proposal could have been introduced into this House? It is justified, of course, on political grounds and on grounds of high policy. Every reason that operates for the granting of this Bill, with all its confusing and inexplicable provisions, will operate again at some time for the transfer of Customs and Excise to the Irish Parliament. If we are right in our contention that the Irish Government can in fact make absolute hay of the fiscal system of the United Kingdom—if they can introduce protective duties on the sale of goods, and if they can introduce protective duties by the combination of higher Excise Duties and bounties—then you will in effect be giving the Irish Government an instalment of a protective system, and their demand subsequently to have the administration of that system placed in the hands of officers in sympathy with it will be very strongly urged by their representatives in this House. I think, so far from it being inconceivable that a Minister would yield to such a demand, there are very few Ministers in the position of right hon. Gentlemen opposite who

  1763
  would not yield. Therefore, the evil we have predicted seems to me to be not imaginary cobwebs spun out of the brains of an opposition anxious to oppose, but the natural and probable course of events
  which we are making an endeavour—I fear a vain one—to prevent.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 258.

  Division No. 511.]

  AYES.

  [7.5 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fell, Arthur

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Macmaster, Donald

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Baird, J. L.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Balcarres, Lord

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

  Fleming, Valentine

  Moore, William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Nield, Herbert

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish.

  Grant, J. A.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Beresford, Lord C.

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

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Blair, Reginald

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Boyton, James

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Quilter, Sir William Ely C.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bull, Sir William James

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Sanderson, Lancelot

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

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

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

  Campion, W. R.

  Hills, John Waller

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Stewart, Gershom

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, Major J, A. (Midlothian)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddinnton, North)

  Cator, John

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Ingleby, Hotcombe

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

  Chambers, J.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Kebty-Fleteher, J. R.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Valentia, Viscount

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kerry, Earl of

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Courthope. G. Loyd

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

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

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Younger, Sir George

  Croft, H. P.

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

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Lyttelton, Hon J. C. (Droitwich)

  S. Roberts and Mr. Bigland.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Boland, John Pius

  Clough, William

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Clynes, John R.

  Agnew, Sir George

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Alden, Percy

  Brady, P. J.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Crawshay-Wiliiams, Eliot

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Crean, Eugene

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crumley, Patrick

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Burt. Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Cullinan, J.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

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

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

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

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Carr-Gomm, H, W.

  Dawes, James Arthur

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

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

  De Forest, Baron

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Delany, William

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Dickinson, W. H.

  King, J.

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

  DoneIan, Captain A.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon, G. (Devon.s.Moltoni

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Doris, W.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Radford, G. H.

  Duffy, William J.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal West)

  Ready, M.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Leach, Charles

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Esmonde. Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thoma,

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Falconer, J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lynch, A. A.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneslde)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  McGhee, Richard

  Robinson, Sidney

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Maclean, Donald

  Roch, Walter F.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. D. T. J.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Field, William

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

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Rowlands, James

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  M'Kean, John

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Gilhooly, James

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Ginnell, L.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

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

  Glanville, Harold James

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Meagher, Michael

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

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sheehy, David

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Guiney, Patrick

  Millar, James Duncan

  Shortt, Edward

  Hackett, J.

  Molloy, M.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Molteno. Percy Alport

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Smyth, Thomas F.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Morgan, George Hay

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morrell, Philip

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morison, Hector

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Munro, R.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Murray. Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nannetti. Joseph P.

  Thomas, J. H.

  Hayward, Evan

  Nicholson. Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hazlston, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

  Norton, Captain Cecil

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Holme, Sir Norval Watson

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Wadsworth, J,

  Hommerde, Edward George

  Nuttall, Harry

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

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

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Henry. Sir Charles

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

  O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wardle, George J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hinds, John

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hobhouse. Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Wason. John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hodge, John.

  O'Grady, James

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hogge, James Myles

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

  Webb, H.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Malley, William

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow. Tradeston)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  White. Patrick (Meath. North)

  Hudson, Waiter

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Shee, James John

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Sullivan. Timothy

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Young, W. (Perth, E.)

  Joyce. Michael

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Keating, Matthew

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Kellaway, Frederick Geerge

  Pointer. Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Illingworth and Mr.

  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words—
  "The full terms and conditions of any arrangement made under this Section shall be laid forthwith before each House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and if a Resolution against the arrangement or any part, thereof is carried by either of those Houses within
  1766
  the next subsequent thirty days on which that House has sat no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new arrangement under this Section."
  This Clause has a very vague and general aspect. It appears to me to be possible under it to alter a great many of the provisions which come before it in the Bill. The whole attitude of the Government is

  1767
  the optimistic one that when Home Rule is set up all will be well, that everything will work for the best possible interests of all concerned. There are various provisions which they certainly have not explained to us and upon which no information whatsoever has been forthcoming though we have asked manifold questions. Clause 40, to my mind, alters a great many of the provisions which come before it in the Bill. There has been an Amendment with respect to Customs, endeavouring to define what the Government mean, but they seem to be under no obligation whatever to define clearly what is the real intention of the Bill. It is possible by this Clause to go back upon the decision of the House of Commons and to carry on negotiations with the Executive of the Irish Government without the cognisance either of this House of Parliament or of the House of Parliament proposed to be set up in Dublin. The intention of the Amendment of my hon. Friend is very definite. We have already been given to understand by the right hon. Gentleman (the Chief Secretary) that it is possible for one Department to make a transfer to another Department merely by a Minute. It must be obvious to all hon. Members that when it is possible for Departments to so act together without the actual cognisance of this House of Commons these transfers may be brought about by reason of political pressure or by the views of various individuals in either of the two countries, and these negotiations may be carried into effect without any Member of either of the two Houses of Parliament being able to make a Motion to the contrary or to alter them in any sense.
  I really would commend this proposition to the right hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt that when he rises in his place to reply to the Amendment he will give the usual answer that "you can trust the Irish Government." He will tell us he has such confidence in them that he cannot understand why hon. Members opposite him should not have equal confidence in their integrity, honour, and good sense. Much as I should like to be optimistic, I confess I do not feel very optimistic as to the working of this Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman would only define something by adding words which would give expression to our views I should be glad. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has no desire that any of these backdoor negotiations should go on between the
  1768
  officials of the various Departments in regard to making transfers from one Department to the other, and, therefore, I would ask him to put in these words so that this House of Commons should have the power of deciding what shall be done. In asking him to do that I am not asking him to include anything in any way detrimental to the ideas he has in view.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The objection which the Government takes to the Clause the Noble Lord has just moved is that in their view, at all events, and it is the view expressed very plainly throughout this Debate, it would really be breaking a butterfly on a wheel to lay on the Table of this House for thirty days the sort of thing which this Clause contemplates. It seems to be the view of hon. Gentlemen that what is contemplated by this Clause has been the subject of long negotiations, even before this Bill was introduced, between myself and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. I venture to think that the hon. and learned Member never heard of this Clause until he saw it in the Bill, although, indeed, it has formed the subject matter of a good deal of consideration on my part. But that consideration was entirely had with business people in relation to business problems, on the assumption that this distinction between transferred and reserved services was going to be made. If that does not take place, the thing is at an end. But if it does take place, it will be the bounden duty of authorities—grave authorities, not flippant persons like myself, but persons concerned with Customs and the Post Office, to see that there shall be means in this Bill enabling the Department in this country to employ as their agents, without parting with any authority, a Department in Ireland on the spot possessed of a staff capable of transacting these affairs. That was the sort of point in the mind of my advisers, and they must be surprised to see the enormous importance attributed to the passing of a Clause of this sort.
  The Noble Lord spoke about things being done behind Parliament Well, such things will have to be done behind two Parliaments. It may be an agreement, say, for the collection of game licences or of statistics respecting harbour dues, in order to throw light on problems connected with Customs and Excise—these are the kind of things which we have in our mind,

  1769
  and these are the kind of things for which authority is given in this Clause. There has been a good deal of talk about the word "minute," as if it had some disparaging meaning. What is in view is an agreement, and if it is an agreement involving the payment of money, that money will have to be voted in this House on the responsibility of the Minister concerned with the particular reserved service. His responsibility will remain unaffected. There will be a Minister in this the work was well done, the agreement and he will have to defend the application of public money for the purpose. He will have to explain to an eager and attentive House why it was he employed an Irish Department to do his work, and unless he can give good reason, unless he can show that the work was well done, the agreement will have to be revised and some other agreement will have to be made, thereby adding probably to the expense to the British taxpayer. It has been said that the words are wide enough to enable some Department here, it may be under a Tory or it may be under a Liberal Government, if it chooses to come to some sort of agreement with the thirty odd Irish Members that may be in this House—if it is a Tory Government they will have to rely on the Ulster Members, while if it is a Liberal Government they will rely on the Nationalist Members, although I am inclined to think that after the passing of this Bill there will be a considerable upset in this hitherto stereotyped relationship—it seems to be suggested that they may make a corrupt bargain whereby some really reserved service will be handed over to the Irish Government, anxious for some reason or other to carry out the orders of the British authorities. Drafting is always a matter of criticism. Hon. Members ask, "Why not define?" I sometimes wish draftsmen would define more than they do, but long experience has taught them to beware of attempting to say exactly what sort of thing they have in their minds. I have indicated the sort of thing which is intended here. But there may be hundreds of other examples, and if you include one by the well-known legal argument of analogy you exclude others. Therefore, the general sense of people responsible for drafting an Act of Parliament is, as far as possible, to avoid conclusive and exhaustive descriptions. I should have thought that the words were as plain as they could be. The provisions of the Bill for securing the transfer under certain conditions, and the handing over
  1770
  by agreement of certain duties to somebody in Ireland, surely indicate purely Executive acts and nothing more. It may be an important matter, like the paying of old age pensions, which involves no liability on the British taxpayer; on the contrary, it would save him a great deal of money, for there could be nothing more hopeless than the idea of duplicating all over Ireland district post offices to pay the people their pensions. It would really be a most preposterous idea. The acceptance of the words proposed by the Noble Lord would mean, by requiring these transactions to be made the subject-matter of a Resolution or to lie on the Table of the House for a period of thirty days, the breaking of a butterfly on a wheel.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am not convinced by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman that the powers proposed to be conferred are so small. If that is so, why not lay them on the Table of the House for thirty days? There would be no objection offered to them. There would be no opposition in this House. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the kind of things that were in the mind of the Government. But the kind of things in the mind of the Government when an Amendment of this sort is being discussed is not the kind of things in their mind after the Clause has been passed. We had an illustration of that in the Parliament Act, and I can remember many instances during the last seven or eight years when in discussing Motions the Government have said, "It is only a question of detail, why worry the House of Commons upon it," but their minds have changed when they have got the power to do greater things and they had forgotten all about the state of their minds when the Amendment was under consideration. A further reason is that I do not like to give a blank cheque to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, indeed, I am not at all sure I should be in favour of giving an absolutely blank cheque to my right hon. Friends on this side. I do submit it is necessary we should preserve the powers we have at the present moment and not give so many blank cheques to right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  It being half-past Seven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of the 14th October and the 30th December, 1912, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 272.
  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 Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.

  CLAUSE 46.—(Orders in Council to be Laid before Parliament.)
  (1) Any Irish Transfer Order in Council made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom within forty days next after it is made if Parliament is then sitting, or if not, within forty days after the commencement of the then next ensuing Session; and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either of these Houses within the next subsequent forty days praying that any such Order may be annulled, His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same, and the Order so annulled shall forthwith become void, but without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken under the Order.
  (2) Any Irish Transfer Order in Council made under this Act shall, subject to the foregoing provisions of this Section, have effect as if enacted in this Act.
  Government Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "forty days" ["within the next subsequent forty days"], and insert instead thereof the words "twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Order is laid before it."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes. 164.

  Division No. 512.]

  AYES.

  [7.30 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Malcolm, Ian

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Astruther-Gray, Major William

  Fleming, Valentine

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Astor, Waldorf

  Forster, Henry William

  Moore, William

  Baird, J. L.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Nield, Herbert

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Barrie, H. T.

  Gordon, Hon, John Edward (Brighton)

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

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

  Grant, J. A.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bentinck. Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Blair, Reginald

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Boyton, James

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hills, John Waller

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Sanderson, Lancelot

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

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sandys, G. J.

  Campion, W. R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cassel, Felix

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cator, John

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Chambers, J.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Terrell, George (Wilts. N.W.)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kerry, Earl of

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Croft, H. P.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

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

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  MacKinder, H. J.

  Younger, Sir George

  Fell, Arthur

  Macmaster, Donald

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Viscount

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Castlereagh and Mr. Butcher.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Alden, Percy

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Brunner, John F. L,

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

  Bryce, John Annan

  Crean, Eugene

  Arnold, Sydney

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Cullinan, J.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

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

  De Forest, Baron

  Barton, W.

  Bytes, Sir William Poilard

  Delany, William

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

  Devlin, Joseph

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon Augustine

  Clough, William

  Doris, W.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Clynes, John R.

  Duffy, William J.

  Boland, John Pius

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Leach, Charles

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, M.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Lundon, Thomas

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Falconer, J.

  Lynch, A. A,

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  McGhee, Richard

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hun. Charles

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Field, William

  Macpberson, James Ian

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Robinson, Sidney

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Roch, Walter F.

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Kean, John

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Ginnell, L.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Goldstone, Frank

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Rowlands, James

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon, Walter

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Guiney, P.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Gulland, John William

  Molloy, Michael

  Schwann, Rt. Hon.' Sir C. E.

  Hackett, John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Scott, A. MacCallum, (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Hancock, John George

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

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

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Sheeny, David

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morrell, Philip

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morison, Hector

  Shortt, Edward

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Munro, R.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Neilson, Francis

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hayward, Evan

  Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thomas, J. H.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Hinds, John

  O'Donnell, Tnomas

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hodge, John

  O'Grady, James

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Hogge, James Myles

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Malley, William

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Shee, James John

  Webb, H.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Jewett, Frederick Wiliam

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Keating, Matthew

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pointer, Joseph

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pollard, Sir George H.

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

  Kilbride, Denis

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  King, J.

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

  Young, William (Perth, East)

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

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Pringle, William M. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Radford, G. H.

  Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Division No. 513.]

  AYES.

  [7.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morison, Hector

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Munro, R.

  Agnew, Sir George William

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Alden, Percy

  Guiney, P.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Gulland, John William

  Neilson, Francis

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

  Hackett, J.

  Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Barton, W.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Grauy, James

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

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

  Boland, John Plus

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  O'Malley, William

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Henry, Sir Charles

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

  Brady, P. J.

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon, S.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shee, James John

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hinds, John

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hodge, John

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hogge, James Myles

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pearce, Wiliiam (Limehouse)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

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

  Hudson, Waiter

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pollard, Sir George H.

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

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Price, C. E (Edinburgh, Central)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Rushcliffe)

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

  Clough, William

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

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Clynes, John R.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Joyce, Michael

  Radford, G. H.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J,

  Keating, Matthew

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Reddy, M.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  King, J.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Crean, Eugene

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Leach, Charles

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  De Forest, Baron

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Delany, William

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Robinson, Sidney

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roch, Walter F.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roche. John (Galway, E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  McGhee, Richard

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Doris, W.

  Maclean, Donald

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Rowlands, James

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  M'Cailum, Sir John M.

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  M'Kean, John

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E

  Falconer, J.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Sheeny, David

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Martin, Joseph

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Shortt, Edward

  Field, William

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

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Meagher, Michael

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gilhooly, James

  Millar, James Duncan

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Ginnell, L.

  Molloy, M.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Tennant, Harold John

  Goldstone, Frank

  Morgan, George Hay

  Thomas, J. H.

  Grey. Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Horrell, Philip

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  1780

  1781

  Toulmin, Sir Georgo

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Watt, Henry A.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Wadsworth, J.

  Webb, H.

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

  Walsh, J. (Cork. South)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Wardle, George J.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Wedgwood Beun and Mr. W. Jones.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Wiles, Thomas

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Moore, William

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mount, William Arthur

  Baird, J. L.

  Forster, Henry William

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Nield, Herbert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Barrie, H. T.

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Grant, J. A.

  Peel, Captain R. F.

  Benn. Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bentinck. Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawiinson, John Frederick Peel

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Boyton, James

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hills, John Waller

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hoare. Samuel John Gumey

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sandys, G. J

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

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Campion. W. R.

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cassel, Felix

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Cator, John

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Steel-Maitlaad, A. D.

  Cautley, H. S.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stewart, Gcrshom

  Cave, George

  Jessel. Captain H. M.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kebty-Fleteher, J. R.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Chambers, J.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

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

  Crichton-Stuart Lord Ninian

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

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

  Croft, H. P.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. McGeagh

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Macmaster, Donald

  Younger, Sir George

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Malcolm, Ian

  Hohler and Mr. Fred Hall.

  Fell, Arthur

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  CLAUSE 42.—(Exemption of Freemasons from Acts Relating to Unlawful Oaths or Assemblies.)
  It is hereby declared that existing enactments relative to unlawful oaths or unlawful assemblies in Ireland do not apply to the meetings or proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of

  1775
  Ireland, or of any lodge or society recognised by that Grand Lodge.
  Government Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add:—
  "(2) The Irish Parliament shall not have power to abrogate or affect prejudicially any privilege or exemption of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons in Ireland, or any lodge or society recognised by that Grand Lodge which is enjoyed either by law or custom at the time of the passing of this Act, and any law made in contravention of this provision shall, so far as it is in contravention of this provision, be void."—[Mr. Birrell.]

  CLAUSE 43.—(First Meeting of Irish Parliament and First Election of Reduced Number of Irish Members.)
  (1) Upon the first meeting of the Irish Parliament, the Members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom and then sitting in that Parliament shall vacate their seats, and writs shall, as soon as conveniently may be, be issued by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for the purpose of holding an election of Members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the constituencies mentioned in the Second Part of the First Schedule to this Act.
  (2) All existing election laws relating to the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Members thereof shall, so far as applicable and subject to the provisions of this Act, and especially to any provision enabling the Irish Parliament to alter those laws as respects the Irish House of Commons, extend to the Irish Senate and the Irish House of Commons and the Members thereof.
  His Majesty may by Order in Council make such provisions as may appear to him necessary or proper for making any provisions of the election laws applicable to elections of members of the Irish Senate and the Irish House of Commons.
  Government Amendment made: At end of Sub-section (2), add the words:
  "and also frame regulations prescribing the method of voting at an election of members of the Irish House of Commons which is held on the principle of proportional representation and of transferring and counting votes at such an election.—[Mr. Birrell.]

  CLAUSE 44.—(Temporary Provision as to Payments Into and Out of the Irish Exchequer.)
  (1) Pending the determination of the Transferred Sum by the Joint Exchequer
  1776
  Board, the Treasury may make such payments on account of that sum into the Irish Exchequer as the Joint Exchequer Board may direct.
  (2) The Joint Exchequer Board may authorise the Lord Lieutenant to make such payments from the Irish Exchequer as may be necessary in order to provide for bringing this Act into operation, but no such authority shall be given after the expiration of a period of three months from the first meeting of the Irish Parliament.
  Government Amendment made: In Subsection (1), after the word "Board" ["by the Joint Exchequer Board"], insert the words "for the first year in which the Transferred Sum is to be paid."—[Mr. Birrell.]

  CLAUSE 45.—(Power to Make Adaptations, etc. by Order in Council.)
  His Majesty may by Orders in Council (in this Act referred to as Irish Transfer Orders) make such regulations as seem necessary or proper for setting in motion the Irish Parliament and Government, and also for any other matter for which it seems to His Majesty necessary or proper to make provision for the purpose of bringing this Act into full operation or for giving full effect to any provisions of this Act or to any future transfer under or by-virtue of this Act of a reserved service; and in particular His Majesty may by any such Order in Council—

  (a) make such adaptations of any enactments so far as they relate to Ireland as may appear to him necessary or proper in order to give effect to the provisions of this Act, and also make any adaptations of any enactments so far as they relate to England or Scotland, as may appear to him necessary or proper as a consequence of any change effected by the provisions of this Act; and

  (b) make such adaptation of any enactments as appear to him necessary or proper with respect to the execution of the reserved services, and in particular provide for the exercise or performance of any powers or duties in connection with those services by any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom or officer of that Government where any such powers or duties are, under any existing Act, to be exercised or performed by any Department in Ireland which will cease to exist as a

  1777
  Department of the Government of the United Kingdom; and

  (c) make regulations with respect to the relations of the Irish and British Post Offices, and in particular may provide for an apportionment of the capital liabilities of the Post Office between the Irish Exchequer and the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, for the execution of postal services by the one Post Office at the request of and on behalf of the other, and for the terms and conditions under which the services are to be so executed, for facilities being given in connection with any such postal services at the request of one Post Office by the other, for requiring the sanction of the British Post Office for the grant of any licence by the Irish Post Office for wireless telegraphy stations for internal communications in Ireland, and for the reservation of power to His Majesty by Order in Council to transfer in time of war or national emergency the powers or duties of the Irish Post Office to the British Post Office, or to the naval or military authorities of the United Kingdom; and

  (d) on any transfer under this Act of the public services in connection with the administration of the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 and 1911, make provision for securing the payment of an old age pension to any person who is entitled to the payment of such a pension at the time of the transfer, while he continues so entitled; and

  (e) on the transfer under this Act of public services in connection with Post Office Savings Banks, or Trustee Savings Banks, make provisions for giving a depositor in any transferred Post Office Savings Bank the right to repayment of any sums due to him in respect of his deposits at the time of the transfer, and for giving the trustees of any Trustee Savings Bank in Ireland the right to close their bank and to require repayment of all sums due to them from the National Debt Commissioners, and for securing to the holder of any annuity or policy of insurance granted before the date of the transfer by a Post Office or Trustee Savings Bank the payment
  1778
  of the annuity or of any sums due under the policy; and

  (f) make provision with respect to the transfer and apportionment of any property, rights, and liabilities in connection with Irish services; and

  (g) provide, in cases where the same Act deals with reserved matters and with other matters, for specifying the matters dealt with by the Act which are to be treated in accordance with this Act as reserved matters.

  Government Amendment made: In paragraph (f), after the word "services" ["in connection with Irish services"], insert the words—
  "and for the proper reductions being made in the payment of the Transferred Sum for the first year in which it is paid in respect of any part of that year during which any Irish service is not executed by the Irish Government."—[Mr. Birrell.]

  CLAUSE 47.—(Appointed Day.)
  "The appointed day for the purposes of this Act shall be the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this Act is passed, or such other day not more than seven months earlier or later, as may be fixed by Order of His Majesty in Council either generally or with reference to any particular provision of this Act, and different days may be appointed for different
  1782
  purposes and different provisions of this Act."
  Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words, "This Act shall, except as expressly provided, come into operation on the appointed day and"
  We owe these words to the assiduity and clear-headedness of the hon. and learned

  1783
  Gentleman (Mr. Cassel) who, all through this Bill has displayed, not only knowledge of it, but also a critical faculty, sometimes disagreeable and sometimes the reverse. He pointed out that there was running through this measure a contrast between those things which will happen when the Act passes and those which will happen on the arrival of the appointed day, and as we already have looming in the distance what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) calls the "happy day," it was desirable that we should, as between the appointed day and the day of the passing of the Act, make the measure as clear and distinct as we possibly could. I, therefore, propose to insert these words. I have to put in the words, "as expressly provided," because there are Clauses in the Bill under which certain things happen on the passing of the Act, and, therefore, as expressly provided. I think now we really have the matter, so far as language goes, cleared up, so that everyone who runs may read; but it is worth while calling the attention of the House to the Clause as it will stand, when both these words are inserted and also certain other words which are proposed to be added at the end of the Clause. The Clause as then amended at the beginning and at the end will read as follows—
  "This Act shall, except as expressly provided, come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day for the purposes of this Act shall be the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this Act is passed, or such other day, not more than seven months earlier or later, as may be fixed by order of His Majesty in Council, either generally or with reference to any particular provision of the Act, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act."
  And here we come to a thing which marks the final terminus, so that there is to be an end of doubts as to what that day is to be—
  "but the Irish Parliament shall be summoned to meet not later than four months after the said Tuesday, and the appointed day for holding elections for the Irish Senate and Irish House of Commons shall be fixed accordingly."
  That was to meet another objection, forcibly urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that there might be a very long period during which there would be an Executive, and there would be no Parlia-
  1784
  ment to whom that Executive would be responsible. We have therefore now, I think, done what is right in that matter. There is, I notice, an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), which raises another point which, I quite agree, may have to be debated. He docs not object, I gather, to my Amendment at the beginning, but he would stop at the word "passed," so that it would read:—
  "This Act shall, except as expressly provided, come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day shall be the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this Act is passed."
  He would omit the final words, which allow a time not more than seven months, earlier or later, and that different days should be appointed for different purposes. Of course, it is really essential for the proper working of any such Constitution as this that different days should be allowed for the coming into operation of the different powers conferred by this Act.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the provisions which will necessarily come into operation on the passing of the Act?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think they are very clearly stated Clause by Clause in the Bill. I do not think I can advantageously state them now.
  Mr. CASSEL: I wish to make certain criticisms which, I hope, will prove agreeable. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought he had cleared everything up. I think he has very much improved the Bill, but there are certain points which I do not think have been cleared up. There are cases where the passing of the Act is still mentioned where it really does not work out properly. The first instance I should like to take is that there is now absolutely no provision in the Bill for the judges either of the Supreme Court or the County-Court or any Irish Civil servants who are appointed between the passing of the Act and the appointed day. May I tell the right hon. Gentleman why I think so?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think that is so.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. CASSEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that judges who are actually holding their offices when the Act passes are to be in a different position from those appointed under the authority of the

  1785
  Imperial Parliament during the interval between the passing of the Act and the appointed day? That interval may be anything from one month to fifteen months. The period provided by the Bill is eight months, but it may be extended by seven months, or it may be reduced by seven months. Any judges, whether of the Supreme Court or the County Court, and any Civil servant in the Irish service, appointed in that period while the Imperial Parliament has still control, has absolutely no provision made for him in this Bill. What reason is there for this distinction? I thought it was an overlook until the right hon. Gentleman got up and told us that it was not. That is an amazing statement. A judge who happens to be on the bench when the Act passes is to have certain rights. He is to have his salary paid from the Consolidated Fund, and he is not to be removed except by an Address from both Houses of Parliament. But a new judge who is appointed under the auspices of the Imperial Parliament during these fifteen months, or whatever the period may be after the passing of the Act and the appointed day is not to be in the same position.
  Mr. BIRRELL: A new judge when the Act comes into operation comes under the conditions applicable to his appointment. Though for purposes of administration we may change the appointed day, the Act, as a matter of fact, comes into operation on the day it is passed.
  Mr. CASSEL: I should think that this House ought to see that proper provision is made for all the judges and officers who are appointed during the time this House has control over the affairs of Ireland. This House is to have control for a certain limited period, even after the Act passes, and if, under the auspices of the Imperial Executive, officers are appointed during that period, this House surely cannot say in regard to them that it is a matter of indifference. Surely Civil servants appointed under the auspices of the Imperial Parliament should have the same rights as to pensions, superannuation, and allowances, as those who have been appointed the day before the Act was passed. [An HON. MEMBER: "They take the position with their eyes open." The hon. Member opposite no doubt will have an opportunity of speaking. I should have thought that in the cases referred to this Parliament would have felt it to be its duty to see
  1786
  that they were properly treated. I agree that from the moment the Irish Parliament and Irish Executive take over the responsibilities of government Civil servants will take service in Ireland with their eyes open. But officers appointed while the Imperial Parliament has still control, look to this Parliament to protect them in their position when any change takes place. If any doubt were felt upon that question, I think it is set at rest by the definition given in Clause 48, which says:—
  "The expression 'existing' means existing at the passing of this Act."
  Clause 32, Sub-section (3), says:—
  "If any of the said judges or officers retires from office with His Maajesty's approbation before completion of the period of service entitling him to a pension, His Majesty may, if he thinks fit, after considering any representation that may be made by the Irish Government, grant to him such pension, not exceeding the pension to which he would on that completion have been entitled, as His Majesty thinks proper."
  I must say that when I rose to make these observations I expected the right hon. Gentleman would get up and say that this was an oversight. I really can hardly think that he means judges and all Civil servants appointed during the period between the passing of the Act and the appointed day, which, under the Bill, will be eight-months, but which may by Order in Council be extended or diminished, are to be absolutely left without any provision whatever when a change takes place in their position. I think that is a provision which ought to be carefully considered. It is not too late even now to amend the provisions of the Bill in this respect, for although under the guillotine the Clauses mentioned have been passed, the Government could still put into Clause 48 something to protect these people. I am sure that many hon. Members, when they realise the nature of the provisions, would wish to have some safeguard put in for the officers in that position.
  Let me refer to another point. Under the Bill as drawn, if the Franchise Bill passes into law later than the Home Rule Bill—I am merely making an assumption for the sake of argument, and I hope no one will take it that it is an expectation—it would not apply to Ireland unless this House, having given Home Rule, chose almost by its first act to exercise the over-

  1787
  riding power of the Imperial Parliament conferred by Clause 1. That is the only way in which the Franchise Bill could be made applicable to Ireland. Assuming that the Franchise Bill became law after the Home Rule Bill, I do not know whether the Government intend that it should apply to Ireland. When there was a discussion about giving votes to women under the Home Rule Bill we were told that it was a matter that ought to be dealt with in the Franchise Bill. But the probability is that if both Bills pass, the Franchise Bill will pass later than the Home Rule Bill. Assuming that it passes at a later date, you must then refer to Clause 43, Sub-section (2), which says:—
  "All existing election laws relating to the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Members thereof shall, so far as applicable and subject to the provisions of this Act, and especially to any provision enabling the Irish Parliament to alter those laws as respects the Irish House of Commons, extend to the Irish Senate and the Irish House of Commons and the Members thereof."
  Then in Section 48 you have the definition which I have already quoted. If you make the Franchise Bill applicable to Ireland by the exercise of the special overriding power in Clause 1 of this Bill, that seems to me entirely inconsistent with what the Government said on the subject of giving women the vote in Ireland. I do not see how we can make the Franchise Bill applicable to Ireland unless it is passed before the Home Rule Bill, except under Section 1 of this Bill, in which case almost your very first act, after you have granted this Constitution, would be to override it under the extraordinary power which you yourselves say is only to be exercised in circumstances of special difficulty.
  The third point is in regard to Clause 14, which says that after the passing of this Act there shall be an Irish Exchequer and an Irish Consolidated Fund separate from those of the United Kingdom. The setting up of the Irish Exchequer would, I suppose, take place within eight months of the passing of the Act, unless there was an Order to set it up earlier or later. I am going to assume that it is set up on the first Tuesday of the eighth month after the passing of the Act. I suppose you could hardly begin to pay the Transferred
  1788
  Sum into the Irish Exchequer until you have set up that Exchequer. Clause 14, Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), says:—
  "Such sum as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board established under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Exchequer Board) to represent the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the time of the passing of this Act of Irish services."
  Therefore, you have here fixed that the Transferred Sum is to be ascertained with reference to the state of things existing at the time of the passing of the Act. For instance, if you wanted to know how much was to be allowed to the Local Government Board, how much for education, or how much in respect of Grants-in-Aid, that would have to be determined in reference to the condition of affairs existing at the passing of the Act. But the Irish services are not taken over, on the assumption I was making that there was no special Order in Council, until eight months later, when the cost may be entirely different and may be very much greater than at the passing of the Act. Many things may happen meantime. Teachers' salaries may increase automatically to a very considerable extent or they may increase by special Grant under this new scheme of which we have heard from the Lord Chancellor. The one thing definitely stated about that scheme was that it was to be colossal. Assuming that that colossal scheme came into operation in the eight months' interval when the Irish Government took over education, the extra cost might be added on to the expenditure not allowed for in the Transferred Sum. It is almost inconceivable that during the eight months there should not be some increase. So you start the Irish Government on their career of managing these various services by giving them less than the Imperial Government is actually expending upon these services. For the period between the passing of the Act and the end of the eight months the Irish Government have no responsibility. The responsibility is with the Imperial Government, and if the expenditure is increased during that interval the responsibility of the Imperial Government would, as the Clause now stands, operate to the detriment of the Irish Government.
  Suppose that some new scheme of education was brought into operation which involved a normal increase of £150.000 expenditure during those eight months, then what the Irish Government gets in the Transferred Sum is not the actual cost, but

  1789
  the actual cost less £150,000. I do not know that they will have any of the reductions which they spoke about before this Bill was brought in. They always said they would make reductions in the expenditure. Now, so far as I can see, the only way they can make up this amount is by a duty on tea or beer or spirits, which would at once set up the separate Custom Houses within the different parts of the United Kingdom to which we have so strong an aversion. It would seem to me to bring it almost automatically into operation, assuming, as we are now bound to do, that reductions in expenditure cannot be made by the Irish Parliament. That is a real difficulty which the Government ought to face. It is perfectly easy for them to provide that the Transferred Sum instead of being ascertained on the passing of the Act should be ascertained as on the date when the Irish Government takes over the service. The natural and obvious time to fix is the date when responsibility passes from the Imperial Government to the Irish Government. You have here the same lacuna which you left with regard to Civil servants. That lacuna might be a very serious matter indeed and very seriously affect the finances of Ireland. Of course it might not. It might be that during those months nothing would be added, but it is an absolutely wrong and unsound principle to leave that lacuna. The right hon. Gentleman ought to take steps even at this late day to put right a matter which is so obviously defective. I have tried as well as I could to make out what would be the first year for beginning the Transferred Sum, but I am quite unable to do so. Perhaps the Attorney-General will give me some enlightenment. I do not know whether the first year is regarded as one which under the provisions of I he Bill would be fixed by Order in Council as that from which the Transferred Sum would commence. I am not sure that the Clause definitely says it commences from the passing of the Act. The fact that you fix the ascertainment of the sum from the passing of the Act rather leads to that inference.
  At the same time it is not easy to know what is the period from which the first year is to run, because that also is of importance in connection with two Amendments in the Bill which were made to-day under the guillotine without our being allowed to say a single word upon it. It only illustrates what a scandal the guillotine is that these two Amendments were made without anyone being allowed to say
  1790
  a word upon them. They were made to Clauses 44 and 45, which affect the particular point. In Clause 41 we have inserted the words—
  "for the first year in which the Transferred Sum is to be paid."
  I should like very much to have had an opportunity of discussing what was the first year, because that is the first year in which the sum of half a million is paid. Then we added at the end of paragraph (f) of Clause 45—
  "and for the proper reductions being made in the payment of the Transferred Sum for the first year in which it is paid in respect of any part of that year during which any Irish service is not executed by the Irish Government."
  There again, I am not at all certain that I know over what period the Government intends this provision to operate. There is another point in reference to Clause 4. It seems to me that Clause 4 would now come into operation on such day as the Government by Order in Council appoint. That means that the time when the Executive is to be brought into existence rests entirely in the hands of the Government of the period. This seems to me to be a ease where Parliament and the Executive should be brought into existence at the same time. In the Bill as it stands, with the Amendments in it, there may be a period of eleven months during which there is an Irish Executive and before the Irish Parliament meets. The Lord Lieutenant then institutes the Irish Parliament and appoints the Irish Ministers, and those may continue eleven months before the Irish Parliament meets. But assuming even that it is only six months you have this, that the Government here would practically be bound to go to the Nationalist Executive in the first instance. Even if you have the period of six months, during that time the Nationalists will have an opportunity of forming all the Government Departments, and of making all the appointments in Ireland before the Unionists have even a chance of having any voice in the matter. It is quite true when Parliament begins to sit they will have an opportunity of controlling the Executive, but it is these six months which are so important, and during which all the most important appointments will be made. It will be extremely difficult for the Irish Parliament, when it does meet, to upset and cancel everything which may

  1791
  have been done by the Nationalist Executive during that period. I do not put it longer than six months, because I assume that they will not have separate officers, some of whom might have served five months each.
  What I would like to impress upon the Government is that if ever there was a case this is one where the Executive ought to be brought into existence at the same time as the Parliament, not long before, and unless you do that the Government will unquestionably give to the Nationalists, who would still have their 103 Members in this House, an opportunity to form the whole scheme of Government in Ireland without a single Unionist having a chance to say anything about it, and when Parliament met the Unionists might possibly have a very small minority of representatives. These, of course, are all assumptions which I make for sake of my argument, that they will not have any voice at all cither as regards appointments or the control of Executive action. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give me an explanation on these points, which I will enumerate again. The first is with regard to the appointing of Civil servants; the second is as to the Franchise Bill; the third point is as to Clause 14, and the lacuna between the passing of the Act and the period when the Irish services are taken over; and the last point is with reference to the power which is given to the Nationalist Executive to control the destinies of Ireland for a considerable period before any Irish Parliament can meet.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: There are one or two points on which I should like some further enlightenment from the Attorney-General before he answers the questions which have been put to him. In the first instance, I take it that there will be a radical change in the Act in consequence of this Amendment. As the Bill at present stands. I understand that the Executive will come into operation immediately on the passing of this Act; the Irish Exchequer will come into operation immediately on the passing of the Act; and the arrangement as to the Transferred Sums and the determination of the first Irish financial year will come into operation immediately on the passing of this Act. But now the Government seek power to fix different dates for these different operations of the Executive Government. I think that is so, though I am not quite
  1792
  sure. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make that point quite clear, because I think this Amendment is rather wide and more sweeping than might be inferred from reading its terms in the first instance. I also wish to ask him whether I am right in my chronology, which I have jotted down. Assume that the passing of this Act is delayed as far as possible in another place, and the Crown gives assent, the latest date I take it will be May, 1914; and am I right in saying that the earliest date of operation, after the passing of the Act, will be June, 1914?
  The mean date of operation, that is the contemplated date, will be January, 1915, and the last date of the operation of any or some part of the Act would be August, 1915, but that the last date of the coming into existence of the Irish Parliament would be May, 1915. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether my rough chronology is right. I want to call attention to one other matter, that is the operation of this Amendment in connection with Clause 45, which is passed. The assent of His Majesty's Government may be by Order in Council "to make such regulations," etc, "for various purposes," some of them of the first importance. As the Bill stands at present that power to make Orders in Council for the various purposes enumerated, would exist from the moment of the passing of the Act, but under this Amendment those Orders could not be made until after the appointed day, or one of the appointed days at any rate. That seems to have a retrospective action on Clause 45. I am told that the Government will first have to appoint a day for the purpose of Clause. 45, and then Clause 45 will come into operation—which makes a great difference. This Amendment really presents the Bill to us in different sequences, indifferent chronology, and, in some respects, a different aspect, for no one can tell what events may happen between now and May, 1914. The reply of the Government on these points must be of great interest, and of great importance to anyone who has considered these matters.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the Attorney-General mind dealing with these two questions'! The Member for Sheffield asked the Chief Secretary for this information, but the right hon. Gentleman smilingly put the matter aside. Perhaps the Attorney-General may be inclined to give us the information, which would be very convenient to Members of the House,

  1793
  who wish to know the different dates appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act. No doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the facts at his fingers' ends, and it will be no trouble to him to give the dates, which would greatly help in following his speech, and assist hon. Members in their reply. There is another matter on which I shall be grateful for information. In the Third Schedule certain conditions are given referring to existing Irish officers, and stating what compensation and other benefits they are entitled to if they retire or are removed from office under certain specified conditions. I should like to ask the Attorney-General to say how, in respect of this particular provision, these officers will be situated who are appointed between the passing of the Act and the appointed day, and when they are left, like Mahomet's coffin, suspended between heaven and the other place. It will be very interesting to have that information on these two points, and I hope the Attorney-General will be good enough to give us a reply.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The points raised by the various speakers do not seem to me to present any great difficulty, although it may be that the result may not be quite satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The position is this: Those who are appointed, those who are existing judges or servants, those who are in occupation of their office at the date of the passing of this Act, are protected in all respects by the various Clauses. Those, on the other hand, who are appointed for certain purposes after the appointed day hold under another tenure. The point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman was as to those who may be appointed in the interval. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary says, those who are appointed then are not appointed without knowing the circumstances under which they are appointed. I can quite see that during this interval which must elapse before the Bill comes into full operation there may be a good many offices which may not be filled; but, on the other hand, some will be, and it will be for the Irish Parliament to say whether or not it will confirm what has happened with regard to persons who are appointed and in all respects have to be dealt with by the Irish Ministry in the Irish Parliament. It would not be possible for this House to say that all those who are appointed in the interval should
  1794
  be treated as if they had been appointed by the Irish Parliament or as existing officers. That would be quite wrong. Really what it comes to is this, that during this period of interval the appointment will not be of the same character as if it had been made before the passing of the Act or after the appointed day. Every person who is appointed will know perfectly well the circumstances of his appointment, and it would be quite wrong to say, as the hon. and learned Gentleman did say with an inaccuracy which certainly I am not accustomed to from him, that those gentlemen would be left; they would not; they never existed in the meaning of the Bill because they were not in existence as judges at the time of the passing of the Act.
  I could understand the complaint if the judge had been an existing judge, and then, in consequence of the Bill coming into operation at a later day, if the judge would lose a tenure otherwise given. That does not exist, and everybody agrees that it does not, and that all protection is given with regard to those judges—[Mr. CASSEL made some observations which were inaudible] Supposing it were, it would not affect the position as to the security of his tenure at all. In the other case it must be absolutely determined by the Irish Parliament, because you are not dealing with a judge who is in existence at the time of the passing of the Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to deal with another point—that is, with regard to franchise. He did not deal with it at any length, but assumed a certain state of facts, quite fairly. I cannot conceive that there would be any difficulty in dealing with that state of facts if they arose. I do not think that is a point which need be seriously met. There would be, and I think there must be, means of dealing with that kind of thing if it ever arose. The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded from that to argue about Clause 44, and to reopen an old controversy by asking how are you to ascertain what is the cost of a service at the time of the passing of the Act if you have to do it some months afterwards. Surely there is no difficulty in ascertaining what the cost is by reference to a past period. The Joint Exchequer Board can do it. I do not attempt to dictate to any future Government as to what it should do, but I should think one of the first things would be to create the Joint Exchequer Board.
  Mr. CASSEL: You cannot create the Joint Exchequer Board until you get the Irish Treasury.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: You must first of all have your Irish Treasury to select your Irish members from it to act on the Joint Exchequer Board, and the very first thing to do is to set to work to get the Joint Exchequer Board.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: That would be in the second month.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It may be in the month which elapses immediately after the passing of the Act. Suppose your Bill is passed in January. Then there is the first Tuesday in the eighth month after January, and you may by Order in Council either ante-date or post-date by seven months, and that would take you back to one month after the passing of the Act. The House will remember that you bring the Act into operation for different purposes at different times, and you make your Orders in Council at different dates, all of which is absolutely necessary in order to bring a great Bill like this into operation. An hon. Gentleman opposite says that is rather a curious provision. I am rather surprised at him saying that. If he had sat opposite in 1902 he would not have said it. There are a number of provisions in which this kind of Clause is introduced for the purpose of bringing your Act into operation piecemeal. When you have done what is necessary in that respect, all that you have to do is to set up your Joint Exchequer Board, which sets to work under the various Clauses to do what is necessary in order to bring the Act into working operation. There is no difficulty in regard to them assuming that you once get your Joint Exchequer Board set up. The hon. and learned Gentleman said you want an Irish Treasury to do so. No doubt you do. There will be an Irish Department, or officers by whatever name they may be called, for the time being entrusted with Irish affairs. It is not necessary you should call him Chancellor of the Exchequer, but you must have somebody no doubt who is entrusted with the administration of finance, and from the Treasury thus created you can get two persons who are to be the representatives of Ireland on the Joint Exchequer Board.
  Mr. CASSEL: My point was that you are ascertaining the sum at a date different from that on which the responsibility is taken over.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is the point I thought I had dealt with, and the hon. Gentleman said that he was not raising it.
  Mr. CASSEL: There is no difficulty in ascertaining the amount.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: You are able to ascertain it without any difficulty, even though you have to ascertain it at a later date. You have to ascertain it as from the time of the passing of the Act. You know the date at which the Act passes, and it may be six months later that you set to work to ascertain the cost. It may be that there has been some increase of expenditure, but you can still ascertain what the cost was at the time of the passing of the Act. I pass from that to the last point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to Clause 4. There, too, he raised a difficulty which does not appear to me to be so insuperable as he seems to think. You have power purposely given to proceed by Orders in Council. There is power, if necessary—it is not for me to say whether or not it will be exercised, but there is certainly power to have an election before the first meeting of the Irish Parliament. An Order in Council might be moved immediately after the passing of the Act providing that there should be an election of Irish representatives to Parliament. If this took place you might have an early meeting of the Parliament, the Speaker elected, and all the paraphernalia of Parliament set up. No doubt you would have a Ministry selected from the majority of those who had been returned at the election, and you would have also the various Departments set up. All these are matters which would follow once you had taken that course. I am not saying that that is the only course. I remember the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell) saying at one time in this discussion that I had stated two quite inconsistent propositions.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: You were not surprised at that.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I was not surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's saying it. But there is nothing inconsistent in them. The propositions were that the Lord Lieutenant might create a Ministry without a Parliament, and that the Lord Lieutenant might think it desirable to have an election and then select his Ministers. Those two propositions are by

  1797
  no means inconsistent. They are alternative plans open to the Lord Lieutenant. The only difficulty would be in determining which would be the better of the two, or which would be the best of several plans which suggested themselves to him. The only other point was one raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield. It is quite right to say that in the absence of any Order in Council you may have the Bill in operation on the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the Bill passes.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: That, according to current political assumption, would be January, 1915.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is a very easy calculation, once you make up your mind as to the date from which you will start.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I ought rather to say, according to your political assumption.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: My political assumption is not worth discussing, but for the purpose of arguing this Bill we must assume that it will have its normal course, that it will go to another place, be considered, and, presumably, in accordance with the views of the majority, pass its Second Reading. But I do not want to discuss these questions. I am dealing now only with the point of time raised by the hon. Gentleman. I agree that there was a considerable amount of doubt until we had some criticisms from hon. Members opposite, and from Members on this side, which led to an alteration in the Bill. But there cannot be any doubt about it now. It is as plain as drafting can make it. That there is no difficulty has been proved by the fact that no one has been in any doubt in their calculations. Every hon. Gentleman who has done it has, in my opinion, done it rightly. Therefore it is not necessary for me to discuss the point at any length. But I did not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's point about Clause 45. The Interpretation Act, 1889, contains a general Section under which there is power to exercise all these functions, and you can pass Orders in Council notwithstanding that the Bill has not come into operation.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Would that be so in the face of this Amendment?
  "This Act shall, except as expressly provided, come into operation on the appointed day."
  1798
  It is not expressly provided that Clause 45 shall come into operation on the appointed day; therefore, my submission is that you will have to take an appointed day before you can get Clause 45 going.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think that is so, for the reason I have given. You have the Interpretation Act, Section 37 of which provides:—
  "Where an Act passed after the commencement of this Act is not to come into operation immediately on the passing thereof, and confers powers to make any appointment, to make, grant, or issue any instrument—that is to say, any Order in Council, warrant, scheme…that power may, unless the contrary intention appears, be exercised at any time after the passing of the Act, so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation…"
  That is a Section which has to be used in almost every Act of any magnitude. These words are not novel. There are certain provisions which do not come into operation on the appointed day at all. There are a majority, on the other hand, that come into operation only upon the appointed day. There is no difficulty under Clause 45 in passing Orders in Council to bring some portions of the Act into operation. You must not go in conflict with the specific words of any particular Clause, but there is nothing to prevent Orders in Council being made in pursuance of Clause 45 under the Interpretation Act, 1889.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I quite agree that the Clause, amended as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, will be in much less confusion than it was in the original shape. At the same time I cannot for the life of me understand—and this is the point on which we have asked for information, and on which the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General is absolutely silent—why was it thought necessary, when the Government took the trouble of amendment, they should have left any interregnum at all. What we pointed out—and the only answer to that was the reiteration of it—that the Government do create difficulty and confusion even yet by having an appointed day different in certain cases from the date of the passing of the Act. What we asked an explanation of was, why, when you were amending Clause 47 you did not amend previous provisions of the Bill which prescribe that certain things

  1799
  are to take place on the date of the passing of the Act, and which could just as well and more conveniently have been amended so as to make them fit in with the appointed day. The right hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-General, so far from telling us why this was done simply informed us that it was done, and that so said the Bill. He says it is quite true as regards the judges and Civil servants that there is an interregnum, which may be an interregnum of fifteen months. That, he says is in the Bill, and he says that you must always have an interregnum. Why? Would it not have been consistent with the symmetry of this very Clause which we are now discussing, and with the symmetry of the Amendment, to have altered the reference to the passing of the Act in those Clauses which deal with the Civil servants? That is the first question on which we have got no assistance, and it certainly is not solved by telling us that the Bill as at present stands would leave an interregnum. It is because of that that we wanted some explanation.
  What is going to happen with regard to the Civil servants? Take the judges first. The Chief Secretary said that they would take their new tenure and their new masters with their eyes open, and they know well what they are doing. As regards them, to some extent I admit they are protected by Clause 27, which provides that if appointed after the date of the passing of the Act they are to be removable only by an Address of both Houses of the Irish Parliament. Here again I ask why; from what conceivable reason, either in logic or principle, was this Clause not altered? Why was not the power of appointing the judges retained, as it is at present, up to the appointed day? Why, when you altered a great many other Sections, and changed the words to the passing of the Act—
  Sir RUFUS ISAACSwas understood to make a reference to Clauses 27 and 32 and to an alteration outlined by the Prime Minister.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: That is exactly the point I want to make. Why, if you altered Clause 27, did you not alter Clause 32? You cannot have it both ways. If it was right—and I think it was right—to alter the provision in Clause 27 from the passing of the Act to the appointed day, have you not done the same thing in Clause 32? Why are the judges who are
  1800
  appointed by you in the same way as hereafter between the date of the passing of the Act and the appointed day to have different rights as regards their future than those who are appointed prior to the date of the passing of the Act? I believe myself it is an omission—an oversight. The right hon. Gentleman must see that the point is a good one, and that it is right. At present nonsense is made of that part of the Bill. Take the case of the Civil servant. That is a much more serious matter, and for this reason: you make no provision whatever of any sort, kind, or description either as to the present status or the future status of the Civil servant who may be appointed between the date of the passing of the Act and the appointed day. You have made provision for the judges, but none for the Civil servants who get their appointments between the date of the passing of the Act and the appointed day. It is no answer on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to say, "Yes, that is what we have done." We know you have done that. We want to know why. What is the position in which you have placed these men whom you may select to fill Civil servants' positions for the period covered—perhaps fifteen months? They have no right whatever. They are not to be your officers. They are to be taken over after the appointed day arrives, and if they are then taken over there is no provision for their rights. Let me take a specific case, one that may occur between the date of the passing of the Act and the appointed day. You perhaps appoint a high Civil servant, the Secretary of the Post Office, or the Chairman of the Prisons Board. What is his status going to be? What is going to happen to him? It is quite true he may be taken over by the new House of Commons. But if they take him over, and he is then dismissed, you have not secured him his pension, not one single shilling compensation; you have not protected him in any way or description. We have had the observation before that the official will understand his position. But what is the necessity for leaving the matter in that way, when all you have to do in order to make your Bill symmetrical is to define your officer as a man holding office at the appointed day? That is all we want. It is a perfectly simple change that would meet the justice of the case. Instead of that, you go out of your way not to do it. You have not defined an existing officer as an officer who holds his office at the date of the

  1801
  passing of the Act. These are some of the things we pointed out. The right hon. Gentleman says that I alleged two inconsistencies against him when we raised these points on the last occasion before this Clause was amended. The right hon. Gentleman said then that the Clause was perfectly right; that there was no ambiguity about it; that it was a perfectly clear and intelligible Clause, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said the same.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Which Clause?
  Mr. CAMPBELL: The Appointed Day Clause.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I assure you you did. I was present in the House and the matter was discussed in Debates for several hours. There was no suggestion of Amendment from either the right hon. Gentleman or his colleague. On the contrary, they said there was no Amendment required, and that the Clause was perfectly plain, intelligible, and simple. They said it was not a Clause to be amended, and they felt grave doubts whether amendment would improve it. On the last occasion when we discussed it they told us it was incapable of improvement.
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, we did not.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: You said that in effect, that there was no ambiguity or inconsistency in it, and that it required no amendment. But what I want to know is why, when you have amended it, you have not carried that amendment throughout so as to protect a very deserving class of officers, who may be few or many, and who will be appointed to higher or lower subordinate offices in the Civil Service for the period running over perhaps fifteen months? What is the answer to that? The Attorney-General said that was so. He said there must always be an interregnum. Why must there be an interregnum? What is the necessity for it in this case? Take the first attempt that was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) on the same point, to fix the time when the Transferred Sum is to be ascertained by the Joint Exchequer Board. Why could you not in that case have made the sum ascertainable on the "appointed day"? That would have made the Bill logical. But instead of that you left it in the form that the Transferred Sum is to be ascer-
  1802
  tained as on the date of "the passing of the Act." The criticisms of my hon. Friend were not that there was any difficulty of ascertaining it, say, twelve months later by reference to an existing date, but were that the financial position might have materially altered one way or the other in the interval. That is a point which the Attorney-General did not venture to answer. My hon. and learned Friend never suggested that there was any difficulty, one, two, or ten years hence in coming back to a date and ascertaining what was the state of Irish finances at that, date, but he pointed out that by retaining the words "passing of the Act" in the Financial Clauses you were making it possible that the whole account might be subsequently changed, and he took the case of the promised reform in education as an illustration. He said, supposing that reform was carried out, it might involve a loss to Irish education of £100,000 or £200,000, because they are bound to ascertain the sums at the date of the passing of the Act. Again, I ask why should you not be logical throughout? Why, when we took the trouble, under very great difficulty, of pointing out all these anomalies created by having these two extraordinary dates—one the date of "the passing of the Act," and the other a transitory date, namely, "the appointed day"—did you not amend your Bill throughout, and where the words "passing of the Act" occurred change them into the words "appointed day"? You would have had no difficulty.
  If the "appointed day" was a fixed date you might be embarrassed, but you deliberately prevent yourselves from being embarrassed because you take power in this Clause to have as many appointed days as you like. Therefore you are in no difficulty. You may have named one for the ascertainment of the Transferred Sum and another as to the date for existing officers, but you ignore them and leave the matter in a state of very great confusion and difficulty. I am specially concerned with regard to the very grave injustice that may possibly be done to a very deserving class of public servants; I mean those that may be appointed in the long interval to Civil Service posts, whether small or big. You are putting them in the position, first of all, that they may not be taken over at all after serving you for fifteen months; and, secondly, that if they are taken over they are taken over without a particle of right or protection

  1803
  or provision as to what is to happen to them. A month after they are taken over they may be summarily dismissed. This will have to be remedied in some way or other, because you would get no competent men to join the Civil Service under these conditions. I suggest, therefore, to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they will have to find a better answer to those criticisms, than to say these things are in the Bill. They are in the Bill, and it is because they are in the Bill that we complain of them. I think they will have to give us some reason as to why they should remain in the Bill. We wish now to impress upon right hon. Gentlemen opposite the necessity of removing these words wherever they occur, and instead of the words "passing of the Act" to substitute for them the words "appointed day."
  Mr. CLANCY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down made two complaints, as I understood him. First, that there were so many appointed days and that there was not one appointed day.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I never referred to that at all.
  Mr. CLANCY: Then I did not understand him correctly, but I understood he complained of the number of appointed days.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I never once mentioned that.
  Mr. CLANCY: It is well the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not, because the very arrangement of this Bill to which he apparently took exception in respect of appointed days is exactly the arrangement of the Local Government Act of 1898.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: May I again tell the hon. and learned Gentleman I took no exception of any sort or kind or description to the words" "appointed day"?
  Mr. CLANCY: Of course, if that is so, it does away with the point I was making; but still what I say is perfectly accurate, namely, that the provision of this Bill regarding appointed days for particular purposes is exactly the provision contained in the Local Government Act of 1898, framed and constituted by the party to which he belongs. There is not a single provision in this Bill regarding appointed days to which there is not a perfect analogue in
  1804
  the Local Government Act of 1898. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point was this, as I understood him, that there was no protection apparently for persons appointed to the Civil Service between the passing of the Act and the particular appointed day. I really do not understand what difficulty or injustice there is in this matter at all. The proposal to provide compensation for persons who are existing officers at the date of the passing of the Act is one on which everybody is agreed, but the mover of the Amendment wants to extend the provision to persons appointed after the passing of the Act. Did anybody ever hear a proposal made like that at this stage of any Bill? I do not understand what right people have to special protection who are appointed in the interval and, as a matter of fact, the difficulty may be easily got over in either of two ways. Persons who are appointed, whether they are judges or not, I presume, might be appointed with full notice that they hold office subject to any law that might be afterwards made by the Irish Parliament. What objection can anybody make who takes office after getting full notice of that fact? The right hon. and learned Gentleman says no person will take office under these circumstances. I do not believe that. There are scores of persons who would take office under this or worse conditions, and I am sure that some learned Gentleman, for whom I suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned particularly, will take office in these conditions also. But supposing that method was not pursued, there is a method well known even in this country. The administration of the affairs of Ireland might equally be adapted with similar results, and an office might be left open. Take the case of the judges. I remember very well when there was a vacancy in the King's Bench Division in Dublin it was left open for two years in order, I presume, that the judge eventually appointed might get it if his Government were returned to office. But his Government were not returned to office, but he was appointed to that office before they went out. I think that is a lesson to us, and it ought to be a lesson to any future Irish Government. I do not think if the office was left vacant either the public or any other body would be injured thereby. The difficulty seems to me to be quite unreal, and I hope the Government have no intention of yielding to the

  1805
  demand to extend this compensation beyond the existing officials to officials appointed after the passing of the Act.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: The Chief Secretary, in the short speech which he made in introducing his Amendment, ended by saying he hoped that he had cleared out all the difficulties which beset this question of the appointed day. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has come to the conclusion by now that this question is not much clearer than it was before this Amendment was introduced. Let me say at the outset that the hon, and learned Gentleman who has just sat down missed the point of the whole discussion from beginning to end. My right hon. Friend below me pointed out in an interruption that it is not the question of the appointed day we have been criticising, but the effect and result of the difference between the appointed day and the passing into law of this Bill, and that is what we are criticising. We all know that it is the usual way in dealing with a matter of this kind to have an appointed day, in fact we might say it is absolutely necessary that we should have such a day. It is the confusion between the appointed day and the day the Act passes into law that is creating all the difficulty. The hon. Member for St. Pancras who has made very notable speeches on this subject, dealt with several of these points, and to my mind the most important one was the question of the cost of the Irish Government and the date upon which the cost of that was to be estimated.
  One point struck me which has not yet, I think, been mentioned. The hon. and learned Member very properly contends that the calculation as to the cost of the Irish Government ought to be calculated as from the appointed day and not from the date of the passing of the Act. He has also shown that the appointed day may be fifteen months from the date of the passing of this Act into law, and during that time the whole of the present body of the Irish Members of Parliament, numbering 103, would still be sitting in this House. He instanced the case of the proposed new education scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Think what the position is with reference to that and all other measures which may be brought forward during that period of fifteen months which might apply equally to Ireland as to England. We presume that there is a desire for this education scheme, whatever
  1806
  it may be, to be extended to Ireland in order that Ireland may get the benefit as well as England. I know it is conceivable that it might be otherwise, but it is difficult to understand how a period of fifteen months could pass without some increase in the cost of Irish Government by reason of some law being passed for the benefit and the amelioration of Ireland which would necessarily cost a certain amount of money. During that fifteen months, when these schemes are passing through this House here, you will have 103 Irish Members who will practically settle the fate of these measures, and yet they are absolutely unable to apply them to Ireland, because, if they did, the cost of them cannot be estimated in the cost of Irish Government as from the date of the passing of this Act.
  Of course, I am presuming that all this takes place after the Act has passed into law. Then you will have one-sixth of this House able to adjudicate and vote upon vast measures which they are unable to apply to the country they represent in this House, and, on the other hand, they are able to say whether England or Scotland shall have the benefit of those measures or not. That is the ridiculous position in which you land yourself if you insist upon having the cost of Irish Government calculated as from the date of the passing of the Act instead of from the appointed day. Time after time my hon. Friends on this side of the House have asked the Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary what objection there is to making this calculation as from the appointed day instead of the date of the passing of the Act, and no answer has been given to that question yet. So far as I can see, the real answer to the question is that in the Money Resolution which governs this Bill the date of the passing of the Act is mentioned, or the date from which the Resolution starts, and not the appointed day. If that is so, why do not the Government get up and tell us plainly, because that would put a different aspect on the discussion? If they cannot make this alteration because of the terms of the Money Resolution, which they are unable to alter, I admit that that is a very considerable difficulty and one which is insuperable. If that is the case, why can they not say so quite plainly and openly, because in that way they would have stifled a good deal of the arguments from this side of the House? With regard to the judges, the hon. and

  1807
  learned Member who preceded me seemed to think that giving the judges and Civil servants fixity of tenure by saying if appointed during the interregnum they should be counted as having been in office at the date of the passing of the Act would be providing pensions for those appointed after the passing of the Act. So it would to a certain extent, and it would have that effect, but surely the House will say that if you are going to have, as you may possibly have, a term so long as fifteen months for an interregnum, they will recognise that during that long period, when a very considerable number of offices may have to be filled up, that there should be the widest selection and chance of getting the best possible persons to fill these appointments. I say without hesitation you will not get the best men to fill these appointments if they know they will be treated in a hostile spirit as soon as the Irish Executive comes into being if their appointment happens to offend the Nationalist party.
  You must, if you are going to get the best men, give them a perfectly safe tenure, and there is nothing in the world to prevent a provision being put in that those officers should be treated as having been in existence at the time of the passing of the Act. I admit the date of the passing of the Act is most important, but the appointed day is equally important, because that is the date when in reality the working of all the Irish Departments is actually carried over from this House to the Irish Parliament. There is nothing inconsistent or absurd in treating a person appointed a month or six months after the passing of the Act the same as a person appointed before the passing of the Act. There is nothing more absurd in that than in stating, as it is stated in the Interpretation Clause, that the expression "the Irish Treasury" means "the Department or the officer." It is quite as ridiculous to say that an officer is a Department or is equal to a Department as to provide that a person appointed after a certain date should be considered to be in office at that date. I do not think there is anything absurd in it at all. It would tend to the appointment of a better class of official than is possible under the Bill as it at present stands. It seems to me the same applies in a still greater degree to the judges. While it is important Civil servants and persons in the humbler ranks of His Majesty's service should be good
  1808
  officials and the best that can be obtained, it is infinitely more important those who have the administration of the law entrusted to them should be men of the highest character and of the highest possible position. No man who has an eminent position would accept office under such circumstances, as a judge would have to do if he took office during the interregnum between the two dates I have mentioned. In conclusion, I desire to say that, quite apart from the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends. I shall vote against this Amendment. I shall vote against it on the general ground that I am very much opposed to this Act ever coming into operation at all.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think we are entitled to some information as to what is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman as to what the appointed day should be. I gather the Amendment is one which has been proposed for the purpose of enabling us to discuss that question really and not, I do not like to say the petty question, but the infinitely smaller question which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Mr. J. H. Campbell) has raised. However important that may be, I do not think it is at all in magnitude as important as the one which the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman raises. The matter is of very much importance both from the point of view of the people of Ireland and the arrangements which must be made by the Government and by the Irish Members in their private and public capacity and also from the point of view of the general business of Parliament. I do think we are entitled, when sixty-one Members are to be subtracted from this House and when this great new change is to occur in Ireland, to ask whether the construction which some of us have put upon the Clause and the Amendment is correct. Is it the case that after His Majesty has given his gracious assent to this measure and after hopes have been raised that it will come into operation within a reasonable time, the Government will have a latitude either to defer or accelerate that date within a period of fifteen months? That is really the serious question which concerns both this House as an Imperial Chamber and the people of Ireland who are to have this subordinate, devolutionary measure conferred upon them. Let me take the lowest, and, if you like, the basest view of the case, that which concerns the sixty-one Members

  1809
  who are to be subtracted from this Assembly. Their £400 a year will be put an end to, and after all some people may think that is a matter of solid sustenance. Are the Treasury to have fifteen months in which, so to speak, they may play with Parliament, with those sixty-one Members, and with the Irish people, and say, "We shall postpone or accelerate the appointed day at our pleasure according to the interests we conceive to be best." This Bill is to be passed for the benefit of the Irish community, and also to relieve the House of Commons of that congestion which has been spoken of so often as a reason for its introduction. I therefore respectfully claim the appointed day which this Amendment says is to bring the Act into operation ought to be much earlier. There ought not to be the same latitude—
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: On a point of Order. If the hon. and learned Member raises the question of this optional period shall we be able to discuss the Amendment which I have next on the Paper, and which raises that very specific point?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I hope that question will not now be opened. It certainly could not be debated a second time. One or two Members have alluded to it, and perhaps the hon. and learned Member is not aware the next Amendment specifically raises that particular point.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not know whether the next Amendment will ever be reached. At any rate, the hon. Gentleman has a more optimistic view of the Guillotine Closure than I have. I really think it was most unreasonable of the Opposition to take no less than five Divisions within one hour and a-half, abstracting from us a very considerable period of time which we were most usefully occupying in writing our letters. Even in regard to the Amendment it is really a serious one which, unless it is discussed on this occasion, may never be reached at all. I think it would be unreasonable on this last night, our only chance, during which we have had much time fruitlessly consumed in stretching our legs in the Lobby that we should not have an opportunity of discussing this Amendment. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not suppose that I am trying to take the virginity from any Amendment he has on the Paper. No doubt it would come with
  1810
  much freshness from him, and if I supposed for one moment that it would be reached I would not attempt to refer to the subject in the remarks which I am making now. But I do hold that this is really a serious, important, and vital question. This Amendment, as I understand it, declares that this Act shall "except as expressly provided, come into operation on the appointed day." Therefore, I think I am entitled, unless the Chair thinks otherwise, to ask what is the meaning of the words "except as expressly provided." I can only construe those words by turning to Clause 47, which says:—
  "The appointed day for the purposes of this Act shall be the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this Act is passed, or such other day not more than seven months earlier or later, as may be fixed by Order of His Majesty in Council."
  I say that this Amendment raises that very question. Supposing this Bill should pass into law in January, the nearest, as I understand it after the appointed day, will be the first Tuesday in the eighth month—that is to say, the August following. But in addition to that, the Government have taken power not only that there shall be this interregnum of eight months as between January and August, but they say "or such other day not more than seven months earlier or later." That must be what the Chief Secretary points to when he uses these words that this Act shall "as expressly provided." Therefore it seems to me that this Amendment raises the whole question of when the Act shall come into operation. I hold that the Government should give us some information as to what is in their minds as to the meaning of this Amendment of the Chief Secretary. I do not quarrel at all with his having moved it, but I do want to know the meaning, and I respectfully submit this consideration as a reasonable one in its interpretation: that after this Bill has passed a period of one year and a quarter may elapse before the Irish people may see their Parliament set up in Dublin. That is, of course, most undesirable, because the Irish people were promised by some of their leaders that the Parliament would be established before Christmas two years ago. It was also promised to them before the Coronation. Yet now, in the actual Bill itself, provision is made that after all this trouble has been taken in frustrating the Veto of the Lords, fifteen months' delay is to be interposed

  1811
  before the measure will be brought into operation. What is the meaning of it? Let me turn to another Clause. Clause 13 says—
  "Unless and until the Parliament of the United Kingdom otherwise determine, the following provisions shall have effect:—
  "(1) After the appointed day the number of Members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be forty-two."
  Does that mean that the Government will allow itself fifteen months to keep the Irish Members here for their own purposes? Those Irish Members will want to be in Dublin, and to take fifteen months in which you can impound and interlock them, and prevent them from going to their own country, thereby preventing their Parliament from being opened, is a prospect which surely cannot be approved. I cannot understand why the hon. and learned member for Waterford should have consented, as he apparently has done, to any such proposal. What purpose can be served by delaying the operation of a Bill of this kind for a period of eighteen months? It is to the question of this long delay that I wish to address myself rather than to the infinitely more trivial subject of the status of Civil servants. I hope the Government will give me some reply on this point.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the earlier part of the Debate on the Report stage of the Bill, Clause 13 was amended, and it now reads:—
  "That unless and until the Parliament of the United Kingdom determine the following provisions shall have effect."
  Then Sub-section (1) no longer reads "after the appointed day the number of Members to be returned shall,"but—
  "after the date of the first meeting of the Irish Parliament the number of Members to be returned for constituencies in Ireland shall be forty-two"—
  and in Clause 43 a similar provision appears.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Was that Amendment discussed?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I can hardly see the relevancy of that question. How does it affect my argument?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It must be read in connection with another Amendment which stands on the Order Paper for to-day, and if the hon. Member will turn to that Amendment he will see the following proposal standing in the name of the Chief Secretary:—
  "but the Irish Parliament shall be summoned to meet not later than four months after the said Tuesday, and the appointed day for holding elections for the Irish Senate and Irish House of Commons shall be fixed accordingly."
  These Amendments are the outcome of the discussions which took place in Committee, and are put down in fulfilment of the promise given by the Prime Minister in response to representations made in various quarters that the area for the day appointed might be restricted and particularly that the period when the Irish Parliament should be opened should be more definitely fixed.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: We have not yet come to that Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think there is some reason for hoping that the Amendment will be reached. The point made by the hon. and learned Member has really been anticipated by the Government, so far as they could anticipate it. That Amendment has been put down to meet this very point, and to provide that in no circumstances, whatever arrangements may be made for other purposes under the Bill, shall the meeting of the Irish Parliament be postponed later than a period of about one year from the time at which the Royal Assent is given. We are following strictly the precedents of other Constitutions, in all of which cases a certain latitude is allowed for making the preliminary arrangements. It must not be assumed that one year will necessarily elapse. A shorter period of six or eight months might throw the elections at an inconvenient time. Many preliminary arrangements have to be made before the Parliament can actually come into being, and it was thought desirable, following the precedents of the Australian and South African Constitutions, that this latitude should be allowed. A period of fifteen months is allowed. I think the period of three years was mentioned by the hon. Member.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I said a year and a quarter.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Of course, the period of three years is not possible if the Amendment we propose is put in. The Amendment made in Clause 13 makes it clear that the moment that Irish Members shall be withdrawn from this House shall synchronise with the time when the new Irish Parliament comes into being.
  Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry): Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Irish Parliament is to meet four months after the date decided upon—that is, eight months after the passing of the Bill?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is to be not later than eight months.
  Mr. GORDON: Is that to be wholly irrespective of whether the Government of the day have postponed the appointed day for seven months, so that the Parliament may come into existence three months before the appointed day?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The appointed day may be appointed for other purposes. The Clause lays down an appointed day for different purposes, which again is following precedent. It may be that some matters will have to be postponed until after the Parliament is actually met, in which case, the Parliament having been summoned not later than a year after the passing of the Act, the appointed day for some purposes may be three months later. The whole process must be over within fifteen months
  after the passing of the Act, and the Parliament must meet within fifteen months of the passing of the Act.
  Mr. GORDON: Then it is wholly immaterial whether or not Parliament is to meet within four months after this is decided, and the appointed day will be regulated under Clause 47 absolutely independently of when the Irish Parliament is to meet?
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to an Amendment down in the name of the Chief Secretary, which we shall have no opportunity of discussing in this House, can he explain how it is possible to have an appointed day for holding elections for the Irish Senate, seeing that the first Irish Senate is to be nominated and not elected?
  Sir J. D. REESrose—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken.
  Sir J. D. REES: I submit that I simply asked a question, which was not answered. I did not rise except to ask a question.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member did more than that, for I have his name down on the list of speakers.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 117.

  Division No. 514.]

  AYES.

  9.50 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Adamson, William

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Clough, William

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Field, William

  Arnold, Sydney

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Compton-Rlckett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Barton, William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gilhooly, James

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Crean, Eugene

  Ginnell, L.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Crumley, Patrick

  Glanville, H. J.

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

  Cullinan, John

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

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

  Goldstone, Frank

  Black, Arthur W.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Boland, John Pius

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Delany, William

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

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Guiney, P.

  Brady, P. J.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hackett, J.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Bryce, John Annan

  Doris, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Duffy, William J.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Burke. E. Haviland-

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hazleton, Richard

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Holme, Sir Norval Watson

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Menzles, Sir Walter

  Robinson, Sidney

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Molloy, Michael

  Roch, Walter F.

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hinds, John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Hobhouse. Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Morrell, Philip

  Rowlands, James

  Hodge, John

  Morison, Hector

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Hogge, James Myles

  Munro, Robert

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Nannettl, Joseph P.

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

  Hoit, Richard Durning

  Neilson, Francis

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nolan, Joseph

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hudson, Walter

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

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

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Sheehy, David

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Shortt, Edward

  Jones, Leif Stratter. (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Grady, James

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Thomas, James Henry

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Malley, William

  Toulmin, Sir George

  King, J.

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts. Cricklade)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  O'Shee, James John

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal. West)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Outhwalte, R. L.

  Wardle, George J.

  Leach, Charles

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Webb, H.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow. Tradeston)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Maclean, Donald

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wiles, Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Reddy, Michael

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  M'Kean, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Richardson, Thomas Whitehaven)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Meagher, Michael

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Baird, J. L.

  Croft, Henry Page

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midiothian)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dennlss, E. R. B.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Barrie, Hugh T.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M,

  Jackson, Sir John

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc.)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Bathurst, Charles Wilton

  Falle, B. G.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Fell, Arthur

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Keswick, Henry

  Blgland, Alfred

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Boyle. William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Boyton, J.

  Forster, Henry William

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Bridgcman, W. Clive

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Macmaster, Donald

  Cator, John

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

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

  Cave, George

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Clive. Captain Percy Archer

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

  Clyde, James Avon

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cooper. Richard Ashmole

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Nield, Herbert

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Hill, Sir Clement

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hills, J. W.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  1816

  1817

  Peel, Captain R. F.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Stewart, Gershom

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

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Wood, John (Stalybrldge)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Younger, Sir George

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Sanderson. Lancelot

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Sandys, George John

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chambers and Mr. Moore.

  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "or such other day not more than seven months earlier or later, as may be fixed by Order of His Majesty in Council either generally or with reference to any particular provision of this Act, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act."
  The object of my Amendment is to leave out the whole optional period for the appointed day. The appointed day is to be the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the passing of the Act, or alternatively it may be seven months earlier or seven months later at the option of the Imperial Government. The Bill was read a second time in May last. One may suppose for the moment that the Act receives the Royal Assent in May, 1914, under the operation of the Parliament Act, and I think that is a reasonable supposition if the Government remains in power. The appointed day, therefore, might be fixed for June, 1914, January, 1915, or August, 1915. In other words, as the appointed day might fall on the earliest alternative date, in June, 1914, it might be fixed for one month after the passing of the Act. The Government propose, under their new Amendment, to the date of the meeting of the Irish Parliament shall not be more than four months after the appointed day. Therefore, if the appointed day is fixed for the earlier alternative, in June, 1914, the first Irish Parliament could not meet later than October, 1914. Such a procedure would be very undesirable. If nothing untoward happens to the Government, I suppose they will remain in power to the end, say, of 1914, or until the beginning of 1915, because under the new quinquennial period, I imagine it will be the ordinary practice, as it has been in the past, not to remain in power to the very end of the legal period, but probably four years will be the ordinary average life of a Government. Therefore, if the Government choose the earliest of the alternatives for the appointed day under this Clause, the Irish Parliament, which could meet not later
  1818
  than October, 1914, would have sat for several months and passed a considerable amount of legislation before a General Election had taken place and the whole question of this Home Rule Bill had been submitted to the electors. I think hon. Members for Ireland will agree that once the Parliamentary machine has been set in motion in Ireland it would be enormously difficult for any Imperial Government to rescind a measure that has been passed in this House. It is far easier to withhold Parliamentary institutions than to take them back when once you have parted with them, and I believe this is really the intention of the Government in putting this provision into the Bill. I believe this is the real meaning of the optional period during which the appointed day may be fixed. Unless this Amendment, therefore, is accepted, the result would be that, although a large majority has been returned at the next election against the Home Rule Act, it will be practically impossible for the Government whom the electors return to carry out the express wish of the electors themselves on that subject, and the Government always poses as a democratic Government. I should have thought, if they really had consideration for public opinion, they would rather have gone out of their way to make it easy for the electors, if they did express their opinion against the Home Rule Act at the next election, to be able to rescind it, anyhow in regard to certain of its provisions.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Does the hon. Gentleman say that this Amendment would enable that to be done?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If the hon. and learned Member had done me the honour to listen to my argument, he would have known that my point is that it is enormously difficult when you have given institutions to a country to take them away. It is much easier to withhold them than to take them back. I have only one more point to make, and I should like to ask a question, because I am not quite sure that the point is an absolutely sound one.

  1819
  Therefore, I should like to treat it in the form of a question to the Postmaster-General. His contention is that the Government provide an optional choice for the period under this Clause. They may wait fourteen months and fix the date for August, 1915. In that case the Irish Parliament would meet not later than December, 1915. Here comes the difficulty. Supposing the Government fix different appointed days for different purposes of the Act, as they could easily do under this Clause, is the Irish Parliament to meet not less than four months after the first appointed day to deal with these minor purposes of the Act for which that date may have been fixed? Supposing, for instance—I am taking an extreme case which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will say is ridiculous—the Imperial Government fixes the appointed day for the Post Office in June, 1914, and the appointed day for all other purposes of the Act in August of the following year, as they could do under the Bill, is the Irish Parliament to come into existence to legislate about the Post Office, and to be unable to touch any of the other Irish questions with which the Irish House of Commons is to be empowered to deal? Is the Irish Parliament, having once come into existence, to be allowed to deal with the other subjects in respect of which the appointed day has not yet been fixed? I submit that either alternative will lead to a host of difficulties, and to many complications, because if the first alternative is the correct one, it would enormously irritate the Irish- people, and if the second is the correct one, it would put this country in an impossible, and, I think, a false position. This may be an extreme instance to take, but very often these extreme instances show the unsoundness underlying a particular measure. Under this Clause, as it stands, the Irish Parliament is coming into existence on an appointed day for any purpose, however insignificant, presumably before the Irish Parliament is allowed to touch any of the very important Irish questions which Irish Members are burning to deal with.
  After all, this is supposed to be a Bill for cementing the relations between Ireland and this country, and I do think if my supposition is correct, this is an extraordinarily unsound proposal in the Bill. I really do not think the Government can mean that the first alternative should really be the true interpretation of
  1820
  the Bill. The appointed day for the purposes of the Act is the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which the Act is passed, or alternatively not more than seven months earlier or seven months later. I think it is perfectly clear that the Irish Parliament will meet four months after the first appointed day, and be able only to deal with some very insignificant subjects, while for the rest of the fourteen months various days may be fixed by the Imperial Parliament for other subjects. The Irish Government will not be able to say where it is, because it will be able to deal with some subjects, and unable to deal with other subjects which are cognate in character. I hope the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot accept my Amendment will be able to explain the point.
  Mr. FELL: I beg formally to second the Amendment.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) seems to see some practical inconvenience in the provisions of the Clause as it stands, and as it will be amended by the Amendment standing in the name of the Chief Secretary. He has of necessity been indulging in prophecy. Indeed, there is no other way of attacking the Clause than by assuming the role of prophet. He thinks the Clause as it stands, and as we propose to amend it, is open to his criticism. I do not think he is fortified in that belief, because all precedent shows that it is quite right in making provision for important changes of this character to allow certain latitude of judgment which may be exercised, if need be, by Order in Council. I will not attempt to cite any authority for which a Liberal Government may have been responsible, because naturally to do so would be only to cite an authority which might be regarded by the hon. Member as suspect. Let me take an authority which he will be the first to recognise is not open to any such criticism. There are one or two purely Conservative measures, that is to say, measures proposed and carried through both Houses of Parliament by Conservative Governments. I will take the Local Government Act of 1888 which was brought in by a Conservative Government and passed, not only through this House, but the House of Lords by that Government. Section 109 provides:—
  "Subject as in this Act mentioned, the appointed day for the purposes of this

  1821
  Act shall in each county be the first day of April next after the passing thereof, or such other day, earlier or later, as the Local Government Board (but after the election of county councillors for such county on the application of the provisional council or county council) may appoint, either generally or with reference to any particular provision of this Act, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act, whether contained in the same section or in different sections or for different counties."
  The Conservative Government thought it right to begin the Act on All Fools' Day, or such earlier or later day as might be appointed without any limitation at all. Surely we cannot be accused of doing anything contrary to precedent in view of what was done by the Conservative Government of that day.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The right hon. Gentleman surely remembers that the Government of that day were not in conjunction with that measure setting up a National Parliament?
  Sir J. SIMON: That is quite true. All I say at present is that there is abundant precedent for what we now propose. This Bill is going to reconstitute the Government of Ireland, and it is desirable to provide in your measure that there will be an appointed day which you indicate by definition, and at the same time that there should be latitude. We think it should be latitude which is restricted. In the case of the Act of 1888 it was unrestricted. There should be some latitude as to the time within which the limits may be fixed, and within that time it is quite usual, and in the past it has been found not to work unjustly, to provide that the appointed day may, if need be, be different for one purpose and for another purpose within the scope of the Act. It may be said after all that is not for Ireland. But if the hon. Member turns to the Local Government Act for Ireland of 1898 he will find in Section 124 a provision which is substantially identical. If it is said these measures did not establish subordinate Parliaments within the British Empire, then I take the Commonwealth of Australia Act of 1900, which provides in Clause 3 that it shall be lawful for the Queen with the advice of the Privy Council to declare by Proclamation on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act, and so on. So there
  1822
  you have a latitude of twelve months; not in exactly the same terms, but it is exactly the same thing. In the South Africa Act, passed in 1909, Clause 4 provides that it shall be lawful for the King with the advice of the Privy Council to declare by Proclamation on and after the day therein appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act, that the Colonies, and so on, shall be united. So whether you deal with Local Government Acts affecting Great Britain or Ireland, or whether you deal with Legislatures subordinate to this Legislature, in South Africa or Australia, you have in all these cases the precedent that it was found convenient to have a certain latitude as to the appointed day. The-reason is obvious. To take only one point: If you are going to deal with such matters as finance, it is desirable so to adjust the appointed day that the financial year-will begin at a suitable point in the calendar. I do not think that the House will think, in view of the fact that we have provided for a future notoriously uncertain, which according to hon. Gentlemen opposite is specially uncertain in dealing with Ireland, we are doing anything out of the way in providing for this limit within which the Order in Council may range in choosing a suitable day for this Act of Parliament to come into operation.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: We all feel that from the dialectical point of view the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is sound, but from the point of view of intellectual sustentation there is nothing in it. No Act which has an appointed day in it was ever passed in the circumstances in which the Government contemplate it is required that this Act should be passed—that is, that it must be passed in three Sessions of Parliament. These Commonwealth and local government Acts had not to go through the mill three times. I do not know whether we are now in the Session of 1912 or 1913. The position reminds me of the famous question of Major O'Gorman after twelve o'clock, "Mr. Speaker, is this to-day or to-morrow?" But I assume that this Bill, after it passes now, will have to pass again in the year 1913 and in the year 1914. Could anybody have said that of the Local Government Act of England, 1888, of the Local Government Act of Ireland, 1898, or of the Commonwealth Act or the South African Act? These provisions have been inserted with the object of enabling the parties to prepare. You know now, I

  1823
  gather, that at the moment your legislating, there will no doubt be fluid matters upon which the Government or the Department cannot make up their minds. But even the British Treasury does not require eighteen months to make up its mind how to diddle the people of Ireland. It takes to it like a duck to water. But you require eighteen months in order to adjust the financial relations; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that this must be brought into force on a given day, and arrangements must be made by the Treasury. Almost all this generation of Treasury servants, speaking from the Treasury point of view, will have got advances of salary or will have been pensioned before this Act comes into force—I think there are advances of salary every three months in that Department, while they are screwing down everybody else—and a long time will have elapsed when the Treasury has made up its mind when the Bill is to come into operation. The reasons the Government give for this postponement are not valid reasons. The Commonwealth of Australia Act was passed under these conditions, that every one of the four or five Colonies in Australia had an existing Parliament at the moment, and there was a number of matters on which it was necessary to have local agreement before the Imperial Government could get the Act in motion. It -was therefore a most reasonable thing to give the Colonies, who had to make certain federal arrangements, and to provide for devolution being made to the central authority, a period of twelve months in which to make up their minds. The same may be said of the South African Parliament. I think I am right in saying that there was in the Orange Free State, in the Transvaal, in Cape Colony, and in Natal—certainly in three of the four places—existing Legislatures, and accordingly, before they were formed into one central body, they had to make arrangements for "shuffling off their mortal coil" legally, and providing new institutions when they were put into one body. A natural and proper delay was therefore interposed.
  The same may be said with regard to the question of the Local Government Acts. You had in Ireland the Grand Jury, and in England Quarter Sessions. Very acute questions arose between counties and boroughs, and as to the adjustment of new areas, and the whole of those matters
  1824
  required time. Besides, there was the question of elections; and it must be remembered that the elections cannot take place in Ireland until the appointed day. If the Amendment of the Chief Secretary is carried, a year will be allowed in which to play about for the appointed day, while the people of Ireland are keen and anxious that the measure should be put into force. Remember what elections mean. Here, for the first time, a national election is to take place throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. There is to be a year in which the Government of England may never put the Bill into operation, and then there may be, for aught I know, another four months before which this election can take place, so that you will have the country in turmoil for sixteen months before the new Parliament can be elected. Yet we are told that the Government are most anxious to put this Act into force. We are to become a nation by a notice in the "London Gazette." As Clarence Mangan said, "Curious anti-climax to my dreams of twenty golden years ago." The country is to wait instead of having the date fixed in the Act on an indeterminate and unknown date which is to depend on the whim of the Minister of the moment. I will give my reason why this long delay has been interposed. It is not the Treasury, it is the Orangemen. It is an odd thing to me that the Member for Salisbury should have proposed this Amendment, because this is a proposal which carries out the view of the First Lord of the Admiralty which he presented at Dundee, and which the Liberal candidate at Midlothian presented. The First Lord said at Dundee to the Orange party, and what I give is a free translation, Why make all this fuss? Do you not see that there will be twelve months' delay after the Act passes, and in that twelve months a Conservative Administration may come into office and repeal the whole measure—why be uneasy? That was the argument, and that is the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Salisbury objects to. Therefore it is not, I respectfully submit, the precedent of the Commonwealth Act of Australia, nor the precedent of the Orange Free State, nor of the Local Government Act, Ireland, nor the Local Government Act, England, nor the uneasiness of the Treasury officials, nor how the Joint Exchequer Board is going to be composed. That is not the object of this. The object of this, as I

  1825
  apprehend it, is that after the Irish Members have slaved and worked in this House for all these years, and after they have helped the Government to assist in the carriage of those measures, such as the Education Bill, to which the Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) pledged himself so ardently at Nottingham, we are to be still left to the chances of twelve months after the passing of this Act, in which twelve months the Bill and the Government may disappear through a trap door, or, rather, the Government through a trap door, and the Bill in a puff of blue smoke.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Solicitor-General taunted us, who have criticised this particular provision, with having to indulge in prophecy to prove our case. That may be true; but he had equally to indulge in prophecy to prove his. We are prophesying that the Government will possibly be constrained by political exigencies to dodge about the appointed day. He prophesies that the Government will be actuated by the purest motives and the most unselfish considerations. It is equally prophecy on the one side and (he other, and the House must judge which of the two sets of prophecy is the more likely to be borne out by the facts. No man on the Treasury Bench can pretend to speak with certainty or to reprove us for speaking with uncertainty on that point. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Local Government Acts, the Commonwealth Act, and the South Africa Act, and pointed out quite rightly that in all those Acts there was power to vary the appointed day just as there is in this particular Clause. He says that we took no objection to those provisions in those Acts; why, then, do we object to it in this measure? It is true that in the Local Government Acts for England and Ireland, the South Africa Act, and the Commonwealth Act, there was power to vary; but the variation did not affect the composition of this House or possibly the existence of the Government in this country. That is the difference, because it is perfectly plain that by exercising the power of variation under this Clause the Government can and do affect the composition of this House, and can and may affect the existence of the Ministry sitting on that bench. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) says that it has to be done by Order in Council, and that that is something of a protection. I should rather like to know—because I
  1826
  think the point has been overlooked in redrafting the Bill—whether this Order in Council is to lie on the Table of this House. I doubt very much whether under the Bill this particular Order in Council will be an Irish Transfer Order in Council. I do not think it will be. As I read the Bill, there is no provision that this Order in Council shall lie on the Table of the House. In the Bill before it was amended in Committee there was such a provision, but the provision now applies only to Irish Transfer Orders in Council.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Clause is the same.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This Clause is the same, but the immediately preceding Clause was a general Clause applying to all Orders in Council under the Act, and that has been amended.
  Sir J. SIMON: The previous Clause, as introduced, referred to any Order in Council made for the purpose of the transitory provisions of this Act. As the Bill was introduced and as it stands now, all those Orders in Council will be laid on the Table.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not agree. The original words of the Clause were—
  "any Order in Council made for the purpose of the transitory provisions of this Act shall …have effect as if enacted in this Act."
  This particular question of the appointed day was one of the transitory provisions of the Act. It came in that part of the Bill, and I always understood—I may have been wrong—that it was one of those provisions. But I should like to have it quite clear now, whatever may have been in the Bill as introduced. Is this Order in Council which is to determine the appointed day to be laid before Parliament or not?
  Sir J. SIMON: The answer is "No," neither was it ever so provided. The hon. and learned Gentleman is, if I may say so, mistaken in his reading of the Bill as introduced. As introduced,the Bill is Clause 44, as it was then, dealt with the power to make adaptations and so on by Order in Council for the purpose of the transitory provisions of this Act. Clause 45, as introduced, said that when "an Order in Council is made for the transitory purposes of this Act it shall be laid upon the Table of the House." Clause 46 said

  1827
  that the appointed day for the purposes of the Act shall be referred to an Order in Council, and that that Order in Council may be fixed and so on; but it never had any such provision as suggested that that Order in Council was to be laid upon the Table of the House.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I still should have read the Bill as introduced differently. But that does not affect the point that I now make. I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, but I think this is emphatically an Order in Council which ought to be laid on the Table of this House. I could imagine no Order in Council more deserving of being laid on the Table of the House. May I say, in passing, that the Postmaster-General attacked me very severely two or three evenings ago, when I had no opportunity of replying, for suggesting that Orders in Council like this should be laid in draft and not in complete form, He suggested that no one had ever heard of laying draft Orders in Council. I certainly thought it should be laid in draft,
  for if laid in complete form you presumably have the will of the Sovereign. I have fortified myself on the point. I have discovered that is the Small Holders' (Scotland) Act passed only last year, that there is precisely an analogous Clause as to transferring powers from the Board of Agriculture in England to the Scottish Board, and Clause 4, Sub-section (13) specifically refers to the Order in Council being a draft Order.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think I owe the right hon. Gentleman an apology.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: And I accept the apology in the spirit in which it is tendered. I only quote the reference to show, as I said a moment ago, the necessity of this hierarchy of Orders in Council receiving the sanction of the House before being carried into effect.
  Question put, "That the words or such other day not more than seven months earlier, stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 144.

  Division No. 515.]

  AYES.

  [10.38 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cullinan, J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Adamson, William

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

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Hazleton. Richard (Galway, N.)

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

  Dawes, James Arthur

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

  Arnold, Sydney

  De Forest, Baron

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Baker, H, T. (Accrington)

  Delany, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hinds, John

  Barnes, G. N.

  Doris, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Barton, W.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hodge, John

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)

  Horne. Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Black, Arthur W.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Hudson, Walter

  Boland, John Plus

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Falconer, J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Brady, P. J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Field, William

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Joyce, Michael

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gilhooly, James

  Keating, Matthew

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Ginnell, L.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Glanville, Harold James

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Carr-Gomm, H, W.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  King, J.

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

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Clough William

  Guiney, P.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Clynes, John R.

  Gulland, John William

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

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hackett, J.

  Leach, Charles

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Crean, Eugene

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Lundon, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Lynch, A. A.

  O'Shauohnessy, P. J.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  McGhee, Richard

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Maclean, Donald

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Sheehy, David

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

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Shortt, Edward

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Simon, Rt. Hon, Sir John Allsebrook

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  M'Kean, John

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

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

  Pointer, Joseph

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thomas, J. H.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Meagher, Michael

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wardle, George J.

  Molloy, M.

  Reddy, M.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Morrell, Philip

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Merison, Hector

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Munro, R.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Neilson, Francis

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roberts, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wllkie, Alexander

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roc, Sir Thomas

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Rowlands, James

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  O'Dowd, John

  Rowntree, Arnold

  O'Grady, James

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain

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

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

  Guest and Mr. Webb.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Keswick, Henry

  Astor, Waldorf

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Baird, J. L.

  Dennis, E. R. B.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Eyres-Monscil, B. M.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

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

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

  Barrie, H. T.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Glazcbrook, Captain Philip K.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Bentinck, Lord H, Cavcndish-

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Blair, Reginald

  Grant, J. A.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

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

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Boyton, James

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Moore, William

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Harris. Henry Percy

  Mount, William Arthur

  Butcher, J. G.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Nicholson, William G. (Pitersfield)

  Cassel, Felix

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

  Nield. Herbert

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

  Cator, John

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Cave, George

  Hills, John Waller

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Peel, Captain R. F.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Chambers, J.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Clive. Captain Percy Archer

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Quilter, Sir Wiliiam Eley C.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Jackson, Sir John

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Cory. Sir Clifford John

  Jardine. Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  1830

  1831

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

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

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Talbot, Lord E.

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

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

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

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

  Worthington-Evans, L.

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

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. Geerge

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Younger, Sir George

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Stewart, Gershom

  Valentia, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  G. Locker-Lampson and Mr. Fell.

  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move to add at the end of the Clause, the words "but the Irish Parliament shall be summoned to meet not later than four months after the said Tuesday, and the appointed day for holding elections for the Irish House of Commons shall be fixed accordingly,"
  This Amendment really arises from a discussion which took place in Committee when a general desire was expressed that there should be some limit of time within which the Irish Parliament must be summoned to meet. We have taken the period of twelve months as the extreme limit, and that is the period fixed in the Colonial Acts. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) will see that this is a fixed period of one year. Under this proposal, if there were a general desire that the Irish Parliament should be summoned at an earlier date then an earlier date might be taken.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I again venture to point out that whilst it is quite true this Amendment would reduce the period originally in the Bill of fifteen months to a year it would still leave it possible for the Government to postpone the calling of the Irish Parliament for one year. I consider that a very grave matter. It has been moved by my right hon. Friend in a speech which must have been intentionally brief. No one could argue a case better than the Postmaster-General with his intellectual qualities; but in spite of what has been said to-night the Clause has not even been defended by the Government. They have not answered any one of the arguments that have been addressed to them as to why this period of one year is interposed. I will not repeat what I have just said with regard to all the precedents that have been quoted, but the Bill in reference to which these precedents existed were all Bills which came into operation in the same Session in which they were passed. Here the Lords notoriously will reject this Bill twice, and therefore you have no reason whatever for this delay. I am amazed hon. Gentlemen above me consent to an arrangement like
  1832
  that, which may postpone for twelve months the calling together of that Parliament they are so anxious to see set up. Why has not the right hon. Gentleman given an answer? He is most assiduous in his attendance in this House. No one can complain he has shrunk from the difficult duties he has discharged with so much skill and distinction. The mere fact that he is unable to provide an answer shows the bankruptcy of the Government position as regards the allegations which we have ventured to put forward. I again assert that this twelve months' delay is not invented for the purpose of enabling the Irish Departments to pull themselves together or the English Departments to adjust themselves to the new conditions; it has been invented for the purpose of submitting this Bill to a General Election, and on the result of that General Election the Irish party are gambling for their existence. Let me point out a very remarkable fact on the occasion of the great reception given to the Prime Minister in Dublin, a meeting was held at which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) tried with great skill and in my opinion with perfect justifiableness to pin him to a promise that the Bill would come into law before a General Election. The Member for Waterford said:—
  "The Government were pledged—"
  These are his words—
  "to pass this Bill into law before a General Election."
  Any one who reads knows the care with which the Prime Minister uses words. He did not back the Bill as Mr. Redmond wanted him to; on the contrary, he drew a most marked distinction, and he left the demand of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford absolutely unresponded to. I am not charging the Government with anything in the nature of bad faith. On the contrary, I think this Clause carries out the intention which the Prime Minister expressed at the Theatre Royal, Dublin. But would it not be more frank, when pressed again and again from the Front Bench opposite, for the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the Government intend to allow the Bill to come into law

  1833
  without a General Election? Is it right that a matter of this cardinal importance should be left to depend on drafting inferences? Why not state frankly and clearly, "We do intend to allow a General Election to take place before this Act can come into operation, and it is with that view that we have inserted Clause 47"? We must acknowledge that both sides tell lies; and if one sought only to tell the truth the other side would have a great advantage over it.
  11.0 P.M.
  In a matter like this it is no part of the party game at all. In this matter you have raised the hopes of the Irish people that this Bill will come into force as soon as it receives the Royal Assent, and that the Parliament will come into existence. There is in that case no necessity for this Clause, because you will have a period necessitated by the action allowed to the House of Lords to make all the necessary arrangements. The only object there can be for the insertion of this Clause is that the Government is alarmed by the threat of the Orange Members, and in view of the hint from the Front Opposition Bench that they would not join with the Orange party if the English people endorse this Bill, they have therefore determined to have a General Election and give the Tories a chance of coming into power before this measure comes into operation. If I am right in that, I think the matter is of sufficient gravity to be grappled with by speakers on the Government Benches. While I do not charge the Government with any breach of faith, I say that in imposing this delay they have used language which can be construed in a contrary sense. I think it is in a preface or a letter written by the Prime Minister that he declared that they would continue to press this measure forward provided they were sustained by adequate majorities in the House of Commons and by the support of the constituencies. That was construed by the simple Irish to mean that the Bill would be carried to its absolute fruition if these two conditions obtained. What Irishman understands—I mean what Irishman beyond the intellectual Gentlemen who are supporting the Government at the present moment—that this Bill has been so drawn as to provide a period in which a General Election can take place, and that that has been done deliberately, unnecessarily, and solely with a view to meeting the demand of the Orange party? This Clause represents the triumph of Orangeism. It ought to be called the
  1834
  Orange Clause, because it has no other meaning than that of enabling you to go to the country and take the verdict of the electors upon it. Therefore, so far as I can judge, we are engaged in a gamble with the electors as to the results of the next General Election, and we are engaging the Irish people to give their assent not merely to this Bill, but to all the measures which the Government may propose for the next two Sessions. We are to pledge ourselves to give our assent to all these measures because of this Bill. I wonder is there a similar Clause in the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. I have not looked at it. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have voted for it."] I know what it is about. The Welsh Members by a majority of something like thirty-eight to one are in its favour, and that is enough for me. They know their own business best. How many Irish Bills have been passed that you have never read? How often do you go into the Lobby on Irish questions, caring nothing whatever? If a similar Clause to this exists in the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, then all my argument, to some extent, would be met, but if there is no similar Clause, I ask why it is that the Welsh Bill is not to be submitted to the constituencies and the Irish Bill is? There is one Bill which I know has no such Clause. That is the Franchise Bill. I have read that. There is no twelve months' delay before we are to have the blessings of one man one vote, and I want to know why is it that you confine your prudence to Ireland? Why do you confine your prudence to men who have been waiting for this Bill for something like generations, and why is it-only with regard to measures that have become actual within the last twelve months, or three or four years, such as the Franchise Bill, that you do not postpone their operation in law? I therefore claim that the Postmaster-General or the Solicitor-General ought to give us an answer upon these points. I think the question is large enough to deserve the attention of the Prime Minister, and certainly at a time when we know that this policy has been sprung upon the Government, as I believe, by reason of the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, who promised a Parliament to every island and almost a "Dreadnought." I think he at least, and those who are responsible for these declarations, ought on such an occasion as this to let us know the reason for this twelve months' delay.
  Mr. PETO: I certainly am not at all surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman showed a little bitterness in his challenge to the Government for not having given any answer whatever either for the meaning and necessity for this Clause or for this very ingenious Amendment. It has the appearance of limiting the period of delay. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly justified in taking the view which appeals to me in this way. For many days the House and the Committee have been considering the instalment of an Irish Parliament and the appointment of the necessary Irish Executive, and we now come to Clause 47, and we find that under this Amendment, if the Clause is passed in its present form, the House has really no substantial control whatever as to when this great operation is to come into force. The hon. and learned Gentleman inferred that the whole secret motive of the Government was to be able to make sure, if they find themselves in extremis, they would be able to throw over the Irish party, for whose assistance they would then have no further need, and have a General Election and wash their hands of the whole business. It is very possible that may be one of the contingencies the Government are contemplating. But I want to call attention to something beyond that single contingency altogether. It is not only a tendency, but a root principle of their legislation, that the Government appear to be passing through this House a Bill over which the House has some control and actually you always find this cloven hoof somewhere in the Bill—that the Executive is to have the real power and they are to put the machine in operation. They are to appoint the necessary officers in order to put it into operation and in one way or another they are to have complete control of this Bill after it is supposed to have been passed through the House. How does that operate in regard to this particular Amendment? It is absolutely idle, considering all the circumstances of the Government's present tenure of office; considering all the rival and strongly opposed views which are held on this question of Home Rule that they should pass this Bill at a very large expenditure of time in the House, and then finally keep it in their entire control and make the appointed day eight months earlier or eight months later, just as they choose, and then as a final concession appear to say that at any rate the Parlia-
  1836
  ment shall be summoned not more than four months after the final appointed day. There are two further questions to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has been asking for an answer. As I understand, he has been asking why this elastic arrangement at the end of the Bill leaves the whole operation of the Bill entirely to the control of the Government. He received no answer whatever to his question from the Postmaster-General. The only consolation that the right hon. Gentleman gave was that at any rate this was the maximum delay. It is not only a question of a maximum delay. He said the maximum delay was twelve months. Looking at it the other way, supposing it should suit the purpose of the Government—the party exigencies of the moment—to hurry up tremendously. They have that enormous power given them by these words "or earlier" of making this maximum delay five months. They can do exactly as they like when we have done with the Bill. They can put it into force if they choose, or they can delay it to a period when it has not the slightest chance of coming into force by the interposition of a General Election, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out. The appointed day is to be the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which the Act is passed, or such other day not more than seven months, earlier or later, as may be fixed by Order in Council, but I find that, in addition to that, there are to be other four months within which the Irish Parliament shall meet. I wish to know exactly when we are to have any finality at all. Where is there any provision in the Bill that the suspense of hon. Members below the Gangway will on some particular day be determined? When will the Government be graciously pleased to make up their mind as to whether they will put the Act into operation, or let us know whether they are merely playing the fool with the House and keeping the trump card up their sleeve, so as not to put the Act into operation at all. I hope we shall some day know whether it is to be eight months earlier or later. That makes an enormous difference to the Government when they are coming near the end of their tenure of office, I should like to know when the Government are going to decide whether all these discussions are to be futile or not—whether in fact they mean business by the Home Rule Bill, or whether it has been a mere trick to get the support of hon. Members below the Gangway for all the other log-

  1837
  rolling measures they wish to pass. When are we to know whether we have been wasting our time, whether the time has been devoted to the single purpose of keeping the Government in office for a couple of years more, or whether this has any real relation to the government of Ireland.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: The hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) made, as he always does, a speech full of entertainment and instruction. I think there was something very significant in the speech. He disclosed the fact that the leader of the Nationalist party attempted, but apparently without success, to pin the Prime Minister—that was the expression of the horn and learned Member—to pledge himself that this Bill should pass through Parliament without the danger, for it was a danger from his point of view, of an appeal being made to the electors of this country. That statement appeared to me to be a complete and ample vindication of the contention which has from the first been put forward from this side of the House. It was an admission on the part of the leader of the Nationalist party that he regarded it as exceedingly dangerous to submit this view to the judgment of public opinion, and that he at least would be content that this Bill should be passed into law even though there might be that presumption that it was not supported by the public opinion of the country. We are told by the hon. and learned Member that the Prime Minister declined to give that pledge. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to tell us that the interval which is given by this Clause is the triumph of Orangeism. I would be glad to believe that that were true. But I cannot help thinking that in this particular the hon. and learned Gentleman is unduly optimistic. What I want to impress on the House is that if it is true as the hon. and learned Gentleman contends that the moratorium which can be found in this Clause is the result of the Prime Minister's action why in the world does the Prime Minister not go further and consent to make an appeal to the country at a time when it might be effective and at a time when the result of the appeal to the country might take effect without dangerous consequences? If it is true—and I am not concerned to deny the contention of the hon. and learned Member for Cork—that the Prime Minister recognises by the Clause as we now have it before us that this Bill though it may pass through
  1838
  the House cannot be put into operation until the country has been consulted why does he not take the more straightforward, more honest and more constitutional course of making the appeal to the country and getting either the consent or the refusal of the electorate not after this Bill has passed and when expectations and hopes have been raised, but before the Bill has finally passed through both houses of Parliament and received the Royal assent?
  The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, in moving his Amendment, pointed out that there was what he chose to call a drafting error, and he made an Amendment by striking out certain words which he was good enough to say I had called attention to. I much regret, owing no doubt to my Parliamentary inexperience, that I came prematurely to the assistance of the Government, and improved the Bill, enabling the right hon. Gentleman to represent this as a mere oversight on the part of the draftsman, when if I had had the sense to hold my tongue for a few moments the Government would have been convicted of putting an absolute absurdity into the Government Amendment, which probably would have passed then with the Bill. The only reason I call attention to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member is that we have had in the course of discussions upon the Bill both in Committee and upon the Report, a great number of Government Amendments which have been passed under the guillotine closure at half-past seven and half-past ten. The Chairman of Committee, or you, Mr. Speaker, have read out Government Amendments which have been passed, and which have hardly been heard—certainly comparatively few Members have been able to place them in their proper position in the Bill to consider what their effect would be. If by a mere fluke we have been able to find an error in a Government Amendment, which the right hon. Gentleman says is a drafting Amendment—I should have said a slipshod drafting Amendment showing complete ignorance or incompetence on the part of the draftsman—how many similar mistakes may have already become embodied in other Government Amendments which we have not had an opportunity of examining? I suggest that in this very Amendment as it stands there is another absurdity almost as great, if not as great, as that connected with the Senate.

  1839
  Under this Clause, as I understand it, the Irish Parliament cannot meet for twelve months—eight months plus four months. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not later."] At any rate that is the limit, and the time for the Irish Parliament to meet will be twelve months after the passing of the Act. "The appointed day," for the purpose of the Bill, apart from the meeting of Parliament, varies from a month to fifteen months after the passing of the Bill. We must assume that these dates are put in with some deliberate purpose by the Government; we must not assume that they are absolutely haphazard or absurd; we must assume that they are dates that they may possibly feel it necessary to use, and therefore I am entitled to select those dates and show to the Government and the House what the results may be. Parliament is called into being twelve months after the passing of the Bill. For the rest of the purposes of the Bill one month may be the limit of time, and consequently the executive power in Ireland may be brought into existence one month after the passing of the Bill and eleven months before the Irish Parliament is called into being.
  If hon. Members turn to Clause 4 they will find that the Executive of Ireland is to consist of the heads of the Government. Departments in Ireland, and not one of those heads of Departments can hold office unless he becomes a member of one House of the Irish Parliament within six months of his appointment. Therefore we have this absurdity under the dates which are scattered through this Bill without any design—that the Executive Government of Ireland is to consist of officials who by the very terms of the Bill are precluded from holding office after they have been appointed. That is only an example of the kind of way in which the Bill may operate when it becomes an Act. I am perfectly certain that a little industry and research would show numerous absurdities and unworkabilities in the Bill similar to that which I have just laid before the House. I certainly support the Amendment.
  Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the fact that it is owing to his intervention at an earlier stage to-night that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General had his attention called to a drafting change in the Amendment.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: He said so.
  Sir J. SIMON: The only thing that surprises me is that the hon. Gentleman referred to that circumstance in anything else than a spirit of legitimate pride. It is by no means the first time he has made contributions to the Debates which we all of us felt useful. Let me say the Government is very much indebted to him for taking so careful and minute care to sec that the Amendments incorporated in the Bill are not susceptible to even the slightest criticism. Instead of speaking with legitimate pride of his achievement-he spoke of it in language of unavailing regret. I cannot imagine why, for he is a good Irishman and I am sure desires that this Bill, if it passes into law, should pass into law in as perfect a form as possible. I must say that the Debate on this Amendment illustrates as it appears to me the difficulty of pleasing our critics. On (he last Amendment the criticism took this form. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), complained that this Clause 47 was a Clause which gave the opportunity to the Government of postponing quite unduly the happy moment at which this Bill would come into force.
  We, of course, listened with great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman. What is his criticism of the present Amendment which provides that even if the Order in Council were to extend the appointed day by as much as seven months? That, nevertheless, it shall not postpone the summoning of the Irish Parliament by seven months, but shall at most only postpone the summoning of the Irish Parliament to a point not later than four months after the first Tuesday mentioned in the Bill. That is not an Amendment which postpones the bringing into force of this measure, but, on the contrary, it is an Amendment which accelerates it. The hon. and learned Gentleman is never satisfied. He has given us almost vivid account of a great meeting in the Theatre Royal at Dublin, when the Prime Minister spoke, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), was also present. Many of us were there. I happened to be there, but I do not remember seeing the hon. and learned Gentleman there. Far be it from me to say his account of the meeting is not entirely justified in the recollections of those who were present. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), made a contribution to the debate, and put a conundrum in the form of an alternative.

  1841
  He invited the Government whether or not he and his friends had been wasting their time in discussing the Bill, or whether on the other hand the Government meant business? I do not recognise those two alternatives as strict alternatives. Both may be true. It is not of course forme to say whether the debate on this particular Amendment has been one of great value. It may or may not, but I can assure him with perfect certainty that I am right, that the Government certainly mean business.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I must say it appears to me to be a pity that the Prime Minister is not here to answer the very pointed reference to his speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is Austen?"—and "Where is Chamberlain?"]—made by the hon. and learned Member for Cork. Although I admire the perspicuity of the hon. and learned Member for Cork in supposing that it is the intention of the Prime Minister to allow a General Election before this Bill actually becomes operative, still I must say, so far as I am concerned and so far I am sure as all of us on this side are concerned, it would be in no way satisfactory to us that this Act, if it were an Act, should not become operative. What we want is that it should be submitted to the people of this country while it is yet a Bill. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Healy) shows how much the Irish party distrust their own policy, and how they in their hearts believe that the democracy of this country if consulted would give an emphatic negative to the proposals in this Bill. My hon. Friend pointed out some absurdities in the measure which the Solicitor-General seems to think is a mass of perfection.
  May I point out a further point where this Amendment seems to create an absurdity? The words of the Clause provide that the appointed day may, if the Government so choose, be postponed until fifteen months after the passing of the Act. An Amendment is put down providing that the Irish Parliament is to be summoned to meet not later than four months after the given Tuesday: that is, twelve months after the passing of the Act. The Irish Parliament may therefore be summoned to meet three months before the appointed day. That is absolutely contrary to the provision in another part
  1842
  of the Bill. Clause 1 states that on and after the appointed day there shall be in Ireland an Irish Parliament. The Government have taken no power there to call or summon the Irish Parliament before the appointed day. Therefore this Clause is an utter absurdity. Power is taken to postpone the appointed day for seven months after the eight months, but if this Amendment is inserted that power cannot by any possibility be exercised. That shows the carelessness with which the Amendment is drafted, and how necessary it would have been, had we had time, to have discussed many of the other Government Amendments which have had to be passed sub silntio to the great indignity of this House.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Solicitor-General told my hon. Friend that he ought to be proud that he had been able to assist the Government to remedy an error in the Amendment. It is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman to pay such a tribute to any hon. Member on this side. But I suggest that it is the province of the Government to provide Amendments which are workable and sense, and not Amendments containing words which make nonsense, in the hope that my hon. Friend or some other equally astute Member on this side will put them right. The right hon. Gentleman was very careful not to deal with the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Augustine's. That point was that in Clause 4 it would be possible for the Executive to be appointed one month after the passing of the Act, but the Minister that would be appointed could not hold office for more than six months unless he was a member of the Irish Parliament, and that therefore if the Irish Parliament did not meet for twelve months after the passing of the Act there would be an interval of five months, during which there would be no executive officer in Ireland. The Attorney-General, while thanking my hon. Friend for pointing out the errors in this particular Amendment, did not admit that was a palpable error in the Amendment when it is construed in connection with Clause 4. There is also another error in the Amendment or, at least, the possibility of a curious state of things. It seems to be perfectly clear that under the Amendment the Irish Houses of Parliament must meet within twelve months of the passing of the Bill. I understand that the Amendment provides that the Irish Houses of Parliament must meet

  1843
  within twelve months of the appointed day—not later. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to Clause 13—
  Sir J. SIMONIt is not, I think, within twelve months of the appointed day: it would be twelve months after the Act is passed.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg pardon; twelve months after the passing of the Act. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to Clause 13 he will find this:—
  "Unless and until the Parliament of the United Kingdom otherwise determine, the following provisions shall have effect:—
  "(1) After the appointed day—"
  HON. MEMBERS: No, no; that has been altered.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then I understand we shall not be blessed with the presence of hon. Members below the Gangway after twelve months of the passing of the Act. I was rather afraid that we might have for fifteen months after the passing of the Act the presence of the eighty hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, instead of forty-two. I am wrong.
  Sir J. SIMON: It also applies to hon. Gentlemen from Ireland above the Gangway.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, certainly. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork made, as he always does, an interesting speech. His solution of this Amendment was that it was intended to provide for a General Election before the passing of the Act. I do not view that with the same feelings of horror that he does. Personally I shall be very glad to see a General Election before this Act comes into operation. The people of the United Kingdom should have the opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the Act as it has passed this House, and not merely upon the statements in election addresses of right hon. Gentlemen which appeared not very often and upon which apparently they claim their mandate. Therefore I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork that there is anything regrettable in the idea that a General Election may not take place. On the contrary I would welcome it. But I am not at all sure that that is the meaning of this Amendment. As I understand this Amendment it provides I think for the presence
  1844
  of 103 Members in this House until the middle of 1915, and therefore what you do is to insure that the present Government shall continue in office until 1915. I do not view that prospect with much happiness either for myself or for the people of this country.
  I observe that the Prime Minister, to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman appealed, has not honoured us with his presence to-day. I should have thought that as this is the last day of the Report stage of this Bill we might have been honoured with the right hon. Gentleman's company for a little while at any rate. I know he is in London because I travelled up in the same train and I saw him get out at Paddington at half-past one. Of course I do not know but there may be good reason for his absence, but I cannot but remember that when my right hon. Friend the Senior Member for the City of London was Prime Minister if he happened to be absent from the House for a moment on important occasions there were always great cries from hon. Gentlemen opposite when they sat on this side of the House. I do not often agree with the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork, but I do agree on this occasion that his speech deserved a better answer than it got. It is true the right hon. Gentleman, the Solicitor-General made a speech of about five minutes' duration in reply. It was a very nice, pleasant speech, but it had little or nothing to do with the Amendment. Before we pass from this Amendment we ought really to consider what the position of the Government is, and what is the object they have in view. If they are going to give a Parliament to Ireland, surely, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said it ought to be set up as soon as possible. All they do is to reduce the period from fifteen months to twelve. Three months have been taken off. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) ought to have been here during this Debate to insist that as soon as this luscious fruit is ripe it ought to be given to him in order that he may enjoy its luxurious effects.
  I believe I have really found out the true inwardness of all this. It is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are of opinion that without 103 Members from Ireland they cannot hope to continue sitting on the benches opposite enjoying the fruits of office. Putting aside the pretence that this is really a Bill required

  1845
  by hon. Members below the Gangway, and regarding their own tenure of office as more important, the Government insist that they shall have the power of postponing the assembling of the Irish Parliament for twelve months. I hope the country to-morrow morning will devote a little attention to this Debate. The time is approaching when discussion will cease—[Cheers]—and possibly hon. Members opposite are cheering because it is impossible to answer the few remarks I have made. [An HON. MEMBER: "Quite impossible."]
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I should like to ask the Attorney-General if he is capable of answering the points put to him by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)? He has raised some very important points, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are always anxious to shelter themselves under the guillotine and taking no notice of interrogations raised on this side of the House. I will put my point as shortly as possible. There may be an interval of fifteen months and the Amendment fixes four months after the said Tuesday. That shows the absolute absurdity of the Amendment. In accordance with the courtesy we expect in this House and to show that the Government are serious in putting forward this Amendment, I hope the Attorney-General will have the ordinary courtesy to answer the points raised.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think that this is the kind of place I should choose to shelter myself. I have never attempted to take shelter, and I think I have always answered the questions put to me to the best of my ability. I do not hope to satisfy hon. Members opposite, but I have always tried to answer their questions, and that is what I will do now. One of the questions can be answered simply by reading the Clause. If you start with the assumption that the appointed day must be fifteen months ahead and that Parliament must meet not later than twelve months from the first Tuesday, then of course it is easy to suppose all the conundrums which the Noble Lord puts to us, but apparently it is not recognised there are different appointed

  Division No. 516.]

  AYES.

  [11.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Arnold, Sydney

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Adamson, William

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Barnes, G. N,

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Barton, William

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanarmy,

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  days which can be appointed under this Clause and that there are a number of Clauses in which references are made to the appointed day. Altogether, there are eighteen Clauses which depend upon the appointed day.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Then are there eighteen appointed days?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It docs not follow there are eighteen appointed days, but it does at least follow that it is necessary to bring your Bill into operation by stages. That does not seem to me in the least degree remarkable. We have already pointed out the precedents, precedents not created by us, for the Clause we have introduced, and one of the very objects of the Clause is to meet exactly the point made by the Noble Lord, so that you may be able to make an earlier appointed day if you wish the Parliament to meet earlier than the twelve-month limit proposed by the Amendment now under discussion. All you have to do is to fix your appointed day with reference to that, and your difficulties vanish the moment you have done it.
  Mr. MOORE: I understand the Government idea is that you should have a succession of appointed days. I do not think that is unreasonable from their point of view. As soon as the Act passes they will wish to create an Irish Executive which will take over various services, and I assume there will be various appointed days between the passing of the Act and the first meeting of the Irish Parliament who is going to defray the cost of those services, which are thus called into being and which become Irish services before the Irish Parliament meets? There is no power whatever to make provision for the payment of any service which becomes an Irish service until you have the Irish Parliament in force. Who is going to defray the cost of these services if the Irish Parliament does not meet till twelve months later?
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 243; Nces, 145.

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

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J,

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Black, Arthur W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Boland, John Pius

  Hinds, John

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hodge, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Brady, P. J.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Brockiehurst, W. B.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hudson, Walter

  Pointer, Joseph

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pollard. Sir George H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jones, Henry Hayden (Merioneth)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rnshcliffe)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Chapple. Dr. William Allen

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

  Radford, George Heynes

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Clough, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, Michael

  C'ynes, John R.

  Keating, Matthew

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richards, Albion (Peckham)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  King. J.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Cullinan, J,

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Leach, Charles

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Levy, Sir M3urice

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  De Forest, Baron

  Lough, Rt. Hon, Thomas

  Rowlands, James

  Delany, William

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Maclean, Donald

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Doris, W.

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)

  Duffy, William J.

  MacNeill J. G. Swift (Donegal, South:

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macpherson, James lan

  Sheehy, David

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Shortt, Edward

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Simon, Rt Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  M'Kean, John

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Falconer, James

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Martin, J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Field, William

  Meagher, Michat

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Meehan, Francis E. (Lleitrim, N.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wadsworth, J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Millar, James Duncan

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Gilhooly, James

  Molloy, M.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Ginnell, L.

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Wardle, Geerge J.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Goldstone, Frank

  Merison, Hector

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Munro, R.

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Guiney, Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Gulland, John W.

  Neilson, Francis

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hackett, J.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Grady, James

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Guest and Mr. Webb.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Baird, J. L.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Aitken, Sir William Max

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

  Barrie, H. T,

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  1848

  1849

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Bigland, Alfred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

  Blair, Reginald

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Boyton, James

  Hills, John Waller

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Butcher, John George

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

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

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Rawson, Col. H R.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cator, John

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Royds, Edmund

  Cave, George

  Jackson, Sir John

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Chaloner. Col. R. G. W.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Chambers, J.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Sandys, G. J.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Keswick, Henry

  Smlth Harold (Warrington)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Falle, B. G.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  MacCaw, William J MacGeagh

  Touche, George Alexander

  Fleming, Valentine

  Macmaster, Donald

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Walrond. Hon. Lionel

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Grant, J. A.

  Mills. Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

  Moore, William

  Worthington-Evans, L.

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

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr

  Hardy, Rt. Hon, Laurence

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Newman and Mr. John Gordon.

  It being after Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of the 14th October and the 30th December, 1912, to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Twelve of the clock on the Seventh Allotted Day.

  CLAUSE 48.—(Definitions.)
  In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
  The expression "existing" means existing at the passing of this Act:
  The expression "constituency" means a parliamentary constituency, or a county, borough, or university returning a member or members to serve in the Irish House of Commons as the case requires, and the expression "parliamentary constituency" means any county, borough, or university returning a member or members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom:
  The expression "parliamentary elector" means a person entitled to be registered as a voter at a parliamentary election:
  The expression "parliamentary election" means the election of a member to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom:
  The expression "election laws" means the laws relating to the election of members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, other than those relating to the qualification of electors, and includes all the laws respecting the registration of electors, the issue and execution of writs, the creation of polling districts, the taking of the poll, the questioning of elections, corrupt and illegal practices, the oath, qualification and disqualification of members, and the vacating of seats:
  The expression "tax" includes duties (other than duties of postage) and fees (other than fees which are charged in respect of any special Irish service, and the receipts from which are, in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board, of a character to be properly treated as appropriations in aid):
  For the purposes of this Act duties on a raw material and on articles produced, prepared, or manufactured from that material, and any group of duties fixed in relation to some common basis, shall be deemed to be correlated duties.
  The levy of an Imperial tax in Ireland includes, where the variation of the tax by the Irish Parliament affects persons resident or domiciled in Ireland, or the property of any person so resident or domiciled, the levy of the tax on or in respect of such persons or such property.
  The expression "Irish Act" means a law made by the Irish Parliament:
  The expression "Irish Treasury" means the Irish department or officer, by whatever, name called, for the time being entrusted with the administration of Irish finance:
  The expression "salary" includes remuneration, allowances, and emoluments:
  The expression "pension" includes superannuation allowance, and in relation to a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin Metropolitan Police includes a pension or gratuity payable to the widow or children of a constable:
  The expression "office" includes any place, situation, or employment, and the expression "officer" shall be construed accordingly:
  The expression "officer" in relation to the Royal Irish Constabulary includes the Inspector-General, the Deputy-Inspector-General, an Assistant-Inspector-Genera], the Assistant-Inspector-General-Commandant of the Depot, the Town Inspector at Belfast, a County Inspector, a surgeon, a storekeeper and barrack-master, the veterinary surgeon, and a district inspector, and in relation to the Dublin Metropolitan Police, includes the Chief Commissioner and Assistant-Commissioner:
  The expression "constable" in relation to the Royal Irish Constabulary includes the head-constable-major, a head-constable, sergeant, acting sergeant, and constable; and in relation to the Dublin Metropolitan Police includes every member of that force not being of higher rank than chief superintendent, and not being a member of the clerical staff only:
  The expression "Royal Irish Constabulary" includes the reserve body.
  Government Amendment made: In the first paragraph, after the word "requires" ["context otherwise requires"], to insert the words, "The expression 'postal service' includes any telegraphic and telephonic service, and the issue, transmission and payment of post office money orders and postal orders; and the expression 'postal communication' includes telegraphic and telephonic communication."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel]

  CLAUSE 49.—(Short Title.)
  This Act may be cited as the Irish Government Act, 1912.
  Government Amendment made: Leave out the words "Irish Government" and insert instead thereof the words, "Government of Ireland."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Bill to be read the third time upon Wednesday next, 15th instant, and to be printed. [Bill 347.]
  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 Eight minutes after Twelve o'clock.

  War in Balkans.
  War in Balkans.
  International Opium Convention.
  International Opium Convention.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES (CLASSIFICTION OF CONTRIBUTORS' CARDS).
  APPROVED SOCIETIES (CLASSIFICTION OF CONTRIBUTORS' CARDS).
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  Income Tax (Net Produce).
  Income Tax (Net Produce).
  Land Values Committee.
  Land Values Committee.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Salaried Officials (Dublin).
  Salaried Officials (Dublin).
  Assistant Teachers (Ireland).
  Assistant Teachers (Ireland).
  Boards of Conservators (Ireland).
  Boards of Conservators (Ireland).
  Magistracy (Ireland).
  Magistracy (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Macroom).
  Labourers' Cottages (Macroom).
  Gaelic Colleges.
  Gaelic Colleges.
  Coastguard Grievances.
  Coastguard Grievances.
  Range-Finders.
  Range-Finders.
  Officers' Training Corps.
  Officers' Training Corps.
  Army Expeditionary Force.
  Army Expeditionary Force.
  Ersatz Reserve, Germany.
  Ersatz Reserve, Germany.
  Royal Flying Corps.
  Royal Flying Corps.
  Shops Act Prosecution.
  Shops Act Prosecution.
  Imprisoned Suffragettes.
  Imprisoned Suffragettes.
  Pit Ponies.
  Pit Ponies.
  Delhi.
  Delhi.
  Indian-Grown Cotton (Japan).
  Indian-Grown Cotton (Japan).
  Vaccine Lymph (India).
  Vaccine Lymph (India).
  Motor Speed Limit (Streatham).
  Motor Speed Limit (Streatham).
  Wireless Telegraphy.
  Wireless Telegraphy.
  Building Trade (Persons Employed).
  Building Trade (Persons Employed).
  Woollen and Worsted Manufactures (Imports).
  Woollen and Worsted Manufactures (Imports).
  Industrial Hygiene.
  Industrial Hygiene.
  West of Ireland Mails (Transfer in Dublin).
  West of Ireland Mails (Transfer in Dublin).
  American Mails (Queenstown).
  American Mails (Queenstown).
  Unweaned Animals in Transit (Food Supply).
  Unweaned Animals in Transit (Food Supply).