Sitting of 27 January 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics, 1912, Vol. XLVII., Part I., Acreage and Live Stock Returns of England and Wales, with Summaries for the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order dated 24th January, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners under Section 78 of The National Insurance Act, 1911, entitled The National Health Insurance (Payments to Insurance Committees) Order (No. 2), 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to Agreements for Compensation or Damages [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to Payments on Death of Deposit Contributors out of amount standing to their credit in the Post Office Fund [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to Claims for Exemption by Irish Migratory Labourers [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 25th January, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, amending The National Health Insurance (Time for Joining an Approved Society) Regulations, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 465.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 25th January, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled The National Health Insurance
952
(Time for Joining an Approved Society) Regulations, 1913 [by Act j; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 466.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 25th January, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled The National Health Insurance (Value of Contributions, Exempted Institution) Regulations, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 467.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 25th January, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled The National Health Insurance (Married Women's Transfer Value) Regulations, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 468.]
Copy presented of Provisional Special Order, dated 25th January, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Irish Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled The National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) (Ireland) Provisional Order, 19J3 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 469.]
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 25th January, 1913, made by the National Insurance Joint Committee, as to the manner of calculating the amount of the annual Parliamentary Grant to be paid to the Navy and Army Insurance Fund [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 470.]

SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 13th January, 1913, granting a Retired Allowance to Mr. G. J. H. S. Waters, superintendent, West Hartlepool Post Office [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5,038 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

1. Inquiry into Charities (County of Devon),—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 26th July, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed.

953

2. Local Loans Fund,—Accounts of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in respect of the Capital and Income of the Local Loans Fund for the year ended 31st March, 1912, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed.

3. Irish Land Purchase Fund,—Accounts of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in respect of the Capital and Income of the Irish Land Purchase Fund in the year ended 31st March, 1912, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed.

4. Irish Land Commission (Account),—Copy of Account of the Irish Land Commission for the year ended 31st March, 1912, and from 22nd August, 1881, to 31st March, 1912, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed.

5. Church Temporalities (Ireland),—Copy of Accounts of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland from 1st April, 1911, and from 26th July, 1869 (the date of the Irish Church Act), to 31st March, 1912, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 31st December 1912, in terms of Section 4 of the Act, affecting certain classes of Shops in the burgh of Newmilns and Greenholm [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
KING'S BENCH JUDGES.
Address for Return "showing for the year 1912 in the case of each Judge of the King's Bench Division the number of days on which he was absent from the King's Bench Division to go on circuit, and the number of days on which he sat at Assizes for the trial of prisoners or civil cases."—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS, ETC.) UNITED KINGDOM).
Address for Return "showing, with regard to each Parliamentary Constituency in the United Kingdom, the total number, and, as far as possible, the number in each class of Electors on the Register now in force; and also showing the Population in each Constituency (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 53, of Session 1912)."—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]
EXPORTS (MANUFACTURED AND PARTLY MANUFACTURED ARTICLES).
Return ordered "showing the value of Manufactured and Partly Manufactured Articles (domestic produce) exported from the United Kingdom (a) to the principal protected foreign countries; (b) to British Colonies and Possessions; and (c) to all other destinations, for the years 1880, 1885, 1890, and for each subsequent year to 1911; showing also the percentage proportion of such exports sent to each group, destination specified (the countries to be included under the head of principal protected foreign countries being those specified in the Note to Table 19 on page 70 of the Return, British and Foreign Trade and Industry, Cd. 4954, of Session 1909)."—[Mr. Amery.]
EAST INDIA (MINT FOR GOLD COINAGE).
Address for "Copy of Papers, including Communications which have passed between the Secretary of State for India and the Government of India, regarding the question of the Establishment of a Mint for the Coinage of Gold in India."—[Mr. Touched]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Opium Traffic.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been received from the French and the Siamese. Governments protesting against the present policy of the British Government and the action of the British-Indian Government in respect to opium?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The answer is in the negative.

  Iquitos (British Consulate).
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked whether His Majesty's Government is yet represented at Iquitos by a salaried Consul; and, if not, when will, that office be again occupied by such a representative?
  Mr. ACLAND: The Consulate is now in charge of the unsalaried Vice-Consul. I am aware of the importance of having a salaried Consul at Iquitos, but I cannot at present give the exact date at which this will be effected.

  Tibet.
  Mr. LYNCHasked whether the Chinese Government has answered the British Memorandum on the question of Tibet; if so, what is the character of the reply; whether the Chinese Government has requested His Majesty's Government to communicate its views as influenced by this reply; and what is the intention of the Government in the matter?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. I cannot give any further information at present on the subject, which is still under discussion with the Chinese Government.

  Royal Parks (Keepers).
  Mr. DICKINSONasked the hon. Member for St. George' s-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the park-keepers in the Royal parks are given a weekly day of rest; and what is the average number of days and hours per week during which these officers are on duty?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The average number of days of employment is six and a half a week, and the average hours are eight per day.

  Builders' Labourers (Wages).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the London Master Builders' Association have agreed with the representatives of the various builders' labourers' unions to in crease the wages of the labourers, scaf-folders, and timber men ½d. per hour, commencing from the first week in
  956
  January; and if he can state whether the building contractors, working for the Government in London, are paying the extra ½d. per hour to the various sections of workmen mentioned?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and so far as the First Commissioner is aware, the building contractors engaged on work for his Department are keeping the agreement.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the proved utility of the control experiments of the Irish Department of Agriculture in confirming or revising the decisions of departmental officials with regard to supposed cases of foot-and-mouth and other contagious diseases, he will, in order to ensure the greater confidence of British stockowners, institute similar control experiments in Great Britain; or, alternatively, whether he will permit independent veterinary opinion to be taken in all suspected cases to confirm the diagnosis of the Board's officials prior to the publication of the results of such diagnosis?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Departmental Committee, of which he was himself a Member, unanimously recommended that experiments with the virus of foot-and-mouth disease should not be carried out in this country. In view of the risk which, in the opinion of the Committee would be involved, I am not prepared at present to adopt the suggestion made in the first part of the question. With regard to the experiments in Ireland to which the hon. Member refers, I would point out that the veterinary officer of the Irish Department had already satisfied themselves by close observation of the animals for a considerable time that foot-and-mouth disease did not exist on the farm before the experimental inoculation was undertaken. The Board are always prepared to consult independent veterinary opinion, where necessary and practicable, in cases of doubtful diagnosis, but it must be remembered that any delay in imposing restrictions upon an infected area may lead to diastrous results.
  Mr. BATHURST: Would it not be possible to have control experiments of a limited character as in Ireland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I have pointed out, the experiments in Ireland were not in connection with foot-and-mouth disease but with another disease.
  Mr. STANIERasked whether the Board of Agriculture are satisfied that all the cases of the examination of the blood and other symptoms of the animals supposed to be suffering from foot-and-mouth disease and returned as diseased have been clearly proved to have been diseased; if any cases have been given as doubtful; and, if so, who is the expert who decides what is done and the future action of the Board?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No suspected case of foot-and-mouth disease is confirmed except by a veterinary officer of the Board who has satisfied himself by a personal examination of the suspected animals that the lesions present are indicative of the disease. Sir Stewart Stockman is the Chief Veterinary Officer of the Board, to whom in cases of doubt it has sometimes been necessary to refer, and with whom the final diagnosis has rested, but in all cases precautionary measures are immediately taken to prevent the possible spread of infection. Foot-and-mouth disease cannot be detected by microscopical examination of the blood.
  Mr. STANIER: Does Sir Stewart Stockman diagnose every one of these cases?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, it is not necessary in every case, but we endeavour to use Sir Stewart Stockman's ability in any doubtful case which may arise.

  Dwarf Maize.
  Mr. KINGasked whether a sample of dwarf maize, especially adapted to northern climates, has been received from an English gentleman now farming in Dakota; whether the receipt was acknowledged; whether any experiment was made with the seed supplied; and whether any results of a satisfactory nature were obtained?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The sample to which my hon. Friend refers was received in December, 1911, but I regret to find that by inadvertence no acknowledgment was sent. The seed was tested last summer on an experimental farm, but owing to the lateness of the season the crop did not ripen. Some of the seed, however, was reserved, and another experiment will be
  958
  made with it next summer. I shall be pleased to let my hon. Friend know the result.
  Mr. KING: If the right hon. Gentleman could give me a further detailed report in writing, would he do so?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, as soon as the experiment is completed, I shall be glad to communicate with my hon. Friend.

  Agricultural Credit Banks.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked if, in view of the increasing interest throughout the country in the subject of co-operative agricultural credit banks, the Board of Agriculture will issue a printed memorandum stating succinctly the history and development of the agricultural credit movement in India, Germany, Italy, Den mark, Sweden, and Ireland, respectively?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Seeing that, less than a year ago, the International Institute at Rome published an outline of the European co-operative credit systems, which gives the information desired by the hon. Member, it seems unnecessary to repeat the labour of compilation. As regards the development of the credit movement in India, an article on the subject will shortly be published in the Board's Journal.
  Mr. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate the Italian memorandum?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall be glad to send a copy of the memoradum to the hon. Gentleman or to any other Gentleman who asks for it.
  Mr. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to inform the public, who are likely to make use of them, of the contents of the memorandum?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will consider the point.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked if the promised scheme for obtaining loans for co-operative agricultural credit associations from the large joint stock banks is based upon, or in consonance with, the report and recommendations of the special commissioner of the Board who lately con ducted an investigation on its behalf into the systems of agricultural credit in operation in Germany; and whether such com missioner has been consulted by the Board prior to framing the above scheme?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The negotiations with the joint stock banks, which have resulted in the arrangement announced, were commenced some time ago, and were not based upon the report referred to, which I have not yet had an opportunity of examining fully. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  Emigrants (Building Trade).
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Returns of the emigrants from this country supply particulars of the occupations of the emigrants; and, if so, can he give the numbers of those connected with the building trade who left the United Kingdom in each of the last three years?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The information asked for by the hon. Member is not available, owing to the fact that in the records of occupations of outgoing passengers a large number of cases occur in which the description of the occupation is not sufficiently definite. In particular the large class vaguely described as "labourers" cannot be allocated to the trades in connection with which the persons so described have been employed.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Emigration Board publish the trades of the men who emigrate, and will he communicate with the secretary of the Board, requesting him to give any information on the subject it is in his power to furnish?
  Mr. BUXTON: If the information is contained in official returns, it should be possible to give it.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask if they have information at the office that an exceptionally large number of men connected with the building trades have emigrated in the last few years?
  Mr. BUXTON: Will the hon. Member kindly give notice of that question?

  Public Works (Navvies).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements will be made to enable navvies living and working in large numbers upon isolated public works, many miles from the ordinary local Labour Exchanges, to call on the Unemployed Fund and report them-
  960
  selves daily as required by the Regulations; and what arrangement does his Department make to deal with this class of workmen when on tramp in search of work so far as the payment of their unemployed benefit is concerned?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): It has been arranged that workmen residing between five and eight miles from the nearest local office of the Unemployment Fund should only be required to sign the Unemployed Register once a week. Workmen residing at a greater distance than eight miles are excused signature. In both cases such workmen are required to produce a certificate proving that they have been unemployed during the days on which they have been so excused. It is open to a man travelling in search of work to specify any local office as the office at which he desires his benefit to be paid.
  Mr. J. WARD: Will the hon. Gentleman say who is to supply the certificate to the men in a case where the employer has gone out of business?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I will inquire.

  Steamer "Egyptian Prince."
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can furnish full particulars of the case of the steamer "Egyptian Prince," which has recently been reported from Malta to have lost her deck-load, with the exception of the livestock, also having sustained damage to deck fittings?
  Mr. BUXTON: The deck cargo of the "Egyptian Prince" consisted of cases and crates of sulphuric and acetic acid two pigs, one coop of fowls, and one dog. The cases and crates of acid were lost overboard on the 26th December, during a hurricane in the vicinity of Ushant. Deck fittings were damaged, including poop rails, stanchions, hand-wheel box and gratings. Several bulwark stanchions were bent.
  Mr. FRED HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is not damage that might be expected to happen to any ship passing through such weather at that part of the year?
  Mr. BUXTON: It does not seem to be very material damage.

  Surveying Staff (Board of Trade).
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a further statement as to what is proposed in the way of increasing the surveying staff of the Board of Trade; and whether he is now making the necessary arrangements whereby such matters as the inspection of boats, their requisite fittings and launching appliances, ships' compasses, charts, nautical and astronomical instruments, and all the necessary navigational equipment for the safety of a ship, shall be regularly inspected by nautical surveyors familiar with these matters by reason of long sea faring experience in connection with them?
  Mr. BUXTON: A substantial addition is being made to the surveying staff of the Board of Trade, partly to meet the increase which has taken place in the ordinary work of the surveyors, and partly to undertake the additional duties thrown on the staff by the new life-saving rules. A considerable proportion of this additional work will be connected with the survey of boats and life-saving appliances, but it is not possible or desirable that this branch of work should be confined to surveyors of one particular class.
  Mr. PETO: Is it not a fact that there are only sixteen nautical surveyors at the present time, four of them being principal surveyors, whose work is chiefly clerical, and that there are 8,500 vessels, whose life-saving appliances ought to be and have to be inspected by people who have practical experience of the sea?
  Mr. BUXTON: I anticipate naturally that there will be an increase of staff, but what particular class of surveyors will be increased, I am unable at present to say.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with the promised greater efficiency of the Surveying Department of the Board of Trade, he will consider the necessity of substantially increasing the commencing salary of £200 per annum which is offered to candidates for Board of Trade surveyorships?
  Mr. BUXTON: An improvement in the scale of salary of Board of Trade surveyors was made last year.
  Mr. PETO: Did the right hon. Gentleman in making the increase take into
  962
  consideration the extra cost of living on shore?
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes, that was considered.

  Merchant Vessels (Officers and Crews).
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he can now state what steps he is taking in order that there may be some reasonable limitations of the hours of daily duty imposed upon the officers of merchant ships, more particularly in those vessels carrying two officers only; and whether anything in a similar way is being done as regards the hours of labour of officers of ships when in port either at home or abroad; and (2) whether he is aware of the amount of Sunday labour which the officers of British merchant ships are called upon to perform on board their ships both in home ports and ports abroad; whether he is familiar with the laws prevailing in other maritime countries imposing reasonable limitations as regards Sunday labour and undue hours of labour of their seamen; and whether he is taking any steps for the purpose of dealing with Sunday labour in British merchant ships when in port for which, in most cases, officers receive no additional remuneration whatever?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am now considering in conjunction with the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee the question of the amendments which are desirable, on general grounds, in the law relating to the number of certificated officers required to be carried upon British merchant ships. I am aware that officers of British merchant ships are sometimes called upon to perform duties on Sundays when in port. An account of the legislation, in so far as any existed at the time, in other maritime countries on the subject of hours of labour at sea and in port and Sunday labour in their mercantile marine, was included in a Return presented to the House of Lords in February, 1908; and steps are now being taken to bring the information contained in that Return up to date. The Board of Trade have no power to take any action with a view to regulating the amount of Sunday labour in the British mercantile marine.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the accommodation provided on merchant ships for officers and men and to the animadversions contained in their reports on this matter of the medical officers

  963
  of health at London, Newport (Mon.), and elsewhere, he is taking any steps in the direction of substantially increasing the medical staff of the Board of Trade in order that all such accommodation shall be officially inspected during the construction of merchant ships, and subsequently supervised from time to time by medical inspectors of the Board of Trade?
  Mr. BUXTON: The reports referred to by the hon. Member have been carefully examined and questions as to the accommodation of officers and crew on board ship are now being considered.
  Mr. PETO: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the case of the small passenger vessel "Lapwing," which recently went ashore while in charge of an officer who had been continuously on duty for thirty-three hours, with the exception of three-quarters of an hour for rest?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should give notice of that question.

  St. David's Gold Mines, Limited.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the St. David's Gold Mines, Limited, has omitted to make the usual annual Return to Somerset House since 1909?
  Mr. BUXTON: The St. David's Gold Mines (1903), Limited, has not omitted to make any annual Return to Somerset House. The balance sheets included in the Returns are not made up to a later date than 31st December, 1909, because it is stated that the trustees for the debenture holders took possession of the company's property on 18th November, 1910.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) what is the position, under the National Insurance Act, of doctors' dispensers who have dispensed for many years, but had ceased to be doctors' dispensers and were running drug stores for a period of years prior to the passing of the Act; are they debarred from dispensing in future unless they have a registered chemist on the premises; (2) what is the position, under the National Insurance Act, of a man of many years' practical experience, but an unregistered chemist, who has dispensed for public in stitutions and doctors, but who was not a doctor's dispenser or an institution dis-
    964
    penser during the three years mentioned in Section 15 of the Act, but was for that period dispensing doctors' prescriptions behind a chemist's counter; is he debarred from dispensing insurance medical prescriptions under the Act; (3) if his attention has been called to the case of J. P., who was brought up in the business of a chemist and has known no other calling, who has passed the preliminary examination recognised by the Pharmaceutical Society, served four years' indentured apprenticeship with a fully qualified chemist, has had a twelve months' course at a college of pharmacy in Manchester, has held the positions of branch manager and assistant for several years, and has done the dispensing at one of the shops of a well-known firm of chemists, has now embarked the whole of his capital in purchasing a business, and has dispensed a great number of physicians' prescriptions during the three years prior to the passing of the Act, but has not dispensed solely for a doctor during that time, and is therefore debarred from dispensing medicines under the National Insurance Act; and will he say whether, in pursuance of the pledge given on 2nd August, 1911, the necessary steps will be taken to allow this man and others similarly situated to dispense under the Act; and (4) if he is aware that hundreds of capable dispensers and chemists, many of whom have served apprenticeships to registered chemists and who know no other calling, have reason to fear that they are disqualified from dispensing medicines under the National Insurance Act; and will he say what steps he proposes to take to secure to them this right?
    Mr. FRED HALLasked if, under the National Insurance Act, doctors' dispensers can be placed upon the panels; if so, what, if any, conditions are enforced in dealing with applications; and whether men who have been dispensing for the last thirty years, but do not happen to have been working with doctors latterly are excluded, while men who have combined such duties as the grooming of horses and cleaning-out of stables with occasional elementary dispensing work are admitted?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The Act gives effect to the pledge given on 2nd August, 1911, that no persons should become disqualified for dispensing medicines through the passing of the Act. The conditions under which persons are allowed to arrange with insurance

    965
    committees to supply medicines requiring dispensing, to dispense medicines for other persons and firms who are supplying them, and to supply drugs not requiring dispensing, are laid down in explicit terms in Section 15 (5) of the National Insurance Act, and the Commissioners have no power by regulation to vary that Section.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Is the right hon. Gentle-aware that since I asked a single question on this subject I have received heaps of letters from people who say—
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to answer as to the letters the hon. Member has received.
    Mr. FRED HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the last part of my question?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have replied. The conditions are laid down fully in the Act. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of it.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Ts the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a pledge to the House that no one who was then qualified to dispense should be deprived of his living under the Insurance Act, and is he not aware that owing to the actual words in which that pledge was carried out a large number of dispensers are deprived of their living, because they are not now allowed to dispense under the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No qualified dispenser is deprived of his living under the Act, and not only that, but a large number who are not qualified get special qualifications under particular Clauses of the Act.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has the right hon. Gentleman looked into the facts stated in the question? Is he aware that men who have been dispensing for twenty years are now deprived of their living under the Act?
    Mr. TOUCHE: I do not understand the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to Question No. 31. Will he tell me if a man who has been a dispenser for doctors for ten years and who was running a drug store at the time of the passing of the Act is now in a worse position under the Act than a man who has been a doctor's dispenser for the three years preceding the passing of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think if the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to look at
    966
    the Sections to which I have referred him he will see that he has got a full answer.
    Mr. NEWMANasked if the yearly remuneration or allowance due to a medical practitioner under any regulation made by the Insurance Commission in respect of any insured person who may apply and be accepted by him to be entered on his list, is held to date from the I01h January, from the date on which the medical practitioner agrees to accept such insured person, or from the date on which he first professionally is required to attend on such person?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The payment is due in respect of the period commencing 15th January or whatever later date the doctor joined the panel.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Does it make any difference to the funds of friendly societies or approved societies or to the insurance company, when he comes on the doctor's panel? Is it to their advantage or disadvantage that an insured person fails to put his name on the panel?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The doctor is paid from the time he takes responsibility. He is not paid before that time.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a majority of insured persons have failed to take steps to be placed on the list of any approved medical practitioner on the panel in their district, and that their failure to do so will be attended with discomfort and danger to themselves in the event of sudden illness or other emergency and inconvenience to the medical practitioners on the panel; and whether the Insurance Commissioners will direct the local committees to notify insured per sons of the obligation imposed on them to forthwith apply to be placed on the list of a medical practitioner on their local panel?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information to suggest that insured persons are not taking the necessary steps to select a doctor from the panel who will attend them in case of illness. Indeed, all the evidence in my possession shows that not only the sick, but persons in good health have come with quite unexpected alacrity to have their names registered by panel doctors to be their patients in the event of possible future illness.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked how the Insurance Commissioners propose to allocate to the rural districts where they temporarily reside the medical contribution of an insured workman who changes his place of abode on an average of four or five times in a quarter; and will the approved society have to notify the change of residence each time to the local insurance committees, or will it be sufficient to notify only that local insurance committee where the approved member resides at the beginning of each quarter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Arrangements for the necessary notifications and adjustments of contributions in the special class of cases referred to by my hon. Friend are now being completed, and I will communicate with him at the earliest possible date.
    Major GASTRELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the circumstances of the death of Frederick Richard Townsend, an insured person under the National Insurance Act, and to the verdict of the jury who inquired into the cause of death, when the jury referred to the scandalous amount of clerical work required of a panel doctor, and the coroner in summing up said that the man's life ought to have been saved if the doctor, owing to his work, had not been prevented from examining the case; and what steps will be taken for limiting the number of insured persons any one doctor may agree to treat?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed that the London Insurance Committee are conducting an inquiry into the allegations made at the inquest in the case referred to that the amount of work imposed upon the doctor in attendance upon the patient by the Insurance Act, the regulations made thereunder, and the arrangements of the insurance committee were such as to preclude the doctor from a proper examination of or attendance upon his patients. Until this inquiry is completed, it would be improper for me to make any statement on the subject.
    Major GASTRELL: Will compensation be paid to the relatives of this man owing to the neglect of this doctor to carry out his obligations under the Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say that. It is a more or less judicial inquiry, and I think that it would be very unfair to the doctor himself if I made any statement until I get the Report.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make any observations in regard to the death of a domestic servant which occurred in somewhat similar circumstances?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not like to make any observations unless I have some facts to warrant them.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: She is dead.
    Major GASTRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that claimants are kept waiting daily for two hours in the streets of London while seeking to gain admission to the doctor, and will he endeavour to provide some temporary shelter for such persons until the necessary number of doctors to attend on the insured sick persons is secured?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of any such facts. There are far more doctors on the London panel than are necessary to meet existing needs.
    Sir J. D. REES: How many lives will have to be sacrificed before the Government mitigates the severity of this Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I know of no lives being sacrificed. I know of a number of lives that probably Will be saved.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, though the Rochdale Insurance Committee has been in existence for several weeks and medical benefit has actually been in operation for upwards of one week, the Commissioners have not yet issued the Regulations necessary for the due election of the medical members of the Insurance Committee; and, if so, what explanation he can give of an omission so unsatisfactory to the medical profession?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: When the Rochdale Insurance Committee was constituted, like the other insurance committees, in May last, the British Medical Association was invited to obtain from the medical profession throughout the country the names of medical practitioners suitable for appointment as representing the profession in each area, in the same way as central organisations representing approved societies obtained names of their representatives throughout the country. The Association declined this offer, and, in the ordinary course, no new appointments would be made until new committees are appointed. The Commissioners have, however, decided to allow representation on

    969
    the present committees, and are arranging for the election at the earliest possible date of direct representatives of the profession on the various committees, and also for the appointment of medical members of the committees by the county and county borough councils and the Insurance Commissioners.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Dr. Guinness, of 30, Walbrook, E.C., whose name appears on Panel C, London, is not known or found by insured persons at that address; that doctors who reside in the suburbs and have no surgeries in the City are likewise entered on London panels; and whether the Government have satisfied themselves as to the efficacy of panels so constituted?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed by the London Insurance Committee that the practitioner referred to sent in his name, with the address stated, for inclusion in the first list of the London panel, but that since that list was published he has left England. A revised list, which will include over 300 additional names of practitioners who have applied to be put on the London panel since the publication of the first, will be issued this week, and will omit the name of the practitioner referred to as he is no longer available.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked (1) what course an insured person ought to pursue when he has incurred expense by obtaining treatment from a doctor not on the list, and has failed to receive any reply to repeated applications to the insurance committee for permission to contract out, and is so placed that it is a matter of urgency to him to ascertain how far the expenses he has incurred and may incur will be met by the insurance committee; and is the Government aware that many insured persons in London are in this position; (2) whether an insured person under the National Insurance Act is acting in accordance with the instructions printed at the foot of the medical ticket issued by the Insurance Commissioners if he returns that ticket to the insurance committee with his application for permission to contract out, or should he only forward it when he has actually incurred the expense towards which he is claiming a contribution?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The National Insurance Act contemplates that permission to an insured person to make his own arrangements and receive a contribution
    970
    towards the cost from the insurance committee will only be given in special circumstances. Insured persons are, therefore, not entitled to assume that their own applications can be granted, and if in these circumstances they choose to incur expense by obtaining treatment from a doctor not on the panel they must be prepared to take the risk of receiving no contribution if their application cannot be acceded to. The medical ticket should be retained by the insured person until the insurance committee have directed him to forward it to them.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is not that in direct conflict with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No. It is a direct carrying out of the Act which was passed twelve months ago.
    Mr. ORDE-POWLETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that an official of an assurance company is advising insured persons to select one particular doctor; that it was only after repeated inquiries that he admitted that they could choose for themselves; whether such a proceeding is in accordance with the regulations of the Insurance Com missioners; and whether he has sanctioned such a practice?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If a case were substantiated of an insured person being deliberately misled into thinking his choice of a doctor on the panel was in any way fettered the Commissioners would take a serious view of such conduct, and would take the appropriate action with regard to all persons found to be responsible for it.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked whether, in the case of a practitioner on the panel supplying his own drugs, Regulation 47 only assures to him a capitation fee of three-seventeenths of the amount avail able for medical benefit; and if, under these circumstances, the total capitation fee may not exceed 8s. 6d.?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The medical practitioners, in the circumstances stated, would receive three-seventeenths in respect of drugs, and fourteen-seventeenths in respect of medical attendance and treatment, making a total capitation fee of 8s. 6d. In addition, each would receive his proportionate share of the sum, equal to 6d. per head per annum, of all insured

    971
    persons entitled to obtain medical attendance from practitioners on the panel in respect of the domiciliary treatment of insured persons suffering from tuberculosis, making a total of 9s. in all.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the proportion of the drug suspense fund referred to in the right hon. Gentleman's answer be certain to amount to sixpence?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand that agreements are being made on that basis.

    CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury the total amount of the contributions under the National Insurance Act up to 31st December, 1912, the amount disbursed in benefits, and the cost of administration, giving separately the expenses of the Commissions, of approved societies, and of the insurance committees?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The amount received in health insurance contributions up to the date mentioned was about £7,500,000. I am unable to give the information asked for by the hon. Member as to expenditure, as it would involve asking for returns which are not now required for administrative purposes from 235 insurance committees and over 23,000 societies and branches.
    Mr. FRED HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider whether that is not information that ought to be placed before Members of the House?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will consider it. Of course full information will in due time be put before the House.
    Mr. F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects "due time" to arrive?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The first appropriate opportunity.

    ANCIENT ORDER OF HIBERNIANS.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he is aware that since the passing of the National Insurance Act the membership of the Ancient Order of Hibernians is increasing, and that on the 11th instant the Insurance Commissioners had in their possession over 130,000 cards for members of the
    972
    order from Ireland and 50,000 for members residing in Great Britain; and whether he can give the name of any similar secret and political order which has applied for and obtained leave to form an approved society for its members under the terms of the National Insurance Act; (2) whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by Cootehall, county Roscommon, branch No. 674, of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, directing that members in bad standing be expelled and their names published; whether he is aware that many insured persons have chosen a branch of the order as their approved society; and whether he will say what right is possessed by such insured member against the grand master, or other official of the order, in respect of contributions paid in the event of expulsion on the ground of political delinquency?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The separate section formed in connection with the organisation referred to includes about 130,000 Irish Members, in respect of whom about 115,000 cards have now been received. About 25,000 cards have been received in respect of Scottish Members, and the returns show 8,750 English Members. A number of organisations having political objects (amongst which I may mention the Orange and Protestant Friendly Society, which includes over 60,000 members) have, like the one referred to, promoted separate sections which have become approved for the purpose of administering the Act. No member can be expelled from the approved section except in accordance with the rules of the section, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. Any insured member has an appeal to the Insurance Commission against expulsion; and even if the expulsion were sanctioned he could take his transfer value representing approximately his original reserve value and the value of his subsequent contributions to induce another society to accept him on the same favourable terms as when he entered insurance.
    Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman describe as a political society a society that pledges its members never to take service in the Army, the Navy, the police, or anything of that kind?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know to what society the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. MOORE: The Ancient Order of Hibernians.

    WOMEN AND GIRLS.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the number of women and girls insured under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The number is approximately 3,750,000.

    NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (STRIKERS' CARDS).
    Mr. JAMES THOMASasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the stationmaster at Hunwick, North Eastern Railway, upon stamping a number of employés' insurance cards for the week ending Monday, 9th December, 1912, endorsed the cards with the words "on strike"; and, having regard to the fact that this is a breach of the instructions of the Commissioners and an interference with the privacy of insured members, and must necessarily prejudice a man when seeking employment by the card being so endorsed, he will say what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Regulations governing the collection of contributions under the National Insurance Act require that no mark shall be made on a contribution card except as expressly provided. I am communicating with the North Eastern Railway Company in regard to the matter referred to in the question.

    FACTORY GIRLS.
    Mr. CARR-GOMMasked whether, under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, an employer is entitled to deduct 3d. of the weekly wage from girl factory hands in the case of girls who only receive one to three days' work in the week at the rate of 2s. 6d. per day, but who are compelled by the conditions of their employment to remain at the factory the whole of the working week, namely, five days?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Where the conditions are as stated by my hon. Friend the rate of remuneration per working day is to be arrived at by dividing the actual earnings by the number of full days during which the worker has been in attendance at the factory. As the rate to be calculated would not on the facts stated exceed 1s. 6d., the employer should affix a 5d. stamp and is not entitled to make any deduction from wages if the employés are over twenty-one. If they are under twenty-one, the ordinary contributions of 3d. each from the employer and the employé are payable.

    PROPOSED GRANT TO IRELAND.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked whether the Supplementary Estimates will include the grant of £50,000 a year recently announced for the purposes of the National Insurance Act in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I will ask the hon. Member to refer to the answer which I gave on the 22nd instant to the hon. Member for North Down with regard to Supplementary Estimates.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me the substance of the answer?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot state the services, but there will be ample notice.

    EXCESS CONTRIBUTIONS (REPAYMENT).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say, where the employer of an insured per son had notified the Insurance Commissioners previous to 15th July, 1912, that he adopted the provisions of Section 47, but the full contribution was paid during the succeeding three months, whether repayment will be made of the excess paid by the insured person; and why the Commissioners have refused to make repayment?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Where an employer after giving due notice under the provisions of Section 47 has paid contributions in error at the full rate in respect of persons to whom the notice relates, claims for a refund of the amounts overpaid have been admitted by the Commissioners. If the hon. Member has a case in mind in which the application for a refund has not been granted, and will furnish me with particulars I shall be glad to inquire into the matter.

    TRAVELLING ACTORS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether an insured person who is engaged in a musical comedy company on tour in the country can obtain medical benefit; whether he is entitled to call on any panel doctor in any part of the country to treat him without payment; and how is such doctor to be paid?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Arrangements are made under the medical regulations whereby persons changing their residence within the year are able to change their doctors on giving notice to the insurance committee of the area to which they are

    975
    moving. Where insured persons belong to a profession which is constantly moving from one place to another, and staying in each of them for a very short time, they would appear to be among those to whom Section 15 (3) contemplates that permission might, in view of their special circumstances, be given to make their own arrangements for medical attendance and treatment, and to receive a contribution towards the cost of the same.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow in these cases persons to make their own arrangements?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That rests with the insurance committee. I think they are very appropriate cases.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say with which insurance committee it rests, seeing that these people are moving about all over the country?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The insurance committee of the district in which the person is resident or of the one in which he applies.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the case of domestic servants, who may be going up and down between Scotland and England very frequently?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes. I think that would be a very appropriate case.

    Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
    Mr. O'MALLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is satisfied that the present old age pensions officer in Spiddal, Connemara, can discharge his duties to the public satisfactorily, seeing that practically every old age pensioner in his district is completely ignorant of the English language; whether the Board of Customs and Excise has at any time invited or received applications from Irish-speaking officials in England and Scotland for transfer to Irish-speaking districts such as Spiddal; whether he is aware that the Welsh public recently successfully insisted on the withdrawal of the appointment of a certain gentleman to the position of Welsh insurance secretary on account of his ignorance of the Welsh language; and whether the Irish-speaking public will receive the same consideration?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No applications have been received for transfer to Spiddal, and I am not aware that any difficulties have arisen with regard to the performance of his duties by the existing officer. The Board of Customs and Excise do already, in selecting pension officers for Irish-speaking districts give a preference as far as possible to Irish-speaking officers.

    Regent's Park Leases.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether either this Session or next he will grant an opportunity for discussing the question of granting new leases of lands in Regent's Park; and whether the granting of further leases will be stayed until after that opportunity has been afforded?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that no new leases in Regent's Park will be completed before April next, and opportunities will therefore arise for the discussion of the subject, if desired, before the end of the financial year.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    ACTS OF UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENT.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether, in the- event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, not expressly excepting Ireland, will after that apply to Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question whether an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom applies, in the absence of express provision, to Ireland will, after the passing of the Government of Ireland Bill, as now, be a question depending on the intention of Parliament as shown by the provisions of the Act.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the answer in the affirmative or the negative?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is as I have given it.

    EXCLUSION OF ULSTER (PETITION).
    Mr. PIRIEasked whether, in view of the desirability of finding points of agreement with the Unionist representation from Ireland on the Government of Ireland Bill, and as the proposal for the temporary exclusion of Ulster from that Bill until its Parliamentary electors have presented a petition to His Majesty in favour of its inclusion meets with the approval of representatives from Ulster, the Prime Minister would suggest that such an

    977
    Amendment be inserted when the Bill is in the House of Lords; and, in that event, if the Government would favourably consider?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. PIRIE: In view of the desire of the Government to find points of agreement, what is the good of expressing such a desire if all the points of agreement are to be one-sided ones?
    Mr. MOORE: May I ask the Prime Minister if there is any foundation for the suggestion that the Government want to find points of agreement?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.
    Mr. MOORE: They would not be allowed to.

    Civil Service Federation.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether a Civil servant of any rank will be liable to disciplinary measures of any kind if he becomes a member of the recently formed Civil Service Federation, or whether such membership would in any way jeopardise his chances of advancement in the Civil Service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no knowledge of this particular organisation, and cannot express any opinion.

    Railways (No. 2) Bill.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the desire of agricultural producers and all classes of traders that the Hallways (No. 2) Bill shall be fully discussed in this House and under normal conditions of debate, the Prime Minister can arrange with those in the House who represent the interests of the railway companies that the Second Beading of this Bill shall be taken during the first week in April instead of amid great pressure of other public business and possibly during abnormal hours in the current Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear I do not see my way to accede to the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether it is proposed to consider the Railways (No. 2) Bill, after the passage of its Second Reading, in Committee of the Whole House or to send it to a Standing Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: To a Committee of the Whole House.

    Bee Disease Bill.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked if it is proposed to proceed with the further stages of the Bee Disease Bill this Session or to defer its detailed consideration until next Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear it is not possible to give facilities to proceed with this Bill this Session. I can make no promise for next, Session, but the claims of the Bill will certainly be considered.

  FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION BILL.

    WOMEN SUFFRAGE AMENDMENTS.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked whether, in the event of the Franchise and Registration Bill becoming law during the life of the present Parliament, it is the intention of the Government to intro duce a Redistribution Bill before or after the next election?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the statement I made on this subject on Thursday last.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether, if a Women Suffrage Amendment is carried, and if Mr. Speaker rules that such Amendment necessitates the introduction of a fresh Bill, the Prime Minister will still press on the Bill this Session and see it passed into law in time to become operative before any dissolution is rendered necessary under the terms of the Parliament Act?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I shall make a statement on this subject later on.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he makes such a statement to bear in mind that both his followers in this House and women in the country attach the utmost importance to one particular point, and that is, that they should have not merely an opportunity—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: When the right hon. Gentleman makes the statement, will he make it in such a Parliamentary form as will render it susceptible of debate?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We shall see.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will bear in mind, not merely the giving us an opportunity of voting on this question, but of getting it upon the Statute Book, in spite of the House of Lords, before the next General Election?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I said before, all relevant considerations will be carefully borne in mind.

    LENGTH OF SPEECHES.
    Mr. CARR-GOMMasked whether the Prime Minister will give facilities for the introduction of an Amendment to the Standing Orders by which a limitation of the length of speeches could be enforced during the discussion of that part of the Franchise Bill which is not included in the Appendix to his Allocation of Time Resolution, so as to secure the discussion of a larger number of Clauses and Amendments than is possible under the Resolution in its present form?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear I cannot give the facilities requested by the hon. Member.

    War in Balkans.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the outrages committed during and since the war on the Mahomedans of Macedonia have aroused much indignation in India; and whether the Government proposes to give expression to its sympathy with victims, whose co-religionists form so large a proportion of His Majesty's subjects?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that the reports of the treatment of the Moslem inhabitants of territory in Bulgarian and Servian occupation have attracted widespread notice. The attention of the Bulgarian and Servian Governments has been drawn to the matter.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his colleagues to refrain from expressing sympathy with the enemies of the Turk, which is regarded in India as a cruel aggravation?

    Continuation Schools (Berlin).
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Board of Education if he has information as to what changes and developments have recently taken place in connection with the compulsory scheme of continuation schools in Berlin?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I am sending the hon. Member, with this
    980
    answer, some information in connection with a scheme for making the attendance of girls at continuation schools compulsory, which has recently been accepted by the municipal authority of Berlin and now awaits the sanction of the higher authorities.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the information appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Mr. PEASE: I think the hon. Member had better wait until he sees the information given in the reply to the question, and then submit another question.

    West Ham Infirmary (Nurses).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) if the nurses at the West Ham union's infirmary are being overworked through the overcrowding of the infirmary; if he is aware that the nurses are working twelve and fourteen hours per day, seven days per week; if he is aware that at times there have been as many as nineteen nurses on the sick list at one time; and if he intends taking any action in the matter; (2) if the West Ham Board of Guardians have applied to the Local Government Board to engage an additional nursing staff at their infirmary in consequence of the long hours worked by the nurses, so that they can give the nurses one day's rest in seven; and if he will explain why the Local Government Board have refused the application?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I am aware that there has been some overcrowding in the infirmary referred to pending the provision of additional accommodation at Forest Gate. The institution there is now open and the number of inmates at the infirmary will, I hope, shortly be reduced to the normal number. As regards the hours worked by the nurses and the number on the sick list at one time, the information before me does not entirely accord with the figures given by the hon. Member, but I may say that I gave careful consideration to the application of the guardians for an increase in the nursing staff, and I assented to the appointment of six additional nurses. Having regard, however, to the duties performed and the circumstances and conditions under which those duties are discharged, I did not feel justified in assenting to the full proposals of the guardians.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that the appointment of additional nurses would enable the guardians to allow the nurses one day's rest in seven?
    Mr. BURNS: I cannot tell that until the new accommodation at Forest Gate has been entered upon and some experience gained.
    Mr. W. THORNE: If the board of guardians make another application, will the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider it, so that the nurses may have one day's rest in seven?
    Mr. BURNS: As in this case, I shall give it sympathetic consideration.

    Vaccination (Objection).
    Mr. J. WARDasked whether the attention of the President of the Local Government Board has been drawn to the fact that Mr. E. Tonge, 1, Angel Cottages, Plynlimmon Road, Hastings, in April last, when his child was about two months old, made a declaration of objection to vaccination before Mr. Eaton, J.P., and posted the form to the vaccination officer; whether he is aware that the officer is now threatening proceedings on the ground that he did not receive the exemption paper, although he did not send Form Q to the parent; and whether he will inform the officer that, under the circumstances, this is a case in which a summons need not be issued?
    Mr. BURNS: My attention has been drawn to this case. I communicated with the vaccination officer, and, upon receiving his reply, informed him that, in my opinion, this is not a case in which he should take further proceedings.

    Females in Trades and Professions.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the number of females in the United Kingdom engaged in trades and professions, classifying them under their various trades and professions and industrial occupations, for 1901 and 1911?
    Mr. BURNS: The numbers in England and Wales for 1901 are shown in the Census volume of "Summary Tables" (Cd. 1523). I am informed by the Registrar-General that the tabulation of the numbers for 1911 is not yet completed, and that the numbers will not fee available for some time.

  REOYAL NAVY.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state how much money has been collected from the workmen at Rosyth by the compulsory deduction of 2d. per week from their wages since the works started, and how the money has been spent; who audited the accounts; and whether any balance-sheet has been issued to the men in accordance with the provisions of the Truck Acts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The points raised by my hon. Friend relate to matters entirely under the jurisdiction of the contractors, but Messrs. Easton Gibb have kindly furnished me with the following information. The preparation of the statement of total contributions asked for in the first part of the question involves, I understand, some little trouble; but the firm will be quite prepared to give the amount collected year by year if my hon. Friend desires it. The whole of the money collected, without any deduction whatever, has been spent in payment for medical attendance on the workmen and their families. The accounts have been audited by a certified chartered accountant—the firm bearing the cost of the audit. A notice is posted on the works stating that the balance-sheets can be inspected on application by any workman who has subscribed to the fund, which is managed by a committee formed partly of workmen and partly of Messrs. Gibb's staff. I assume that all these arrangements will be affected, so far as the future is concerned, by the operations of Part I. of the Insurance Act.
    Mr. J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the contractor the advisability of circulating the balance sheet freely to all workmen whose wages are deducted for the purpose without compelling them to make application to the firm for the same?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The balance sheet is posted publicly at the works, where all workmen are able to see it.

    EXPENSE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a large amount of extra attendance was given at the dockyards by the clerical staff of the Expense Accounts

    983
    Department during November and December last; whether any submissions for payment to be made have been received at the Admiralty; and, if so, can a date be given when such payment will be sanctioned?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. It cannot be stated definitely when payment for the overtime will be sanctioned, but it is hoped that a decision will be communicated very shortly.

    LEAVE (PLAIN CLOTHES).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is now in a position to make a statement in reply to the frequent questions put to him with regard to the promised concession to petty officers and men of His Majesty's Fleet as to wearing plain clothes when on leave?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have nothing to add to the statement made by the First Lord in reply to the hon. Member's question on nth December, except that the Commanders-in-Chief at the ports have now issued orders on the subject.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that those Orders apply to both officers and men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Chief petty officers, petty officers, non-commissioned officers, leading rates and men with one or more good conduct badges may wear plain clothes when on long leave; when on short leave at the three Home ports, Portsmouth, Devonport, and the Nore. In case of smaller bases, when on short leave, provided their homes are in the vicinity.

    DEVONPORT DOCKYARD.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether at the second distribution of insurance cards at Devonport Dockyard the time taken at the north yard was forty minutes, so that the last men were compelled to wait that time after the bell had rung before receiving their cards; and can he see his way to prevent this en croachment on the men's time at future distributions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The distribution of insurance cards was made at Devonport Dockyard on Friday, the. 17th instant, at the same time as the workmen received their wages, and consequently no special muster was necessary. Except in the case
    984
    of men who missed their turn, the extra time taken by the bulk of the card distribution was under fifteen minutes over and above that required for the payment of wages.

    Glasgow Begging Case.
    Mr. J. WARDasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the case of a boy eight years old being tried before the Northern Police Court, Glasgow, charged with begging for his Christmas tree, and ordered to be detained in a reformatory prison for eight years; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in this case?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): My attention was called to this case, and I made inquiries about it recently. The order was for eight years' detention, not in a prison, but in an industrial school. Such an order is not punitive, either in intention or in fact. The magistrate has informed me that he took the course which he did as being the best in the interests of the boy himself, and I am not disposed to interfere.
    Sir W. BYLES: A boy of eight years is sent to prison for eight years for begging, and you are not going to interfere?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: He has not been sent to prison, but to an industrial school.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to repeat his last answers, as they have not reached this side?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My answer was that he has not been sent to prison, but to an industrial school.
    Sir W. BYLES: For eight years?
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the father of this child is supporting a family of ten persons on 22s. per week, and if the sending of this boy to an industrial school is in the best interests of this child? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has taken into consideration what can be done in the best interests of the other children?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is the House to understand that this child was merely begging in the street, and has been sentenced in consequence to eight years?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The magistrate informs me that from the evidence that was brought before him in regard to the child's surroundings he thought it in the best interests of the child that he should be dealt with in this way.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report of the police investigation was that the father was a decent, hard-working man, earning 22s. per week, with a family of eight children?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot discuss the evidence.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is this the result of legislation for the benefit of the poor?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to lay the evidence on the Table of the House?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not know that the evidence is in a form in which I could do that.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is there no note taken of the evidence in Scotland before a magistrate?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would ask the Noble Lord to give me notice of that question.

    Underground Telegraph Cables.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that 1,197 miles of underground telegraphic lines have been laid down in England as against only 133 miles in Scotland, whereas owing to the much greater frequency of storms in Scotland this proportion should be, to a large extent, reversed; and whether, in view of the hesitation of the Postmaster-General to deal effectively with this injustice, he can state what steps he is prepared to take to safeguard Scottish interests?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The first part of the question asking for postal statistics should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. As to the rest of the question, my hon. and gallant Friend is inviting me to offer a public criticism of my right hon. Friend's management of his Department, and I must respectfully decline that invitation. It would be contrary to practice that a Minister should make such a statement as is suggested about his communications with any of his colleagues relating to matters which are entirely within his colleague's province.
    Mr. PIRIE: I shall call attention to this matter on the Motion for Adjournment tomorrow.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the total mileage of the main line of underground telegraph lines from Penzance to Gretna viâ London, and also of all the other lines or spurs to it in England; will he state the length of line required had the line been constructed from Carlisle to Newcastle-on-Tyne; and will he state why a subsidiary line serving Halifax, Bradford, Leeds, and Durham should be considered of prior importance to completing the main north and south line to Dundee and Aberdeen, especially as storms are more frequent in the latter case, not losing sight of the fact that telegraphic communication with the Orkneys and Shetlands passes through Aberdeen?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The total length of the main underground line from Penzance to London and from London to Gretna is 634 miles, and the total length of the other lines and spurs of the main underground telegraph system in England is 563 miles. The distance as the crow flies from Carlisle to Newcastle is about fifty-five miles, but the length of an underground line between those places could not be stated without a survey of the route. The number of telegrams dealt with at the places served by the branch underground line referred to in the latter part of the question is several times greater than the number dealt with at Dundee and Aberdeen. The provision of an underground line on this route was also necessary because of the congestion of the overhead wires on all the main roads. A similar condition does not exist in the districts around Dundee and Aberdeen.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Postmaster-General whether, if a telegraphic message is handed in at Aberdeen for Dingwall, that message is not sent direct, but is despatched to Edinburgh and from thence to Dingwall; whether a telegraphic message from Arbroath or Montrose to Dundee reaches its destination viâEdinburgh; is it the case that the proposed extension of underground telegraph lines to Aberdeen and Dundee would materially injure the continuance of this policy; if so, is that policy due to the desire to maintain the volume of work at the Edinburgh post office in view of safeguarding the pecuniary position and prospects of the headquarters Pout Office officials in

    987
    Edinburgh; and would he give the respective mileages by the direct routes in both cases and by the indirect ones?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Telegrams for Dingwall, Arbroath, or Montrose from places in the neighbourhood are sent direct, but the number does not warrant direct communication with places at considerable distances. Traffic from such places has to be collected at the best centre for distribution, which in the cases quoted is Edinburgh. This practice would be unaffected by an extension of the underground system to Aberdeen and Dundee. When a small number of telegrams between any two places have to be dealt with, it is more economical to circulate them by longer indirect routes than to provide direct circuits which would be idle for most of the day, and the best route in such cases depends only to a limited extent upon the mileage of the alternative routes. I need hardly say that personal considerations are not taken into account as suggested by the hon. Member.

    Pentonville Prison Alterations.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a letter from the London Master Builders' Association to the London Navvies' and Labourers' Unions, dated 18th October, 1912, agreeing, after negotiations with such unions, that on and after 4th January the wages for navvies and labourers should be increased ½d., making 7½d. per hour; and whether the contractors for the alterations and repairs at Pentonville Prison have refused to raise their navvies and labourers to that rate, as accepted by the employers' association?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have made inquiry, and am informed that the contractor at Pentonville Prison has not refused to pay the increased rate of pay; on the contrary, he paid the increased rate without application.

    Shops Act.
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Home Secretary if his Department is responsible for the confusion and consequent injury to trade which has been caused in London with regard to the administration of the Shops Act; if not, who is so responsible; and whether he will take steps to ensure through the proper authority that the full
    988
    benefit of the Act may no longer be denied to the shopkeepers and shop assistants of London?
    Mr. McKENNA: My Department is not responsible for the local administration of the Shops Act. The administration of the Act in any district rests with the local authority of the district, who in the case of London are the County Council, subject to any delegation of their powers to the Metropolitan boroughs under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. I understand that the county council, who have been in communication for some time past with the borough councils on the question of the desirability of delegating certain of their powers, have now decided to undertake the whole administration of the Act themselves.

    Established Church (Wales) Bill.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary the annual value of the 299 benefices in Wales whose advowsons are in private hands; and whether he can give any, and, if so, what estimate of the amount which will be required to com pensate the lay officers of the Church in Wales under the Established Church (Wales) Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to state the annual value of the benefices in Wales in regard to which the advowsons are in private hands. With regard to my hon. Friend's second question, it is impossible to give any estimate of the amount which will be required to compensate the lay officers of the Church in Wales under the Established Church (Wales) Bill.

    Rosslare Harbour Station (Letter Delivery).
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Post master-General whether his attention has been called to the irregularities in the delivery of letters at Rosslare Harbour Station, causing inconvenience and worry to cross-channel passengers; is he aware that the present postal arrangements have been found wanting; and will he inquire into the matter, with a view to a better delivery at Rosslare Harbour Station?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: So far as I am aware no difficulty has arisen with regard to the delivery at Rosslare Harbour Station of any letter bearing a full and correct postal address. I will communicate with the hon. Member with regard to the treatment of letters bearing incorrect postal addresses.

    Post Office (Staff).
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the number of men and women employed in his Department of the Civil Service in the years 1901 and 1911, respectively?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: One hundred and thirty-seven thousand eight hundred and seven men, and 35,377 women were employed in the Post Office on the 31st March, 1901; and 166,073 men, and 46,741 women on the 31st March, 1911.

    Golders' Green and Hendon Post Offices.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the post office at Golder's Green is called the Hendon Post Office, while that near Hendon is called the Golder's Green Post Office; and if he will consider the advisability of renaming these offices to correspond more closely with the districts in which they are situated and to prevent the confusion which arises from the present arrangement?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are three sub post offices in the locality in question at present designated: Hendon, Golder's Green Road; Hendon, Temple Fortune; Golder's Green, Highfield Parade. All these offices are now in the newly formed Golder's Green Sub-district, and it is proposed to alter the designation of the two first-named offices to Golder's Green, near Station, and Golder's Green, Temple Fortune.

    Sierra Leone (Messrs Lever Brothers).
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any action has been taken to secure the observance of fair conditions of labour by Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, in regard to natives employed by them in connection with their concession in Sierra Leone; and if he will obtain a Report from the Governor of the Colony on the subject?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Messrs. Lever Brothers will be in exactly the same position as any other employer. Their arrangements with any natives employed by them must be in accordance with the general law of the Colony as to master and servant.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Is it not the fact that the factories on the estates of this firm are
    990
    the only possible employment in the neighbourhood, and whether under the circumstances Messrs. Lever are in a position to dictate their own terms?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The arrangements can only be made in conformity with the laws of the Colony.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Would the right hon. Gentleman advise the natives to form a trade union to protect their interests?
    Mr. FRED HALLasked if the right hon. Gentleman will place upon the Table a complete copy of the correspondence and particulars of any verbal negotiations which have passed between the Colonial Office, Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, and the Governor of the Colony affected with regard to the granting of certain trading concessions in West Africa to the firm named?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have already laid all the material correspondence. The purport of the verbal discussions is fully shown by the written communications which preceded and followed them.

    Governors of Colonies (Directorships).
    Sir J. D REESasked whether Governors of Colonies are, like other Colonial officials, debarred from accepting directorships in companies carrying on business in the Colonies in which they served until the expiry of three years after their retirement; and, if so, whose consent Governors themselves are to obtain prior to accepting such posts if, as is under stood, they are subject to the same disability?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Retired Colonial Governors will be treated in the same manner as other retired Colonial officials in regard to the acceptance of directorships of companies operating in Colonies in which they have served. A retired Governor who desires to obtain permission to accept a directorship of such a company will have to obtain the written consent of the Secretary of State, who will previously consult the Governor for the time being of the Colony in which the company operates.

    Nigeria (Government Service).
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the two men, Hall, and Taylor, who were publicly flogged at Zaria, Nigeria, for playing foot-

    991
    ball in the market place, have been dismissed from the Government service; and, if so, whether he will state the grounds of their dismissal?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I understand that at the time they committed the offence one of these men was under notice to leave and the other was under suspension, but I have no further information.

    Finance Act, 1912 (Retrospective Effect).
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of his being advised that Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1912, has no retrospective effect so as to enable him to order refund to Scottish mineral owners of the difference of the proportionate amounts exacted from them over and above the proportionate amounts exacted in South Britain for the years 1909–10, 1910–11, and 1911–12, ho will take measures, in the next Finance Bill or otherwise, to give retrospective effect, and so remedy the disproportionate taxation of mineral owners north of the River Tweed during those years?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am advised that Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1912, is not retrospective, and I regret I do not see my way to promise the introduction of legislation which will render it retrospective.
    Sir JOHN JARDINE: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the Taxes Act, 1856 (19 and 20 Vict, cap. 80, sec. 1), where retrospective effect was given in regard to Income Tax levied in disproportionate amount from Scotsmen and the inequality of taxation thus redressed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will look into the matter.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that in this case Scotland has been put into a rather worse position than England?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not altogether.

    Customs and Excise Officer (Suicide).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received copies of two letters written immediately before his death by the officer of Customs and Excise who recently committed suicide in Edinburgh, and, in view of the state-
    992
    ments made in these letters, if he adheres to the declaration that the worry of the work was not the cause of the suicide; if he has made inquiries as to the accuracy of the official statement that the work of the station was not in arrear when the deceased officer took charge; and, as bearing on that matter, will he state what proportion of the quarterly surveys had been made up to 2nd December when the deceased officer took charge; how many claims for repayment of Motor Spirit Duty had been received between 1st October and 2nd December, and how many had been dealt with; what proportion of the transfers of establishment, dog, motor licences registers had been completed up to 2nd December; and how many inquiries were outstanding re licences not taken out in respect of motor cars?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have seen copies of an uncompleted letter and a pencil note written by Mr. Williams immediately before his death, but I adhere to my statement that the work was not sufficient to account for his action. Full inquiry has been made as to the state of the work of the station, including the various details specified in the question, at the time that Mr. Williams took charge; and the inquiry confirms the assurance that I gave the hon. Member on the 8th instant, that there was no serious accumulation of arrears, and that the general work of the station was nothing more than normal.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say which letter he refers to? Was it the letter written to a colleague, or the letter sent to a lady?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The latter.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: And is it not a fact that this was wholly devoted to telling of his worry about his work?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes. But, as a matter of fact, it does convey the impression that Williams' mind was unhinged at the time. There are passages which indicate that very clearly. The letter can be read if the hon. Member wishes.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: In view of well-founded complaints from several centres, will not the right hon. Gentleman consent to an inquiry into the whole question of overwork in this particular branch of the service?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have been inquiring a good deal into the matter.

    993
    There has no doubt been a good deal of overwork in connection with old age pensions, but that is gradually passing away.

    Pensions (Commutation).
    Colonel YATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, considering the fact that the Treasury has already made a profit of some £200.000 from the commutation of pension and that the 5 per cent, rate of interest charged to the commuter is higher than the rate at which Government can borrow the money, he will now consider the question of permitting pensioners to commute their pensions on a 3½ per cent, basis, the rate now charged by the Government of India, instead of on the 5 per cent, basis at present chargeable under the Pensions Commutation Act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I fear that I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on this subject.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILL PRESENTED.
    PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE (WALES) BILL.
    "To provide for the better custody of Welsh Records." Presented by Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS; supported by Sir David Brynmor Jones, Sir Herbert Roberts, Colonel Pryce-Jones, Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart, and Mr. William Ormsby-Gore; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 354.]
  FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION BILL.

    WOMEN SUFTOAGE AMENDMENTS.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): With regard to the first Order of the Day, the Franchise and Registration Bill, I desire to ask you, Sir, a question suggested by the intimation which you gave or foreshadowed to the House in answer to a question put to you on Thursday last by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. You then said that in your opinion it would be premature at this stage for you to express your view as to whether or not particular Amendments in Committee of which notice has been given in regard to this Bill would, if adopted by the House, involve such a fundamental alteration of the Bill as to bring it within, not the rule, but the practice as regards withdrawal. I wish, with all deference and respect, to ask you this: Having regard to the fact that the Amendment now under discussion, that standing in the name of my right hon. Friend behind me (Sir E. Grey), would, and is intended to, open the door to the discussion of some three, I think, concrete proposals for the incorporation in the Bill, in one form or another, of what is called Women Suffrage, whether, with a view to the general convenience of the House and in order to avoid the sense of unreality which would otherwise prevail and an abortive employment of Parliamentary time, you would not, notwithstanding what you said the other night, so far relax the strictness of our ordinary procedure as now to intimate to the House which, if any, of those Amendments, if they were adopted in Committee, and therefore came before you upon Report and subsequent stages, would in your opinion effect such a transformation or such a fundamental alteration in
    1020
    the Bill as to bring it within the practice to which you then referred.
    Mr. SPEAKER: In reply to the Prime Minister, I think I must still maintain what I laid down on Thursday, namely, that the proper time to answer questions with regard to my general view of the Bill, is after the Bill has passed through Committee, and I am able to see the position of the Bill as compared with the Bill when it was brought in. But I quite recognise what has fallen from the Prime Minister —that is, that the statement which I made on Thursday last does leave the House in very considerable difficulty in reference to the Debate which, in the ordinary course, would occur this evening; and I believe I should be meeting the general convenience of the House if I were to state now what my view would be supposing certain Amendments to the Franchise Bill were to be admitted. I will say this: If the Amendments of which notice has been given by the Government, and one or two of the Amendments designed to grant Women Suffrage were to be inserted in the Bill, my opinion is that under those circumstances the Bill would be substantially a new Bill. Therefore, in accordance with the practice of the House, it ought to be withdrawn and a fresh Bill ought to be introduced. I may leave aside for the moment as not being immediately pressing the question of the new Amendments of which notice has been given by His Majesty's Government. The question I have to put to myself and have to answer now is whether, if any of the Amendments designed to grant the suffrage to women were admitted, they would make so great a change in the Bill as to constitute it a new Bill. Let me take the Amendments seriatim. With regard to the Amendment to leave out the word "male," I suppose it is intended, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to open the door to one or other of the Amendments being proposed. If the Bill were amended by leaving out the word "male" and leaving in the word "person," it would not, in my judgment, make the difference intended. I understand that in all franchise Acts, the word "person" has always hitherto been held to mean "male person." To come to the other three Amendments, I am told — though I have no means of verifying it myself—that the first Amendment, if carried, would admit some eleven millions of women to the vote, that the second Amendment would admit some

    1021
    six millions, and that the third Amendment would probably admit one million to one million and a half. If that be so— and I am bound to accept those statements from persons who have authority to make them—I have formed the opinion that the admission of any one of those Amendments would so alter the Bill as practially to convert it into a new Bill. Under those circumstances, I shall advise the House that the Bill be withdrawn, and that a Motion should be made to ask leave to introduce a new Bill. It has been suggested to me that in the Representation of the People Bills of 1867 and 1884, Amendments designed for somewhat similar purposes were moved in Committee, and that no exception was taken to them. In regard to that, I would first of all take the technical point—and I admit it is only a technical point—that these Amendments were not carried, were not inserted in the Bill, and that the Speaker of that day did not have the opportunity of considering the Bills with the Amendments in them. Therefore, there is no strict precedent there. I would, however, take very much broader ground than that. I would say that the Representation of the People Bill, 1832, the Representation of the People Bill, 1867, and the Representation of the People Bill, 1884, were all designed, and purposely designed, to open the franchise to a large class, or many large classes, of the people of this country who, up to that moment, had not had the privilege of the franchise. Those Bills were, I say, purposely designed for that object. The present Bill is not designed with any such object. The present Bill is limited in its scope; the chief object of it is to abolish plural voting, while the secondary object is to add rapidity to the system of registration. There are other minor objects and purposes. The effect, it is true, of those provisions may be very considerably to increase the electorate, but as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education pointed out very clearly last Thursday night, the Bill did not propose, and did not in fact add a new class, nor was it designed to add a new class to the electorate. If one of the Women Suffrage Amendments were to be inserted it would add to the electorate a very large class, and would establish an entirely new principle. In my judgment, leave to introduce the Bill did not contain that principle, and that principle was not assented to on Second Reading. Therefore, I am driven to the conclusion that the Bill would, if
    1022
    altered by the insertion of a Women Suffrage Amendment, practically constitute a new Bill.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I need not, say, Sir, that I do not rise for the purpose of presuming to discuss, still less to criticise, the ruling that you have just given from the Chair. Perhaps, however, by the indulgence of the House, I may be allowed to say a few words upon the change which that ruling necessarily involves in the procedure of the Government—
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I, Mr. Speaker, interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand there is no Question now before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman intends to make some statement about business. I would like to know whether it would not be necessary that he should end by moving the Adjournment of the House so that those of us who desire to do so may express our views upon the subject?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not yet know what course the Prime Minister is going to propose. I think we had better hear the Prime Minister.
    The PRIME MINISTER: In my experience, as a rule, very large latitude has been given by the indulgence of the House to the Leader of the House—
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We must have the right of reply.
    4.0 P.M.
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the indulgence I ask is not to be accorded, I shall certainly conclude my speech with a Motion, though perhaps not such a Motion as the right hon. Gentleman anticipates. I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that I was not going to presume in any way to discuss, still less to criticise, the ruling which you have just given from the Chair. Indeed, I think the House is under a great obligation to you for having saved us from what would have been a regrettable waste of Parliamentary time by stepping for the moment outside the strict province of established procedure and telling us in advance what you were not bound to tell us—what your ruling would be in the event of any of these Amendments being accepted. I feel bound to say in the first place, though, as I have said, with no disposition or desire to criticise your ruling, that it was not in the least degree anticipated by His Majesty's Government or as I believe, by the great majority of the House. You have referred, Sir, to the precedents of 1867 and 1884. We

    1023
    carefully studied those precedents, because it would be a mistake to suppose that this point had escaped attention, or that it was not deliberately considered by His Majesty's Government, and by the skilled advisers to whose counsel they resort. Our opinion was that as both in 1867 and in 1884 Amendments in Committee had been moved extending to women the franchise measure which in its terms was confined to men—in the one case without any objection, and in the other case after objection taken by a very great Parliamentarian of those days, Lord Randolph Churchill, on the ground that the Amendment was outside the scope of the Bill, and would at any rate, require an Instruction to give it foundation, an objection which was over-ruled by the Chairman of that Committee, as he said after consultation with the Speaker —having regard, I say, to these two precedents, it certainly was our opinion that it would be open to anybody in this measure, which is a measure of enfranchisement, which is a measure that by limiting the period of qualification does introduce, quite apart from the abolition of plural voting, a large new element into the electorate—not, I agree, new in the sense that they are a different class from those who are there before, but new in the sense that hitherto they have been disqualified by what we regard as an artificial limitation from rights that belong to other members of the community—we did in these circumstances come to the conclusion that an Amendment of this kind would not only be admitted as in order in Committee, but would not be regarded as outside the scope, or irrelevant to the general purposes of the Bill. Further, as I shall have to point out in a moment in another connection, we were in this matter under a very special obligation to those promoting the cause of Women Suffrage.
    I myself, as is well known, am an opponent of this cause. Many of my colleagues take a different view, but I thought it right—I am not going into the matter now, whether for good or for bad reasons; it is immaterial—I thought It right, speaking on behalf, not of myself, but of the Government as a whole, to give an undertaking that if we introduced, as we were obliged and bound to introduce, a Franchise Bill substantially upon the lines of this Bill, we should frame it in such a form as would admit for discussion, and,
    1024
    if it was the opinion of the majority of the House, for adoption, an Amendment for the inclusion of women as well as men within its scope. And with that object, and solely with that object, we introduced into this Bill, in the very forefront of its first Clause, an epithet which has never previously appeared in our franchise legislation, the word "male," because it is well known that in franchise law, whatever may be the interpretation of the word "person" in any other department of our jurisprudence, in franchise law it is always held to be confined to men and man alone, and by introducing the word "male" and putting it into the first line of the first Clause, it was our honest intention to carry out the pledge we had given, as it were, to challenge, in the most pointed way the decision of the House when the Bill came into Committee as to whether the Bill should or not be confined to one sex.
    I think I am speaking within the general recollection of the House when I say that in the Debates, both on the introduction of the Bill and upon Second Reading of the Bill, it was universally assumed in all quarters of the House, by the opponents as well as by the advocates of Women Suffrage, that when we reached the Committee stage it would be possible to have, and indeed it was the intention of the framers of the Bill that full and free opportunity should be given for the discussion of this matter of Women Suffrage in any of the various concrete forms in which the principle might be embodied. I am bound to say so much lest it should be suggested either that in this matter we have treated an important point of procedure with inadvertence and neglect, and, still more, that it should be suggested that there has been anything in the nature of sharp practice. So far I hope I may command the general assent. Now, Sir, you have given this ruling. The expectations that were certainly entertained by us, and I think generally entertained, have thereby been frustrated, and it now appears that any Amendment—I am not speaking of the Amendment associated with the name of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square; that, I agree, is more or less neutral in its character, and was only moved as a preliminary step—but any of the three Amendments which appear upon the Paper in which the extension of the franchise for

    1025
    women is alternatively embodied would not indeed be out of order in Committee, but would, if adopted in Committee, be held by you, Sir, when the Bill came up on Report for Third Reading, to have so vitally and fundamentally transformed its character as to make it a different Bill, and, in accordance with the established practice of Parliament, to compel its promoters to withdraw it and to introduce a new Bill. As I say, that came upon us as a surprise. We loyally, and without any kind of reserve, accept the ruling which you have given, and we have to consider what in these circumstances is our duty, in view, first, of the general convenience of the House, and next of the specific pledges and undertakings which we ourselves have given. Now I do not hesitate to say, and I believe here again I shall be fortunate enough to command something like general assent, that in view of that ruling it would be a futile and otiose thing to prolong the discussion upon the Amendment which is now before the Committee. It would be an unreal discussion. I do not say an insincere discussion, but an unreal discussion. Any decision which the House under such conditions should arrive at would not be regarded I think—and certainly would not be regarded by the supporters of Women Suffrage, I am not sure, it would be regarded even by its opponents—as a decision which would accurately reflect, or at least necessarily reflect the predominant opinion of the House of Commons. Speaking entirely for myself personally, as an opponent of Women Suffrage, I very much regret that that should be so. I hoped we should have had that discussion and should have come to a Division. I did not look forward to it from my point of view with any apprehension whatever. That must be taken as a mere personal aside.
    Mr. GOULDING: Stick to office.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I did not hear what was said, but I was saying I hope that will be taken as a mere personal aside. I think we all know that the prolongation of this discussion would be a useless waste of Parliamentary time. Then, Sir, I come to another and more serious matter. Supposing the discussion upon this Amendment be by general consent put an end to, is it right for the Government to proceed to the prosecution of the Bill? In my opinion, and that is the opinion which is shared by my colleagues, whatever views they may take about
    1026
    Women Suffrage, it would not. I will tell the House in a sentence or two why. This is a Bill—I am not, of course, going to trench in any degree on the controversial question of its merits or demerits— which would undoubtedly have the effect of adding to the male electorate of this country a number of persons—the estimates vary, some people say 1,500,000; some people say 2,000,000, and I think the other night in Debate it was put as high as 2,500,000—at any rate, it would involve a very substantial addition to the male electorate of the country, and I do not think it would be fair and right, and certainly I do not think it would be acting up to the spirit of the obligation which we undertook which were, in substance, that in any Bill for the extension of the franchise we would give a full and free opportunity for the discussion, and, if it was the view of the majority of the House for the introduction of Women Suffrage into that Bill, if after that door had been finally closed, so far as this Bill is concerned, we were to proceed with the enfranchisement of the male electorate, and therefore as a mere matter of common honour and common-sense if we agree that the discussion of the Women Suffrage Amendment is precluded by the ruling which you, Sir, have given we cannot in fairness proceed with the Bill as it stands and with its other provisions. Then, Sir, the question arises what further ought to be done?
    Earl WINTERTON: A General Election.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Does the Noble Lord want a General Election upon Women Suffrage?
    Mr. GOULDING: Upon any question.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think I should allow myself to be diverted from pursuing the statement I am making in view of the clear definition of the position of the Government and I hope for the general convenience of the House of Commons. Having laid down these two propositions, namely, first, that in view of your ruling, Sir, it is useless to proceed with the discussion of the Women's Franchise Amendments, and, next, that these being debarred from consideration we ought not to proceed with the Bill, I have to say, first, that in the opinion of the Government while that will prevent them, and I think necessarily prevent them from pressing or prosecuting any further proposals upon this subject during the present Session that must not be taken as in any sense an

    1027
    abandonment upon their part of their intention to proceed, if and when opportunity offers, with electoral reform, including registration and what is not less, but in my opinion more important, Redistribution. We think it essential so far as it may be within our power to deal effectively with the abuses of plural voting within the lifetime of the present Parliament.
    Now I come to what is a much more difficult and delicate matter, and that is the position which we, and indeed all parties, are now placed in regard to the question of Women Suffrage. Let me recall to the recollection of the House the actual undertaking which the Government have given with regard to this matter. We promised—I promised on behalf of the Government—in, I believe, in the clearest and fullest exposition of our views, to be found in a reply I gave to a deputation of ladies in November, 1911, two things. We promised, in the first place, that if a private Member introduced a Women Suffrage Bill, which then went by the name of the Conciliation Bill, that, provided its title was so framed as to admit of amendment—that is to say, to admit of other proposals beyond the conciliation proposals—for the extension of votes to women, we would give that Bill facilities; in other words, that we would devote to it an adequate amount of Government time, and, if the House passed its Second Reading, those facilities should extend to its subsequent stages. That was our first promise. Here it will be convenient to remind the House that that Bill was introduced by a private Member at the beginning of this Session, that we did give it the facilities we had promised, the House rejected it on the Second Reading, and there was an end of it, so far as that Bill was concerned, of our pledge in regard to it. We gave a further pledge, and it was that if, for any reason, as indeed happened, the Bill introduced by a private Member was either rejected or met with some other mishap, we would in our own proposals with regard to suffrage, so far as we could—we thought then we could do so—completely open the door to the amendment of these proposals at the will of the majority of the House to include women as well as men. We did that too; we fulfilled that honest intention in perfect good faith, and, as we believed, with complete security, and we fulfilled the second as well as the first branch of the pledge we had given in this matter.
    1028
    We are now, it appears, disabled— I am not complaining or making any criticism —by the technical procedure of the House from completely carrying out the undertakings which in intention and spirit we tried to perform. The question is—and it is a very serious question—what is, I will not say the law, because it is not a matter of law, but what is it, in honour and good faith, we ought to do to give effect to those intentions and those undertakings? One thing has been made quite clear by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and it is that Women Suffrage cannot, under our procedure, be introduced into any Bill the main and primary purpose of which is to enfranchise or enlarge the enfranchisement of the male electorate. If that is the purpose of the Bill, if that is its main object, no Amendment can be introduced into it which would have the effect of enfranchising women without so fundamentally transforming its character that it would be a Bill which ought not to have been introduced, because it can be compelled to be withdrawn. That being the position, there are obviously two, and only two, possible courses to be taken. The first would be that the Government, on its own account, should introduce a Bill in terms enfranchising women, but that the Government will not do for reasons which must be obvious and upon which it is not necessary to enlarge. The alternative course, and the only other course, to pursue, is the course we propose to adopt— that is, to engage in the next Session of Parliament, if a private Member's Bill for the enfranchisement of women is introduced, the Government will give it facilities, by which I mean an adequate share of their time, for its reasonable discussion and amendment in the House. It must be a Bill which corresponds to the conditions I laid down two years ago in regard to the Conciliation Bill, which is so framed that it does not exclude the possible amendment of any of the various proposals of enfranchisement, and it shall be a Bill in regard to which the Members of the Government will be perfectly free, and their supporters and everybody else, to give their votes at every stage one way or the other, but a Bill introduced under those conditions and provided with those facilities we should be perfectly prepared to supply with the same opportunities both as regards the time of its introduction and its Second Reading, and if it is carried by this House as regards its career through subsequent Sessions the same facilities as regards the expenditure of Government

    1029
    time as we are prepared to give to any controversial measure of the Government itself.
    As I have said, we retain individually and as a Government our complete freedom of action with regard to any such matters. I believe that is the best way, and indeed the only practical way, by which we can give effect lo the undertakings we have given, and I hope the House will agree that in a situation which none of us anticipated, which, indeed, I do not think it was possible to foresee, we are doing the utmost in our power to give effect in complete good faith to the understandings and undertakings on which we have hitherto proceeded. That is all I have to say, and I hope I have made the position perfectly clear. I have spoken with complete frankness to the House. I remain myself as strongly opposed as ever I was to the principle of the extension of the franchise to women. I regret for myself, and I regret deeply, that we have not had the opportunity of bringing that matter to an issue here to-night, and that circumstances have intervened which have rendered that impossible. I have endeavoured, and my colleagues have endeavoured, holding as we do diverse views on this subject, to hold an even balance between the various interests of the parties concerned, and so far as I am personally concerned, I trust the House will agree that I have striven and have succeeded in giving effect, both in the letter and in the spirit, to every undertaking which the Government has given.
    Perhaps, before I sit down, I ought to add a word as to what change it will make if we should not proceed further with the Bill in regard to the business of the House. I think that will be the most convenient course. I shall conclude with a Motion, but before I do so, though it is not strictly relevant, I wish to say that we shall proceed to-day with the Second Order on the Paper—that is the Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill—and to-morrow we shall, instead of taking it on Wednesday, take the Committee stage of the Established Church (Wales) Bill, and on Wednesday, continue the Report stage of the Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill. On Thursday, the first two hours of the sitting will be devoted to the Resolution for the Allocation of Time on the Report stage of the Welsh Bill, and we hope, thereafter, to conclude, if not already finished, the Report stage of the Trade Unions Bill. We should take the Second Reading of the
    1030
    Railways (No. 2) Bill, and the Third Reading the Trade Unions Bill on Friday. The Motion which I had better conclude with, is to discharge the First Order. I beg to move: "That the Order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn."
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood my earlier interruption, which had no other object than to enable any hon. Member who wished to do so to have an opportunity of taking part in the discussion, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman himself must realise is necessary. I cannot say that I regret what has happened from the point of view of Women Suffrage. In my belief the opportunity which the right hon. Gentleman holds out next Session will be a fairer opportunity than would have been possible under these conditions, for the reason that many of us who on general grounds might have supported Women Suffrage would have been bound to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill. From that point of view there is no serious objection to the course which the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I may say also that I, at least, have no doubt about the perfect good faith of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken, but I am bound to say that the other alternative is one in regard to which I do not think he has acquitted himself quite so satisfactorily. As a matter of fact, the difficulty which has arisen was not only foreseen, but pointed out in some of the newspapers more than a year ago, and I really cannot understand how any Government, with the talent, which we see in front of us now, could have failed to make it perfectly certain that this difficulty should not arise. But this is simply commentary which the House will easily understand on the way in which the business of this Government has been conducted. They are rushing from Bill to Bill; they are living from hand to mouth, and not one of them has time to think about anything except how they will continue in office for another year. Better proof of the absolute want of consideration to which I have referred could not have been given than was afforded in an incidental remark by the right hon. Gentleman himself. He spoke of his new Franchise Bill, and ho said it would include registration, which was even more important than the other topic.
    The PRIME MINISTER The PRIME MINISTER indicated dissent.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Even more important than the other topic. Yet he has brought down to this House a Franchise Bill which left out the most important part, and he has proposed to carry it through by means which certainly were never heard of before in any free assembly in the world. I cannot profess to regret what has happened. I do not think it adds to the strength of the Government, and I think it will probably shorten the Session. There is only one thing I regret, and I am sure that regret is shared by every Member of the House in whatever quarter he sits. It is that we have not had the opportunity of hearing the Chancellor of the Exchequer reply to the speech of a specially friendly kind made by the Colonial Secretary.
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: We on these benches cannot allow the Order to be discharged without expressing an opinion as to our position with regard to the new situation which has arisen out of the ruling you, Sir, have given this afternoon. The Leader of the Opposition in the speech he has made appeared to me to be much more concerned in scoring a party advantage than in putting before the House the seriousness of the situation so far as some thousands of honest women in this country are concerned. It may be that the two orthodox parties in this House are so much at sixes and sevens with regard to women enfranchisement that the less the position is seriously faced the better it may be from their too purely party standpoint. We on these benches occupy an entirely different position. We are not at sixes and sevens on this question. I think it can be said to our credit that, not only do we stand solid and united in favour of women enfranchisement, but it can be said of us, as it can be said of no other party in this House, that the more women we could have secured in the Bill which is to be withdrawn the more satisfied would the whole of this party have been and the more satisfied would those whom we represent in the country have been. I suppose the more women that might have been included in the Bill the more dissatisfied would either of the other parties in the House have been. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I am delighted to hear that is contested by some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I am only sorry I have not the opportunity of moving the Amendment standing in my name, because I would have been glad to have put those cheers to a very definite test. I
    1032
    am inclined to think that at seven o'clock to-night many of those who are now protesting against my statement would have been found in the Lobby against the enfranchisement of the whole of the women. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    I want to turn attention to the statement just made by the Prime Minister. So far as I have been able to follow the course of events, I believe the Prime Minister, notwithstanding his opposition to women enfranchisement, has done his very best to give effect to the pledge he has not only made, but reiterated time and again to deputations of women when they have approached the Government on this matter. I am not, however, satisfied upon this. The Prime Minister in the proposal he made at the end of his statement set forth the future intentions of the Government. I do not think he quite kept up to the standard he has all through this business set. We must not underestimate the value of the pledge which the Prime Minister gave. We must not undervalue the position it has created in the country. I want to remind the House of the use that has been made of it over and over again by Members of the Government in order to carry with the Government in its programme the great mass of non-militant women. I want to call attention to a statement made by the Foreign Secretary. He said:—
    "The introduction of the Government Bill provides a better opportunity than Women Suffrage has ever yet had of making real progress in the House of Commons."
    Compare that statement with the statement the Prime Minister has just made as to the intention of the Government to redeem the pledge by allowing a private Member next Session the necessary time to introduce a Suffrage Bill. Is that the redemption of the pledge? I want the House to notice that if a private Member introduces the Bill he has got to be responsible for it until it goes to another place. I think the Prime Minister gives assent to that. I could quite have understood if, in his statement to-day, the Prime Minister had said, "In order to give effect to my pledge, a pledge made in the name of the Government, we will afford time for the Second Beading of the Bill."
    The PRIME MINISTER: So I did.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes but we say, "Afford time for the Second Reading of the Bill, and if the Bill succeeds in obtaining a Second Reading by a majority of the House, our position will then be what

    1033
    it would have been during the present week if a Suffrage Amendment had been carried by the House." The pledge, as we understood it, was that the Government would take charge of the amended Bill and hold to the amended Bill in this House or in the other House during the necessary time to carry it into effect under the Parliament Act. That is the interpretation we placed upon the pledge, but to say that not only shall a private Member introduce the Bill, risk its Second Reading, and risk all the tricks that may be played during the Committee stage of the Bill—
    Mr. GOULDING: Tricks!
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, tricks. I do not withdraw the word. I am too well aware of what has been going on in the Smoke Boom and in the Lobbies during the past two or three months. Every Member on this side of the House knows—
    Mr. GOULDING: The Colonial Secretary.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: It is not necessary to mention names. Cabinet Ministers have been busying themselves more during the last six or eight weeks than I have ever known in the cordiality and friendship they have shown to every Member who was suspected of being sufficiently weak-kneed to listen to their tales about the embarrassment of His Majesty's Government.
    Earl WINTERTON: A candid friend And yet you call this an honourable House!
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: Those. Cabinet Ministers who have not been working quite so hard as the Colonial Secretary, those on the other side of the question who have been making these statements that the pledge of the Prime Minister—
    Earl WINTERTON: This is the depth of degradation.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the Noble Lord to refrain from making these interruptions.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I was about to say that those Cabinet Ministers who on the other side of the question had not been working so hard as some of us who are with them with regard to Women Suffrage would have liked to have seen
    1034
    them work, and who have been making these statements to deputations that this Bill afforded a better opportunity than we had ever had before, expect us to-day to be content with the Prime Minister's statement made in their name, made I assume, in the names of all the Members of the Cabinet. They expect us to be satisfied with this fulfilment of this important pledge—that a private Member shall carry the whole responsibility of the Bill from its introduction until the time it leaves this House. I protest that this is not a fulfilment of the pledge. I was hopeful, in spite of the speech delivered on Friday by the Colonial Secretary, that having a strong desire to carry out their pledge honourably and having denied the women this golden opportunity—I have in my hand speeches by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the Foreign Secretary, and by the Solicitor-General—
    Sir A. MARKHAM: They have not denied them.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I am speaking of the statement made by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government as a whole. If there was a desire to give full effect to the honourable pledge made it seems to me that nothing short of the Government making themselves responsible—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I may be wrong, but I am perfectly sincere when I say that nothing short of the Government making themselves responsible for a Bill which includes the women would it seems to me meet the case and the expectations which have been created. But, if they will not go so far as that, surely we have a right to expect—and I hope it is not too late— the Government even now to reconsider their position to this extent: That after this private Member has been provided with the time, the Government should, providing the Bill meets their demands as laid down in the speech of the Prime Minister and the House gives it a Second Reading, assume charge of the Bill. The Prime Minister dissents. Then all T have to say, in conclusion, is that I fail to see that this pledge which has been hawked about the country, the pledge by which the non-militants were kept quiet— hon. Members object to that statement, but surely it is a very reasonable one to make; it is true that the non-militants have been resting on the complete discharge of this pledge, and to that extent they had been kept quiet—and they have gone about the country to meeting after

    1035
    meeting, saying, "We believe that the Prime Minister is going to carry out in letter and in spirit this pledge."
    Sir A. B. MARKHAM: And so he has.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I venture to say that to ask a private Member to be responsible for this Bill, when, in the present case, the Government were themselves going to take the responsibility immediately any one of the three Amendments was carried, and would from that time hold that responsibility till the Bill passed, under the Parliament Act, on to the Statute Book, I venture to say it cannot be accepted that they are discharging their pledge by throwing the onus on a private Member to see the Bill right through all its stages to the other House. I hope, therefore, the House will recognise that we have a right to press the matter still further and to ask the Government itself to take charge of the Bill after it has succeeded in getting a Second Reading. From that point the Government should be responsible for its passing into law.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member has made a very powerful appeal to the Government to carry out the full effect and meaning of the pledge of the Prime Minister, and I propose, before I sit down, to say a few words upon that matter. The hon. Member's suggestion that after the Bill has been read a second time it might receive the assistance of the machinery of the Government as well, as time is well worth consideration. The first thing that strikes me about the situation is the extraordinary mess Parliament has got into entirely through the operation of the Parliament Act. But for that ill-starred and unfortunate piece of legislation we should never have been in the situation of having to discuss, for the first time, a matter of such vital importance at the end of the month of January, and at the end of a Session which has already lasted nearly twelve months. Supposing we had been working under a more rational Constitution, we should merely have postponed the Bill for one year and no particular harm would have been done; the Bill would have had just as good a chance next year as this. I quite agree, from the Government point of view, that some change of procedure is desirable, but instead of having this ridiculous plan of hanging Bills up for three years, it would have been far more rational to have given an appeal to the country, by means of the Referendum,
    1036
    against the decision of the Second Chamber. If such a system had obtained, we should not have been in the difficulty in which we now find ourselves.
    The next thing that strikes me very forcibly about the situation is that the question of Women Suffrage is one of the first importance. Here you have a matter which has destroyed a Government Bill, and the Colonial Secretary would do well to consider that fact very seriously. This is not a matter that may be treated in the way he is accustomed to treat it; it ought to be treated seriously and in good faith; it is not a matter for those intrigues and proceedings which the hon. Member for Barnard Castle has recently been describing to the House. That is not the way of dealing with a question which can have such effects on the fortunes of the Government. I am not at all astonished that this particular method of dealing with the question has miscarried. I never believed it was possible to deal with it in the way the Government proposed. I have always said so, although, it will be admitted, that I did my best to act loyally to the Government, while doing all I could in the interest of Women Suffrage. I have always said that it was a wrong way of going about the business, and that is why I do not agree with the hon. Member for Barnard Castle. I do not think it is possible for the Government to introduce a Bill and make themselves responsible for a proposal such as Women Suffrage if the Prime Minister regards it as a national disaster.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That phrase has often been imputed to me, but I never used it.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I believe the actual words were, "a political mistake of a very disastrous character." I am quite ready to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the distinction between these two phrases. I will simply say I do not believe that any Government measure containing a proposal which, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, is "a political mistake of a very disastrous character," will ever reach the Statute Book, especially if one of the colleagues of the Prime Minister has the peculiar talents of the Colonial Secretary. Therefore, in my judgment, if Women Suffrage had got over this particular difficulty the Bill would have certainly been wrecked under this procedure sooner or later. I am glad that we are going to return to the franker and more candid system adopted in the Conciliation

    1037
    Bill. I hope that that system will not be departed from again. What is the proposal of the Government? It is that we are to have the Bill introduced by those who thoroughly believe in it and who continue to believe in it; they will frame it in the way which they think best in the interests of the public and most feasible in view of the Parliamentary situation. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Barnard Castle that the difficulties in the way of a private Member or of a private organisation under our party system are very great; I do not underrate them. You are always exposed to subterranean currents which have their origin in the Whips' rooms on both sides of the Lobby; you never know what is going on. But I hope we shall be able to take means to ward off those untoward occurrences. I feel the enormous advantage of the Bill being in charge of those who believe in it. I believe that is a tremendously good thing if the House will only treat this subject fairly. If hon. Gentlemen who have given pledges in favour of Women Suffrage have changed their opinions, in heaven's name let them get up and say so. I should prefer even the First Lord of the Admiralty to people who, having given pledges, apparently stick to them, but yet will never come up to the scratch and vote when the matter goes to Division. It is not respectable; it is not a really possible attitude to take in reference to a matter of this importance.
    It is all very well to denounce the militancy of militant women; conceive what any body of men would have done if they had been treated in the way women have been. It would not have been a casual outrage; it would have been an insurrection. You would certainly have had riots. It was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who pointed out that men under similar circumstances burnt down Nottingham Castle. I have said quite openly the spoiling of letters in letter-boxes and the breaking of windows are very regrettable and indefensible, but my objection to them is quite as much that they are utterly silly and futile. I disapprove of violence altogether; I hate lawlessness. But if you are to have it you must have it on the same scale as you have had it when men are suffering under serious political grievances. I am not defending that kind of violence; I hate it, and would do all I could to suppress it; I have done everything I could to suppress it; I have never said I was in favour of any form of law-breaking in my life. I have never said I am in
    1038
    favour of women law-breakers. That being so and holding that view as strongly and as vehemently as any Member in this House, I repeat that you have no right to treat women in the provocative and treacherous way in which they have been treated, in fact, by the procedure in this House. I protest in the strongest possible way against it. If any hon. Members have changed their opinions let them get up and say so frankly, and take the electoral consequences which may ensue, but if they still wish to be regarded as supporters of Women Suffrage they must give effect to their pledges by their votes.
    With those qualifications and reservations, I am prepared to say that if hon. Members who pretend to be in favour of this measure will stick to their pledges, I have very little doubt that the plan suggested by the Prime Minister will really afford a serious and honest opportunity of carrying out the right hon. Gentleman's pledge. I myself deeply regret the position in which we find ourselves; I know of no question which has given greater cause for distrust in our Parliamentary institution to a large section of the population. But for my part, if I thought that we were to be met next Session by a similar unfortunate incident —I am quite ready to admit that it was a pure accident in this case—but if next Session it were found impossible for this matter to be decided by the House of Commons on its merits, then, for my part, I would reject the proposal of the Prime Minister, and I would tell the women that, as far as I am concerned, they have nothing whatever to hope from this Parliament, that they must adopt some other method for achieving their end, that they must proceed to organize effectively their political forces, but that as long as this House is in being they have no chance of receiving that justice which has been so frequently promised them.
    5.0.P.M.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I rise to ask the Government whether, in the position in which, through no fault of their own, they find themselves, they cannot make some special arrangement which will prevent the important question of plural voting being delayed indefinitely? Can they not do something to ensure that it shall not be placed at a disadvantage? There is a Bill which has already been read a second time in this House, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Harold Baker.) It

    1039
    was read a second time a year ago. It is perfectly obvious that under the conditions of this Parliament, and the amount of existing legislation, the fortunes of a Bill which has passed its Second Reading would obviously be better than those of one which has only passed its Second Reading now, or may pass it at some future time. I am sure that if the Government realise, as I hope they realise, the extreme interest taken in that question in all parts of the country, the long delay which has already taken place between the expression of the desire of those who sent the majority to this House and its realisation on this point, and the recollection which many on this side of the House have of what was said in the last Parliament but one on the Bill brought in by the present Colonial Secretary—I am confident that in all the plans the Government have to make on this subject, they must not leave that out of sight. I ask them to take over the Bill of the hon. Member for Accrington, and to use the last days of this Session in putting it into the position which it would have occupied if it had been taken up by the Government, instead of this Bill which, for reasons we all understand, has had to be withdrawn by the Government.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: I do not rise with the intention of making any considerable contribution to the Debate which has so unexpectedly arisen, but merely with the object, if it be possible, of obtaining a little more light upon the proposal indicated by the Prime Minister in reference to next Session. Before I address myself to that subject I may perhaps make an observation upon something that fell from my Noble Friend the hon. Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) in the interesting observations he has just made to the House. He reflected upon the speech or the attitude of the Colonial Secretary, and he said something of the lack of good faith of the Colonial Secretary. I do not very frequently find myself associated in political matters with the Colonial Secretary, and, as he certainly satisfied the House a few days ago, he is perfectly well able to take care of himself, but I will make this observation; that whatever other criticisms may reasonably be launched at the head of the right hon. Gentleman, he has never shown a lack of good faith on this question. That is the last of all charges anybody who has observed the right hon. Gentleman's
    1040
    record can bring. Another observation which fell from my Noble Friend appeared to be worth a moment's consideration. He commented with surprise and indignation, which I can perfectly understand, upon the fact that there were large numbers of Members of this House who, having promised to vote for women's franchise did not, to use his expression, come up to the scratch. That circumstance is undoubtedly true. There have been large numbers of this House, not sitting in any one quarter of the House, who have promised to support women's franchise, but who, when an opportunity has been given to them, and particularly since the opportunity has become a real one, have not, in the expression of my Noble Friend, come up to the scratch. I draw very different inferences from that than were drawn by the Noble Lord. I draw the inference that those pledges were given partly in levity, partly in indifference, partly with no realisation that the issue was a living one, or that it was to be practically tested in the near future. My Noble Friend says that a number of those who have given these pledges, when they had a real opportunity of making them effective in the House of Commons were immediately found somewhere else. My Noble Friend could not discover an argument which shows so clearly how lacking in any real strength and motive power the cause of Women Suffrage is.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: My criticism of his Friends and supporters is not that they did not vote, but they continue to describe themselves as Women Suffragists.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: A sufficient answer to what my Noble Friend says is to be found in the circumstance that it is only in the last two or three years that anybody who has given a pledge upon this question has really thought that there was the slightest chance of a measure passing through this House and becoming law. No pledge which was given before that time matters at all.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: That does not affect the value of the pledge.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: I should have thought that the value of the pledge, as the hon. Member will have seen, has already been stated by the Noble Lord, with whom, I understand, the hon. Member agrees. My Noble Friend says the pledge has no value because nobody carries it out.
    Mr. D. MASON: Hear, hear!
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: Then I may address myself to the question I was endeavouring to put before the House. Why is it that the pledge is of no value? The hon. Gentleman is surely not so inattentive to what has been going on before our eyes as to suggest that this is true of the great number of pledges which are given by Members of Parliament. It would be obviously untrue. Most pledges have some reality and some value. Why is it that this particular pledge, both in the view of the hon. Member and of my Noble Friend, has no real value? In the absence of any other explanation it must be because these pledges were given inattentively and as long as those who gave them thought that they were to bear no real fruit, but the moment there was a prospect of legislative effect being given to those pledges candidates no longer gave them, and Members who1 have given them take every opportunity to escape from having given them. I draw a wholly different inference than that which is drawn by the Noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman. The inference I suggest to the House is both reasonable and necessary. It is that those who have given these pledges in the past are brought to ask themselves, and have been particularly brought to ask themselves by the events of the last two years on this question of Women Suffrage, whether they have approached the point at which they are not merely meeting the apparent disagreeable ness of making answers, possibly unpopular, to women workers in their constituencies, and believe at the time they make those answers that whatever be the sense of their answer the occasion for meeting the cheque so thoughtlessly given would never arise. They are face to face with the position that the thing is really going to happen, and the moment the thing is going to happen you cannot get anybody here when there is to be a Division on Women Suffrage. In whatever form it is brought forward the criticism is equally well founded. I do not think that those who are in favour of these proposals are particularly able to draw consolation from this reflection, but while it is an accident which may have been foreseen, although it was not foreseen, I cannot help thinking, and I believe this will be the sense of the majority of the House, that it is not merely the unexpected decision, or, at any rate, the unanticipated decision, which has been given by Mr. Speaker
    1042
    which has plunged us into the present difficulty.
    We have been brought to our present position by difficulties which go very much deeper. What are those difficulties? Surely they are these: We are dealing with an issue which deeply concerns large numbers of sincere people in this country. The question is a very big one; it cuts across-all parties. So far as I am aware, in the political history of this country no great political issue against which strong antagonism is felt has ever been successfully carried into law unless there was some party which as a homogeneous whole was prepared to make itself responsible for it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Catholic emancipation."] If the hon. Member will refresh his memory he will, I think, find that the keeping of an open mind in the Cabinet at the initial stages of that controversy was not a very happy experiment for those who tried it. Surely this question must fail if one examines the position in which we are placed. It is no answer to say that no one party can take it up because all parties are divided. The answer to that is this, that the moment this issue is able to found itself upon a sufficient degree of popular support: Ministers will be swept out of the way if they will not make themselves responsible for it. Until they are able to find themselves with a Ministry strong enough to gain and to retain the support of the country they have no right to the support of the House of Commons. What is the position in which the supporters of this movement find themselves to-day? They have no majority among the male voters. This is a point upon which it is very easy to dogmatise. It is common knowledge that no one dare fight an election on Female Suffrage, and no one will. If you get anyone to do it he is beaten by four thousand votes. [An HON. MEMBER: "So will you be on food taxes."] Does the hon. Member think that that is a relevant observation?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): On a point of Order, Sir. If the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to go into the merits of Female Suffrage and whether it is or is not popular — considerations which are quite relevant to my right hon. Friend's Amendment—it will be difficult for me and others not to reply.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that under the guise of discussing the discharge of the Order we ought to continue the

    1043
    discussion on the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Lyttelton). The question for discussion now is the situation which has arisen. On that we cannot go into the merits for or against Women Suffrage.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: In view of the ruling you have just given, although I should have been glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman explain how far he has been successful in torpedoing the Conciliation Bill, I will not go into that. Speaking with direct relevance to what the Prime Minister has indicated as being the intentions of the Government, as I understand it, he has stated that in the next Session of Parliament an opportunity will be given to a private Member to introduce a Bill dealing with this topic. On that point 't appears to me that some additional information is desirable. In the first place, it is quite obvious that a great deal depends upon the form in which these proposals are brought forward The right hon Gentleman said very clearly, if I understood him aright, that it would be a condition of the concession of the facilities of which he spoke that the Bill should be brought forward in an amendable form— that is to say, if in its inception the Bill should be introduced in a limited form, it must be extensible in Committee. I should like to know, and this matter can easily be explained, who is to determine the form in which the proposal in the Bill for next Session is to be brought forward? The Parliamentary fortunes of the Bill may very likely depend altogether on the form in which it is first introduced. I would make a suggestion on that point which I hope he may think not unworthy of his consideration. On this question it is quite obvious that you may eliminate altogether where any of us sit in this House. With the exception of the Labour party, who, I understand, are all in favour of it, we all differ. So far as these proposals are concerned, there are two parties; the first is in favour of the concession of votes to women and the other is opposed to the concession of votes to women. My suggestion is this: Let those who, in the Noble Lord's phrase, desire this change form a Committee, almost as if they were a Government, almost as if they were a Cabinet, and let them decide among themselves what scheme they intend to bring forward—what scheme they think they can recommend to the greater number of the House of Commons. Let those who are in favour of
    1044
    it attempt to carry it through, and those who are against it, resist it like a regular opposition. That would, I think, be EII extremely convenient course and it would test the real feeling of the House as nothing else would test it. Someone made an observation on the subject of the Closure. It is obvious that if the responsibility for a measure of this kind were undertaken by the Government of the day they would have it in their power to give assistance to those who were forwarding the measure, either by a Resolution imposing the guillotine or by the Closure on individual occasions. Surely, the right method of dealing with that is not indeed to authorise those who were criticising such a measure to attempt to destroy it by obstructive methods, though I greatly hope no such methods will be adopted, but still, facing them as a Parliamentary possibility, surely the best method of dealing with them is to enable those who are supporting this measure and attempting to carry it through the House of Commons to obtain the Closure if they can obtain the consent of the House of Commons at any given moment to give them the Closure. Let them in other words be precisely as if they were a Government in charge of a Bill.
    I will make one final observation, and this is a point on which some clearer statement is desirable than has yet been made. As I understand it, tracing the history and the development of the present difficulty, it would appear that the position in which we have found ourselves, has been largely caused by the fact that many Ministers who do not agree with this particular policy were in danger of being involved in it had any one of these Amendments been adopted. I do not think I need say anything in elaboration of what must be obvious to everyone who has reflected on the peculiar Parliamentary position in which we so nearly might have found ourselves. Suppose this Amendment had been carried and any one of the individual Amendments following upon the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Grey) had been adopted, what would have been the position? The Government, as a Government, if I understand the Prime Minister aright, were pledged to carry forward a measure, using for that purpose all the strength of the Government and all the resources of the Government, which half the Members of the Government believe to be disastrous to the interests of the country. I hope

    1045
    it is only necessary to state that prospect to show how utterly unworkable it would have been found in practice. Such things cannot be done. I listened to every word of the most excellent and witty speech of the Colonial Secretary the other day with the greatest approval and admiration, and we anticipated with a degree of pleasure not less extreme the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But if that kind of thing happens in the very first week of the novel position in which we find ourselves, really where should we have been in three months—and this thing has got to go on for two years. It is no real answer to say that myself and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) differ just as profoundly as right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Undoubtedly we do, but if we were to come to the exchange of controversial tu quoques we should be entitled to point out that we are not at the present moment introducing a Bill and that hon. Gentlemen opposite are. Surely we have experience which may guide us, and may be useful to us all. As I understand it, what the Prime Minister means—and this is the most important point of all—is that when the Bill is introduced in the next Session of Parliament all Ministers are free to go their own way, and if that proposal should be carried by a majority in the House of Commons all Ministers are equally free thereafter to use such means as conscientiously they believe to be required.
    The PRIME MINISTERassented.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: Under these circumstances, I can only say, as a very strong opponent of this proposal, that I believe we have now arrived, almost for the first time, at a real prospect of testing at an early date the real feeling of the House of Commons, and I welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have gathered from the speeches of the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith), and also from the Leader of the Opposition, that, on the whole, the course which has been outlined by the Prime Minister is one which commends itself to all sections of opinion on this question on the other side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman made one practical suggestion which I cordially approve of, and that is that those who are in agreement on the question of Women Suffrage, both on this side and the other, should form some kind of Committee with
    1046
    Cabinet responsibility in the matter, that they should prepare their scheme and undertake collectively the responsibility for pressing it through the House. Though the gift comes from an enemy, I think on the whole we can accept it without close scrutiny because, on the face of it, it seems to be a very sensible suggestion. I should like to say a word in regard to what fell from the hon. Member (Mr. A Henderson). I think it was one of the least helpful contributions. If any explanations were needed as to why Women Suffrage has not made greater progress, I should think it would be found in leadership of that sort. I cannot imagine anything being more un-tactful, as well as ungrateful, than the hon. Member's reference to the Liberal suffragists when he suggested that they were not prepared to vote for Women Suffrage when the opportunity came. He has no right to say such a thing. If he will only look at the Divisions which have taken place in the House, he will find, not merely that the vast majority of those who pledged themselves to the suffrage voted for it, but that the vast majority of the Liberal party voted for every kind of suffrage proposal that has ever been submitted to the House. Besides, if his object is not merely to damage the Liberal party, but to help the cause of Women Suffrage, I should have thought it was hardly the best method of approaching the question and of winning support for it.
    I come to the actual proposals which have been submitted by the Prime Minister for dealing with the question. I agree with the Noble Lord, and with the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister's offer is the best method, under the circumstances, of obtaining a free, unfettered and unprejudiced vote upon the question of Women Suffrage. No one who has watched the proceedings of the last few days and weeks can have imagined that we are going to have a clear issue upon Women Suffrage on this Bill. I certainly thought we should have had some time ago, but I have ceased to hold that opinion. It was quite clear that on both sides men would be influenced in their vote by considerations which were very remote from the immediate issues before he House. Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House and hon. Gentlemen from Ireland were thinking of the effect upon the position of the Prime Minister. They were thinking of questions which were irrelevant to the merits of the particular proposal before the House. On the other side

    1047
    of the House I have no doubt there were considerations of the same character which might have been helpful to Women Suffrage, but which had nothing whatever to do with its merits, and it is clear, whatever happened to the Grey Amendment, the result would have been that there would be no direct vote upon Women Suffrage under the conditions in which we found ourselves. Having come to that conclusion, and especially after the ruling which has been given by Mr. Speaker, there was no other course which the Government could have adopted, having regard to their pledges, except to withdraw the Bill and give a full and free opportunity to the House to vote upon that issue alone, because when the private Member's Bill is introduced there will be no other issue which can possibly affect the decision of the House. It cannot have any effect upon the life of the Government, and it cannot have any effect upon the position of any individual Member of the Government, because they will be perfectly free to vote upon the issue.
    May I also point this out to my hon. Friends below the Gangway, that even assuming there were a General Election before the Bill eventually went through, this is a Bill which would not be affected by the particular Government that came into power after the General Election? If it were incorporated in the Government Bill, if you had a different Government in power, the Bill would go and the Amendments incorporated with it would go with it, but if it is a Bill standing by itself, assuming it is carried in the first or second Session, and that something happens—the Government was defeated—there would be a General Election, a different Parliament would come in and a different Government and the Bill would be reintroduced a third time, and the complexion of the Parliament and of the Government which happened to be in power would not affect its fate in the slightest degree. One thing is quite clear. You cannot, after the experience of the last few days, ask Members of the Government to accept responsibility for a measure on which they profoundly disagree, and my hon. Friends may take that into account. The hon. Member (Mr. A. Henderson) says truly that it is more difficult for a private Member to get a Bill through than for a Government. The difficulties are of two kinds. The first is the difficulty which is experienced as far as time is concerned, and it is time that, in the vast majority of
    1048
    cases, defeats the measures of private Members. There the Government assists them by saying, "We will give you such time as is adequate to carry your Bill through."
    Mr. LEACH: In the second Session?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly, the same facilities will be given in the second Session, if it is rejected elsewhere, as in the first Session. The Prime Minister said, "any subsequent Session." Therefore the difficulty with regard to time has been disposed of entirely, and I am not sure that the hon. Member (Mr. A. Henderson) quite realised that when he got up and made his speech. The second difficulty is one with regard to party discipline. With a Government Bill you put on the Government Whips, and there is no doubt what is the effect upon the Government. There is an advantage in that where you have a Government Bill. But, on the other hand, my hon. Friend must bear in mind that that is a consideration which militates against the case so far as the Opposition is concerned. It would be rather difficult for very keen suffragists on the other side of the House not to take advantage of the situation if they knew that the effect of a certain vote on a Government which they disliked and did not altogether trust, and of whose legislation they did not entirely approve, even on Women Suffrage, would have a disastrous effect on the life of the Government. It would be a great temptation for suffragists on the other side to waive the view they have simply on a particular Amendment. Therefore, dealing with these two points of difference, I say with regard to the first, that it does not exist, because the Government guarantee time. They guarantee that the Bill will be given such time as is allocated for any controversial measure which they themselves are responsible for. They also guarantee that if the Bill is thrown out, not in the House of Commons, but elsewhere, there will be the same facilities given in the second and third Sessions as would be given to any controversial Bill of their own which might happen to meet the same untoward fate elsewhere.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Would the Parliament Act apply to a private Member's Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: One mistake made with regard to the Parliament Act is to imagine that it only refers to Government measures. The second mistake is

    1049
    that it is imagined the Act only refers to one Parliament. If a General Election intervenes between the second and third Sessions, you have only to pass the measure through another Session, and then you have completed the number of times it has to pass through the House of Commons.
    Mr. GOULDING: Has it not to be successive Sessions? And is there not a chance in connection with the ballot that, while a Member may be successful in the ballot one Session, no single Member may be successful in another Session?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very glad the hon. Gentleman has put that question. It is successive Sessions. Then the hon. Gentleman says it depends upon the ballot, and that suffragists might not succeed in getting a place in the ballot. It does not depend upon the ballot. The Government have guaranteed to find whatever time is necessary to obtain the free and unfettered decision of the House on this question standing alone. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle says, "Here you are, you are subject to all the vicissitudes of Parliamentary procedure. You have to meet all the tricks and devious practices which people engage in." But, after all, my hon. Friend has had some experience of the subject, and he and his Friends must use such talents as they have got to see that these machinations are overcome. I think they are quite equal to that. Judging by any sample I have seen up to the present, either recently or before, they are able to exercise any intelligence required in argument or othewise to over come a difficulty of that kind. That has nothing to do with the merits of the case. Therefore I do not think we need pursue that argument any further in discussing the matter of Parliamentary manæuvring. We can all do that. Even my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) can do that. He is perfectly capable of that. Everybody in the House of Commons knows that in everything legitimate in Parliamentary manæuvring he is quite capable, but still we must exercise our own ingenuity, and I am perfectly certain that he is quite competent for any tactics of that sort.
    The only thing I would say would be this: It is not that I am so much afraid of as disunion among suffragists themselves, and speeches such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard
    1050
    Castle are far more fatal to the cause of the Bill than any Parliamentary trick I could ever imagine, and I do hope that is not going to be the measure of his idea of getting a Bill on Women Suffrage through the House of Commons. The Leader of the Opposition denounced us for changing our minds. He said that we live from hand to mouth. Well, hand to mouth suggests food. Really, that the right hon. Gentleman in such infelicitous terms, and in such reminiscent terms, should denounce us for changing our minds, baffles anything he has done up to the present time, and he has done a great deal of that sort of thing. He said that we should have no time for anything. It seems to me he has no time for anything except to change his programme in such a way as to get into office. May I just say one word in reference to the only question which he put? The right hon. Gentleman assumes that electoral reform and redistribution might be put in the form of a Bill. It does not necessarily follow. The Government will consider the best method of doing it. At any rate, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given a pledge generally that we will deal with that question. So far as the suffrage question is concerned I am convinced, like the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil), that this is far away the best method of obtaining a clear issue, and I am perfectly certain, having regard to Mr. Speaker's ruling, that it is the only method which is available for us to enable us to do so.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I rise really to ask a question on procedure, and not to continue the Debate on the merits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer interrupted my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. F. E. Smith) in the course of his speech, and asked you, Mr. Speaker, whether he was not rather travelling beyond the strict limits of the Motion now before us. I certainly thought that towards the peroration of the right hon. Gentleman's own speech he seemed to be travelling very far afield into the commonplaces of party recrimination. I do not rise to continue that discussion, which even I think Gentlemen least acquainted with our Parliamentary procedure will not regard as very strictly in order. There was one little interchange of ideas between the right hon. Gentleman and somebody sitting below the Gangway which I am sorry to say I did not quite catch. Something was said of machinations in connection with Women Suffrage. I must say that I thought no one was better

    1051
    qualified to talk about machinations than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, I think, he has indulged in machinations, but be had the indiscretion to boast of their success. More cautious controversialists are usually most anxious to avoid boasting in that way. I think it was he who talked of the Conciliation Bill being torpedoed. If he had not torpedoed the Conciliation Bill we should have had exactly, as I understand it, what he now wishes. He tells us that he has for many weeks been a convert to the view that you never could have a fair issue upon a general Franchise Bill into which a Women Suffrage Amendment was introduced, or attempted to be introduced. Well, it was he who compelled that course to be taken. He, and he only, prevented a fair issue by his machinations. It was he, and he only, by his machinations that prevented that question coming before the House of Commons in a perfectly clear and specific form.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was referring in that phrase to a Bill which was so drafted as to be incapable of amendment. That was the Bill I voted against. When the Conciliation Bill was introduced I voted for it. I was referring purely to the first Bill, which was quite incapable of amendment.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's history, and I do not wish to go back upon the past. I really only got up to ask a question upon procedure, and I will not pursue that matter further. I would not have referred to it but for the introduction of the word "machinations." The question I wish to ask is this. I agree with those who think that you cannot get a fair issue upon this question in this, or indeed in any other, House if you mix up the question of Women Suffrage with other questions. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made the same observation. Nothing whatever would induce me to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill which has just been abandoned, even if Women Franchise had been dealt with exactly on the line which would commend itself to me. That is not a fair position in which to put those who agree with me. From his own particular point of view, every Member of the House is in very much the same embarrassing position. Therefore I agree that the course suggested by the Government is the course far most likely to give a clear issue to the House on the question of Women Suffrage.
    1052
    Leaving absolutely on one side the merits of this particular case, on which my views are known, may I be allowed as one deeply interested in the procedure of the House to elicit a reply from the Government, or, at all events, to use the information they have already indicated to us? There is just one word of caution and warning to the House generally. What said the right hon. Gentleman? He said by this expedient, namely, of bringing in a private Member's Bill, and then giving it Government time, you can introduce the most far-reaching change in the Constitution. No-Government is responsible for it; no Minister will go out if it is defeated; no Minister will go out if it is carried; it stands entirely outside ordinary party procedure; it does not affect one way or the ether the position of the Government. So far so good. That in itself is, if it is to made a precedent, an extraordinarily important change in our procedure. I do not deny that I have never been able to see any other way of meeting this particular question. That, I entirely agree, I indicated many years ago when I held a more responsible position than I do now. But it is the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer treats it with which I am concerned. I tell the House that in his method of treating it they are only establishing what might become an extraordinary precedent for the future, and I want to press that a little further.
    In the first place, I may begin with the circumstances of the introduction of the Bill. Let the House remember simply and solely, and because it is notorious, that a private Member's Bill, if it be controversial, has no earthly chance of passing all the stages which we require a Bill to go through. For that very reason we give extraordinary facilities for introducing a Bill and for passing its Second Reading, because we know that if it is controversial it cannot get any further. It will be destroyed in Committee upstairs or destroyed on Report, or settled in some other way. But how great are those special privileges. A private Member can introduce a Bill without making any speech at all, however important the Bill and however far it should go towards upsetting the Crown and Constitution. I want to know whether the Government think this Bill should be introduced as a private Member's Bill? In the second place—and this is much more important— I want to know whether it is going to have the privileges of a private Member's

    1053
    Bill up to the Second Reading? This is not a question of the Standing Orders of the House, as the first question is. It is a question of the practice of the House and of the view that successive Speakers have taken of the privileges which ought to be accorded to private Members. When I was a young Member of the House—Wednesday was then the day on which they took private Members' Bills—no controversial private Member's Bill ever got to a Second Reading. They were always talked out. That was thought a great abuse, and it is an abuse. On the other hand, it is very easy to fall into the opposite extreme and to say that for the biggest measure possible a Friday afternoon is sufficient, and the Closure may then be moved, and probably, though I am not certain, would be accepted, and the fateful decision on the Second Reading taken. And then, on the view given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the fate of the Second Reading has a very peculiar importance because it involves in the date of the Second Reading certain further privileges for the Bill on which I will say a word before I sit down.
    The second question which I want to ask is, whether the Government, while giving the time of the House for this as a Government Bill, propose on the First and Second Reading, and that it should be treated as a Government Bill, that it should be treated with all the pomp and circumstance of debate as a Government Bill with time before it? The third question is as regards a later stage: are the Government going to give time to this Bill? Are they going, in addition to other privileges, to give the privilege of the guillotine? Is the Prime Minister, who thinks Women Suffrage a political mistake of a disastrous character, going to come down to propose a Gag Resolution? Is the Committee, of which I suppose I shall be a member—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to be the Chairman of the Committee—going to propose through his authoritative mouth a question of Closure, gag by compartment, or any other of the modern expedients for hastening legislation? That evidently is a question to be answered. But far more important than all these questions is the last question, which is the relation of the Bill with the Parliament Act. The House can see that I am not, speaking either for or against Women Suffrage. I am speaking because when I
    1054
    heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer dilate on all the many advantages of this mode of procedure, from the point of view of Members of the Government as a whole, and the prospects of the Bill becoming law even after a General Election, I could not help saying to myself, "Is this to be the new method by which future legislation of a difficult kind is to be passed? So this is not to be regarded as a special and exceptional case."
    The right hon. Gentleman dilated upon mistakes which are made about the Parliament Act. He mentioned two; one is to suppose that a General Election interferes with it; another is to suppose that it applies only to Government measures. I object to the Act, both root and branch, but I must honestly say if we had to live under a provisional system—and it is a provisional system, mark you, by the confession of the Government themselves, for by every pledge, preambular and otherwise, the present system of one-Chamber Government is only a provisional system which should be terminated as soon as possible. That is their view; but if we are to carry our constitutional life in our hands, if every institution in the country is to depend upon this transitory and provisional form of government, surely those abnormal, unusual, and passing powers which this House in an unfortunate and disastrous moment arrogated to itself, if exercised at all, should be exercised under the deliberate control of the Government of the day. I again repeat, entirely irrespective of the particular measure which is proposed, whether I am opposed to or approve of the measure, I should say exactly what I now say. It is of procedure and procedure alone that I speak, and I do ask the House to remember that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is merely sketching out a new way of dealing with difficult questions, which will endanger no-Government but will be left to an unguided majority in the House absolutely supreme, whatever the other House will do, without the safeguard of a Referendum, which I believe is the only way of dealing with the question, then you are really taking a step which requires great thought.
    I agree with the Prime Minister that the only course open to you is to give time for this measure. That in my opinion carries one consequence with it, that all the precautions upon which this House insists shall surround a Government measure shall surround this measure. It does not carry with it in my opinion the further-

    1055
    consequence that a measure introduced even by the most powerful Committee, carrying with it even the greatest body of opinion behind it in the House, whatever may be the character of the Bill, should be passed under that Parliament Act. If such a Bill is to get through this House, I think it is perfectly contrary, even to the spirit of the Parliament Act itself, that the machinery of that revolutionary change should be used to force it through that other Chamber. If you like to qualify that by introducing a Referendum, then that objection would go. The people are supreme over both Chambers. Certainly the other House has not the slightest title or right to go against their considered judgment upon any special question. But you do not contemplate that. Then you have no right whatever to set a private Bill up, on which the Government themselves are vehemently and violently divided, and to apply to it all the temporary but all-powerful machinery which you devised to get through one or two of the other revolutions of which you are enamoured. That is not a proper way to act, and I felt bound to get up in my place and give a word of warning to the House.
    6.0 P.M.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I rise only to reply as far as I can to the questions which the right hon. Gentleman has just put. He raised a very curious point, and a somewhat unexpected one. I have hitherto assumed that the great iniquity of the Parliament Act, from his point of view, is that it enables measures to be passed into law of which we on this side of the House approve, but which he disapproves of. He has now raised an entirely different point. Surely the great objection brought against the Parliament Act is that it enables the Government of the day to pass controversial measures which are disapproved of by the Opposition. I am not talking about the merits. I am talking of the objections brought. The right hon. Gentleman raised an entirely different point, which is, that a Bill, of which presumably he would approve, and to which he would be favourable, should nevertheless not have the opportunities and facilities and privileges which the Government would give to its own Bills under the Parliament Act. As far as the Government are concerned we are bound by our past pledges. The Prime Minister
    1056
    has premised on behalf of the Government that if Women Suffrage was put into the Government Bill by the House of Commons after a perfectly free vote, that should then proceed as part of the Bill with all the privileges and all the force which go behind a Government Bill. We have been debarred from giving effect to that opportunity by circumstances over which we have had no control and which we had not foreseen. But if we are to make another opportunity I think we should be false to our pledges if we made that opportunity one in which the measure of Women Suffrage, which was no longer to become part or to have a chance of becoming part of a Government Bill, was yet to be placed in a position inferior to such a Bill. I think it follows that in giving the pledge for a separate Women Suffrage Bill, which is not a Government Bill, and is not going to become a Government Bill, it should have time for the majority of the House to express its opinion upon it. I think it follows that the majority of the House, if they do sanction the Bill, must have the same opportunity and privileges that would be afforded if it were a Government Bill. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman need be really disturbed about this point, or that I need labour it at the present moment. Until the Bill is passed for the first time the Parliament Act has no effect upon it. It is only when it comes before the House of Commons for a third time that it rests, not with the Government, but with the House of Commons to decide whether the Parliament Act is to have effect upon it or not. That is the proper time, I think, for the right hon. Gentleman to raise his point. The Women Suffrage Bill is not going to be a Government measure. It is a-measure which will be the measure of the majority of the House of Commons, and as such we say it would be unfair on the part of the Government to interfere with or deny to the majority of the House of Commons the opportunity of using the Parliament Act, if they so desired, to give effect to the measure as if it were a Government Bill. Of course, it remains and remains at the last moment, in the hands of the majority of the House to decide whether the Parliament Act shall have effect. That is a perfectly fair position. The House will have the matter in its own hands. But it would be most unfair if we responded to the right hon. Gentleman by saying that after the

    1057
    Women Suffrage Bill has been passed the first and second time by the majority of the House, the Government are going to interfere and prevent them from passing it the third time, and deprive it of the advantage of the Parliament Act. That would not do for one single moment.
    With regard to the particular question of time, which the right hon. Gentleman raised, for the different stages of the Bill on its first passage through the House of Commons—I think my phrase is correct— the Government have promised, and the Prime Minister has stated that it shall have time, and when he said time he meant time as effectively as a Government Bill would have time.
    The PRIME MINISTERassented.
    Sir E. GREY: It follows that the Bill must have all the time which is necessary to enable it to be passed if it has a majority of the House of Commons behind it. If it fails to pass, if it does not complete the journey through the House of Commons, the reason for that must not be want of time. The Government give a pledge that it shall have this time. Probably it will be found, after the Bill has been introduced and read a first and second time, that there is a general opinion in the House as to what would be a reasonable time; but it is quite clear that if the Government allocate a special amount of time to the Bill, and say that it should have that time and no more, then the Government must clearly be responsible for a Guillotine Resolution which would enable those who are the promoters of the Bill to say that the Bill had not failed in that particular limit for want of time. If, on the other hand, that is not done, the Government, of course, will see when the Bill starts without a Guillotine Resolution that the time given is such as would be found necessary to secure the passage of the Bill. But I imagine in this case, as in other cases, there will be a general feeling in the House as to what is a reasonable time, and anyhow the pledge of the Government amounts to this, that it will not be want of time that will cause the failure of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman asks one other question about the special facilities given to private Members' Bills. I understood him to mean that private Members' Bills on Second Reading were given somewhat perfunctory treatment because it was assumed they would go no further if they were controversial. But in this case there would be a controversial Bill going further,
    1058
    and therefore it would not be reasonable that it should have the same perfunctory treatment on the First and Second Reading.
    One may differ from the right hon. Gentleman on a point of principle, but I think he ought to bear in mind that we are not without experience on the question of time, for earlier in the year a Women Suffrage Bill passed the Second Reading, for which, I think, two days were considered sufficient; so that this is one of the questions which is not new to the House of Commons, and it is not the first time such a measure has been introduced. But I quite agree that it ought not to receive perfunctory treatment, and it will not receive it; only I think the right hon. Gentleman, in turn, ought to bear in mind that when time does come to be allocated for the introduction and Second Reading of the Bill, it will not be quite the same as a new Bill, and we have got a precedent already for the amount of time to be given on the Second Reading in this particular year. I think I have answered the right hon. Gentleman's questions, which were to a certain extent hypothetical. I will only say that I am convinced, after the experience that has taken place, that it was a mistake to suppose that the attempt to put Women Suffrage into a Government Bill was the way to give it the best chance. I had not foreseen all the machinations of which the hon. Member spoke, and it is to me, at any rate, a relief, and I believe is consistent with the best chance of the measure, that it should be treated as forming a separate Bill, with all the privileges and facilities which I have indicated will be given.
    It is felt that to put into a Government Bill something to which many Members of the Government, and notably the Prime Minister, are opposed, is to create a situation which is very embarrassing. Some of us also, who hold opposite opinions, are relieved from the embarrassing situation of being obliged to support an extension of the suffrage to men without anything being done to remove the barrier to Women Suffrage. Next Session Women Suffrage will, I trust, be treated purely on its merits. There will be no question of embarrassing the Government if it is carried, but time will be allowed by the Government, and will not be grudged, though it might be fixed. But there can be no question of embarrassing the Government or individual Members of the Government before the Bill is passed, and I would most earnestly reinforce the

    1059
    appeal made earlier in the evening by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) that the House of Commons should bear in mind that its record in regard to Women Suffrage has hitherto not been a good one. It has excited hopes again and again by passing the principle of the Bill on the Second Reading for many years past. It is not fair of the House to encourage those expectations; we have to bear in mind the feeling created outside, and which in some quarters, has been intensified by what has happened on this question. I think we must bear in mind that the continual delay in bringing to an issue a matter of which the principle has been accepted in past years, is very largely responsible for the feeling which has been created, and I hope, after the offer which the Government has made to give time and opportunity, that this question will be really treated on its merits and in a way which will set at rest any charge against the House of Commons of its having trifled with the question and neglected and refused it opportunity.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The observations of the right hon. Gentleman invite some comment, but I am afraid that I shall not be in order if I entered into a discussion of them, but I only wish to protest that a great deal more might be said on the subject than he has said, or than it is possible to say on this occasion, without transgressing Mr. Speaker's ruling at an earlier stage. I rise only for the purpose of making one or two reflections upon the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). What the Secretary for Foreign Affairs said about the Second Reading was in substance satisfactory. My right hon. Friend was not asking for any given number of days to be allowed to the Second Reading of the Bill, but that the Second Reading of the Bill should be treated as if it were a Government measure in point of time and not be looked upon as a private Member's Bill which is disposed of on a Friday afternoon, because in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, if the Bill is at all contentious, the Second Reading of the Bill is nothing more than an abstract Resolution of no effect. I do hope that the Government will give a little more consideration to the question of the use of the guillotine before they hastily commit themselves to the
    1060
    position which the Foreign Secretary adumbrated just now. It is very difficult to answer such questions as my right hon. Friend put without their having been subjected to a certain amount of consideration beforehand, and I hope that Members of the Government will not feel bound, and that the Foreign Secretary himself will not feel bound, by that opinion, to which I think no one should be held, and which has been expressed in the House, as I think, without due reflection. In the first place, why is it necessary to contemplate the use of the guillotine in a case of this kind at all? There is no party object either on the one side or the other, and why cannot we, under those circumstances at least, try to discuss the Bill under the old form of Closure? We have only had the guillotine in the last six years, I think, and it was previously a very exceptional Parliamentary proceeding.
    Sir E. GREY: I do not want to exclude the methods which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, and it seems to me that it would not be excluded, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise, in what I said, that I will not be considered as giving a pledge that the guillotine will not be used.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was only afraid that the words of the right hon. Gentleman might be quoted as something in the nature of a pledge that the Government would use that weapon to pass the Bill through. If a guillotine becomes necessary, again I would say at least leave it open upon the suggestion made by my right hon. and learned Friend. Surely, if a guillotine is to be proposed, it is better that it should be proposed by those responsible for the Bill. That is what ordinarily happens; ordinarily the guillotine is proposed on a Government measure by the Ministers themselves. It is suggested that there should be a sort of Ministry for the occasion formed of Members in all parts of the House who are supporters of Women Suffrage to produce a Women's Suffrage Bill next Session. Let them also, if there is to be a guillotine, produce the guillotine.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would point out that, if the Government is going, as we are promising, to give Government time, circumstances might arise in which we could not possibly allow an indefinite expenditure of time. That is the point I have in mind.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the Government make themselves responsible for the guillotine, they introduce into the discussion of the new Bill exactly those party elements which have been most inconvenient for all of us who wanted a straight decision, and I am one of those who did, and which has been most inconvenient for all such on this occasion and which we hoped we were going to avoid next Session. I think it would be a good plan, and I hope the Government will not lightly set it on one side, and that at any rate we may take it that it is not decided against on this occasion. It would be a real pleasure to me for once to hear the Prime Minister criticising a Guillotine Resolution, and to hear it commended by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is one other point as to which I do greatly differ from the Foreign Secretary. I think it is a very serious abuse of our procedure to apply to a Bill of this character concerted in this way the powers and provisions of the Parliament Act, and, let me say, I do not stand alone in that view. I do not know what consultation there has been amongst members of the Cabinet since Friday, but I have still fresh in my memory the speech of the Colonial Secretary. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for the City, the Secretary of State for the Colonies was a strong supporter of the provisions of the Parliament Act, but he agrees with my right hon. Friend that to apply that Act to a Bill of this character is not only a thing that was never contemplated when the Act was passed or by those who opposed it, but I think he used language to say that it would be a grave scandal in Parliamentary procedure. If I remember aright, the Colonial Secretary said that it would go far to ruin the experiment of the Parliament Act, which he thought a very valuable experiment. I may just recall that one who is no longer a colleague of his, but who was a colleague, declared that it would be a constitutional outrage to apply the methods of the Parliament Act to a subject so little considered by the electorate as this has been; I refer to the late Lord Chancellor. I must take it that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has pledged the Government to that point, and, if so, he has pledged some of them very much against their will, and he has made them accomplices in constitutional procedure which they deplore and denounce
    1062
    in language as strong as any I could employ. I know that as an opponent of Women Suffrage my words cannot have the same weight as my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, but nobody could have listened to him, a supporter of Women Suffrage, but one who is jealous of the honour of this House and careful of its procedure, and who has been so long responsible for it, without feeling that if the House assents to the proposal of the Secretary of State in that respect it will be making a new and very damaging precedent.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I hope the House will turn to the occasion out of which the Motion has grown, and not begin to discuss points of Parliamentary procedure for next Session which may or may not arise. I find myself, I am sorry to say, in disagreement with the line taken by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) in regard to the attitude now assumed by the Government. He has said, and the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to agree, that a private Member's Bill, brought forward and supported only by those who are in favour of the suffrage, will stand a better chance than a Bill forced upon a Government, the members of which are divided upon the question. One has only to remember the Bill enfranchising women, even on the lines of what I may call, as an example, the Dickinson Amendment, enfranchising some five or six millions of women. It is an absurdity to suppose that that measure could ever become law without the power and authority of the Government behind it. I am sorry to have to say that the speeches delivered from the Government Front Bench, both by opponents of the measure and supporters, have shattered my faith in the honesty of the intentions of the Government. I hope hon. Members behind will keep silence. Some one behind interjected a remark that I never had any faith in the intentions of the Government. That statement is untrue. So recently as Saturday of last week I was defending against imputations the good faith of the Prime Minister and the Members of the Government generally on this particular question. In common with the women outside, I trusted implicitly in the word, not merely of the Prime Minister, but of his colleagues. The proposal before the House was this, a proposal which women accepted, women of all shades of opinion who support the suffrage: that if the House of Commons

    1063
    carried an Amendment to the Franchise Bill we are now engaged in dismissing, the Government would then take the Amendment, incorporate it in the Bill, and take the responsibility for seeing it would pass into law. That was the position. What is now the offer that is made? The offer is that private Members of the House shall get together, as they have done before, and produce the Conciliation Bill; that the private Members of the House shall get together to make a Bill, and that the Government will give time. What for?
    The Prime Minister this afternoon said he had looked forward with perfect equanimity to the fate of the Amendment that was to be voted upon to-night. Was that the reason why facilities were offered and a promise made by the Government? Was it because they knew that by their machinations they could secure the defeat of this proposal, and thereby, whilst keeping the appearanece of good faith to the supporters of Women Suffrage, yet absolve themselves from all further responsibility in regard to it. If the Government, or those Members of the Government who are opposed to Women Suffrage, could look forward with equanimity to the defeat of the Amendment this evening to leave out the word "male," they can look forward with still greater equanimity to the fate of the Women Suffrage Bill when it comes forward in the new Session, and, therefore, I want to say this deliberately. In regard to procedure I am not blaming the Government—[Laughter.]—Allow me to finish my sentence before you indulge in vain laughter. I am not blaming the Government for what has arisen, I accept their statement that the Bill could not be proceeded with; but, in view of the speeches made and of the levity with which this, the greatest of all British political questions, has been treated, I believe the promise now made is mere chaff to deceive the supporters of Women Suffrage outside into the belief that the Government means business when the Government knows it means nothing of the sort. The decision of the Government will cause not only disappointment but will cause despair in thousands of hearts outside the walls of this House to-night. Talk about militant tactics! What else is left to them but militant tactics? I agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin that the one fault to be found with the tactics is that they are not big enough, that they are too petty.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: The Noble Lord, the Member for Hitchin is not in his place, but I must protest against that statement. He said he disapproved of militant tactics in any form.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: He said he disapproved of militant tactics, but he objected particularly to the tactics recently indulged in because they were petty and small. [HON. MEMBERS: "He said 'silly.'"] I agree with him there. Those are not militant tactics, but we shall see militant tactics now, I very much fear. It is not only the women of the Women's Political and Social Union who will now feel they have been betrayed again by the Government, but tens of thousands of women hitherto Liberal women who have put their trust in a Liberal Government will find their trust shattered and their faith in their party destroyed. We are now told this chance for next Session is a better one than we have had hitherto. I wonder when that was discovered. I hold in my hand here expressions from speeches made by some of the same right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to us to-night. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking on the 16th December, 1911, said:—
    "Our success next year, I think, is assured. I do no ee what there is to prevent it,"
    and speaking to a deputation, or rather in a communication to the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies on 23rd November, 1911, he used these words:—
    "Next year provides the supreme opportunity, and nothing but unwise handling of that chance can compass failure."
    The President of the Board of Agriculture went one better when he said:—
    "He considered Mr. Asquith's latest suggestion a much better offer than the granting of facilities for the discussion of the Conciliation Bill."
    I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is still of that mind, and, if so, why he now consents to go back to a plan which has been discarded as not being so effective as the one the Government now propose to throw overboard. If the Government agreed to assume towards the Bill of next Session the same attitude that they adopted towards the Amendments which were to have been discussed to-day and to-morrow, I could have seen an assurance of good faith in their new proposals. If they said, "If the Franchise Bill passes its Second Reading we will take it up and see it through," that would be redeeming the pledge and keeping their word of honour. But to leave a great measure like this to the chance of private adventure in

    1065
    the House of Commons, with the weight of responsible Ministers and leaders of the Opposition in the scale against it, and the whole of Parliamentary precedent against it, is another matter. I do not want the House of Commons to be bound by precedent, or to be restrained by the dead hand of the past; but if this Bill gets through its two Sessions and comes up for its third, the question will then be raised, "Is it consistent with Parliamentary precedent that a Bill involving this great revolutionary change should go through as the measure of a private Member?" If the present Government Bill, with all the consideration of a Cabinet behind it, has not succeeded in escaping the rocks of Parliamentary procedure and precedent, what possible hope is there of a private Member's Bill going through? Let the Government be honest. Let the Government say either that they will take this matter up in earnest and in sincerity or that they will drop it altogether. One course or the other would command the respect both of friends and of opponents of Women Suffrage. But to trifle and toy with the question in this manner will disgust the women outside, and shock the confidence in the Government's own good name.
    I therefore emphatically protest against the new proposals of the Government. I consider them a fresh trap in which to catch the women outside. I believe, however, that the long and bitter experience which they have had will teach them that if they walk into the trap this time they will do so with their eyes open, and that therefore they will refuse the new proposals. The enfranchisement of women sooner or later must become a Government question. It has gone a long way towards attaining that position when it has succeeded in defeating a Government Bill. It is the first real sign that we have had in the country and in Parliament that the enfranchisement of women is now a grave issue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith) sought to say, I think, that hitherto pledges had been given in favour of Women Suffrage in a spirit of levity and frivolity. [An HON. MEMBEII: "Hear, hear."] Yes, and that was why they sought to evade a direct issue when the question came before the House of Commons. But the fact is overlooked that no supporter of Women Suffrage would object to a Member who had given a pledge in that spirit getting up and saying openly that he had done so,
    1066
    that he regretted having done so, and that he now withdrew from his promise. That would be honest at least. But still to pretend, like the hon. Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles), to be enthusiastic supporters of Women Suffrage, but to say that this is not the time or the occasion to fulfil their pledges, it is that kind of contemptible conduct against which we protest, whether on the part of Ministers or ex-Ministers or of private Members. I ask the Government, therefore, to reconsider this matter, and to realise that the change proposed is not one which the House of Commons will ever accept on the initiative of a private Member. If they say that if we carry the Second Reading of such a Bill it will then become a Government measure that will be substantial. But the offer as it stands at present can only be regarded as a mere delusion for those who are taken in by it, and certainly, speaking for myself, I am not one who is going again to be deceived.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I cannot help thinking that the last speech to which we have listened is an extremely regrettable one. I have not risen really to speak about Women Suffrage, but I cannot allow to pass the utterance which we have just heard without expressing the feeling that that is the kind of spirit most calculated to destroy the chances of Women Suffrage. Although there may be electioneering advantages to the hon. Member in the kind of speech he has just delivered, it is indeed deplorable that under cover of a warning, he should try to whip up once more those futile militant tactics which have done so much harm to the Women Suffrage cause. I have protested once before in this House against the detestable hooliganism of the movement. The hon. Member tells us now that in his opinion it ought to grow more serious. No words of mine are likely to have any influence upon those who conduct those proceedings. All I can say is that if his advice is taken by those who have the conduct of this movement outside, then; indeed, it will go far to destroy the chances of Women Suffrage in this House which are still there, and which, in my opinion, should be carefully husbanded, and not recklessly jeopardised by actions such as that suggested. I do not pretend to say that the procedure which the Government have thought fit to adopt wholly commends itself to my mind. I would have preferred one of the other

    1067
    alternatives that were before them. At the same time I recognise the difficulties of the position. Of course, if you had a Government all in favour of Women Suffrage, the case would be very easy. But you have not; and we had better recognise the facts as they stand. And we have not got a chance, whatever we do, of getting a Government wholly committed to Women Suffrage—not even after a General Election. If we had a General Election and the present Government were turned out, we should then have in power perhaps a Government still more hostile to Women Suffrage than the present Government. Under the circumstances, I think it is the duty of suffragists in this House to get together and use all the skill they can to secure the very decided advantages which the semi-official patronage of the Government to the new private Members' Bill provides.
    There is one other point, Sir, I wish to put, with all respect and great deference to your ruling. A question arises in respect to the rights of private Members. I am not going to question, or in any way discuss the ruling which you have given or the precedent which results therefrom. But certain consequences must follow in the relations between private Members and the Government. I imagine that the precedent set by the Motion to discharge this Order will long remain in the minds of Parliamentarians. The most valuable power which private Members possess at the present time, is the power, by Amendments which they move or by representations which they make to the Government to secure modifications in Government measures. We have largely lost our powers of initiating legislation, and those who know how to use this power of modifying Government measures are really using the power which remains to private Members to the greatest possible advantage. Let us see what will happen in the future. We shall go to Ministers and ask for substantial changes in a Government measure. We shall, of course, be met sympathetically by the Government of the day, but they will tell us "We cannot risk making the changes which you propose—"
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: A new House of Lords.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: "We cannot take the risk of making a change the effect of which either by itself or in conjunction with other Amendments it is quite impossible for us
    1068
    to calculate in advance. Consequently we must keep on safe lines and refuse the Amendment which otherwise we should have been prepared to accept." That is the position which results. I do not know if this is the time at which I should mention it, but I think we private Members are put in a very unfair and an almost impossible position if we do not know in advance what will be the effect of our Amendments moved in Committee. I have been serving this year in a Committee on a Bill which was very largely reconstructed and finally withdrawn. I have not the faintest notion whether, if that Bill had gone through Committee and reached its Report stage, those changes in Committee would have been of such a character as to transform the Bill and so destroy it. We are bound to take note of the fact that your ruling has stiffened up the old rule which we find in Erskine May, and that it is impossible to do this year what it was possible to do in 1867 and 1884. Under these circumstances I beg to submit that we private Members have a right to ask you whether we cannot ascertain in advance the effect of any Amendment which we may propose in Committee, cither by itself or in conjunction with others. As the matter stands at present, there will be hanging over us in terrorem in all our Committee stages a cloud of uncertainty which will really destroy our knowledge of what we are actually doing. I would also ask whether we could not have a clearer definition of the class of Amendments which, though relevant to a Bill and in order in Committee, has the effect of so tainting a Bill with novelty as to transform and destroy it? Unless we can on those points get your ruling, and some clearer definition than in the well-known passage in "May," I think the rights of private Members, of which you I know are a jealous guardian, will suffer the most serious curtailment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has directed his speech chiefly at me, and I shall be very glad to give him a reply at once. May I say, first, that I do not consider that the addition of a million and a half persons to the franchise is in any sense a "modification" of the Bill; I should call it a great extension. The hon. Member said that private Members will no longer be able to make modifications to Bills. I think, on reflection, he will see that to add very largely to the franchise, and to establish an entirely new principle for which leave had not been

    1069
    given on the introduction of the Bill, and which had not obtained the sanction of the House on the Second Reading, can hardly be termed a "modification." Then the hon. Member asked me whether I could give rulings in advance as to Amendments which might be moved. I should be very glad to give rulings in advance if I could also be informed what would be the ultimate state of the Bill. If hon. Members will in each case assure me that a Bill will emerge from Committee in a particular state, I shall be very glad to give information on Amendments proposed. Thirdly, may I say that I have not added one jot or tittle to what my predecessors have done in this matter. If the hon. Member will refer to the Tithe Rent Charge Recovery Bill, 1889, he will see that (he simple change of giving to the tithe owner relief against the owner of the land, instead of against the occupier, was held to entirely reconstitute the Bill. He will see that an Amendment which adds so largely to the franchise as any of these Amendments would have done is of far greater moment, and makes a far greater change in a Bill, than the precedent I have laid down.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: On a point of Order. May I, with great respect, ask you whether in the year 1884 your predecessor gave an indication to the Parliament then sitting that the extension of the franchise in the Representation of the People Bill of that year would have made the Bill practically a new one, and have brought about its withdrawal?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member could not have been present at an earlier stage of the afternoon.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Yes, I was.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I dealt very fully with that matter. I showed that the three Reform Bills—the Representation of the People Bills of 1832, 1867, and 1884—were all drawn in the widest possible manner, and were not limited, as this one is. Quite possibly in the year 1884 my predecessor may have given some private ruling. No such ruling appears in "Hansard" or in any of the books to which I had access.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: May I ask what would be the effect if the Government introduce a Bill specifically to carry out a pledge given, and have an Amendment in view to include women—the very thing you say is impossible—and discussion takes place with the full knowledge of that fact? Should
    1070
    not the discussion have been confined to males? My point of Order is that unless some indication is given from the Chair when a Bill is first introduced, the House will waste its whole time until the Bill subsequently comes to you, and you rule it out of order. Could not that ruling have been given earlier?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no opportunity for a ruling to take place earlier. In this case I should have been very glad to have given an earlier ruling, but no opportunity was given to me and no question was asked me until last Thursday morning. It was not my business to go about seeking to destroy!
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: On a point of Order. With very great respect to you, may I not ask whether, in view of the fact that the discussion which took place included women, you ought not to have ruled that this discussion should have been confined to men as the Bill itself referred only to men?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member mean on the First or the Second Reading?
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: On the Second Reading.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It certainly is not my business to restrict discussion. Hon. Members are fully entitled to discuss the question if they like. It seems to me to be perfectly relevant. I think the hon. Member himself would have blamed me if I had so restricted discussion.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: With the greatest possible respect, Sir, and without criticising in the least your ruling, in regard to the inclusion of women in this Bill, may I ask whether your ruling given on Thursday last is to hold good in the future; and in relation to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench confining the franchise to a residential qualification—whether you did rule, or whether you have since ruled that an Amendment on those lines would invalidate the Bill, or whether your ruling is confined solely to the question of Women Suffrage?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will look to-morrow at the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that I gave no specific ruling with regard to Government Amendments, it not being necessary on this occasion. I particularly said that all that was required of me, and all that I was asked to reply to was on the question of Women Suffrage.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May we take it that the Amendment to which I refer would not invalidate the Bill if it is carried?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will answer that question when the Amendment is inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. DILLON: I have taken no part in these Debates upon this question, and I would not to-night have done so, had it not been for the surprise and the antonishment occasioned in my mind by the constant complaints which have come to us from supporters of Women Suffrage in this House of the machinations which have been directed against it. I cannot very much admire the firmness or the faith of women suffragists in this HOUSE and in their deplorable complaints of those machinations. I am an old Member of this House, and I never remember any question on which there was not machinations. As a humble and obscure opponent of the proposal for Women Suffrage I have not taken any part as regards the machinations of old friends of either sex who had served the Irish cause in dark days in the past, and appealed to me in great numbers to remember their services and to abstain from voting. The effect was that I cast a vote against Women Suffrage last spring.
    As a humble Member of this House, and an opponent of Women Suffrage, permit me to say what has not up to this moment been stated in this Debate, that the machinations in favour of Women Suffrage have been, so far as I could observe much more active than the machinations against it. Yet none of us who are opposed to the Women Suffrage have risen up with winnings, or complainings, or weepings, on account of those machinations. I myself, looked upon as hopeless, have, nevertheless, been subjected to a continual fire of those machinations during the last fortnight, not only inside, but outside this House. Every form of appeal which is supposed to influence Members or Parliament has been directed against me in the Lobbies and outside the House. We have been subjected to machinations, to entreaties, and pressure, and we have been also subjected to threats—threats, I think, of a most disgraceful character, which ought never to have been made. Yet I never would have dreamt of making the protest which I now do, nor would I have mentioned it—I would have scorned to mention the matter in this House—such threats, such appeals, because they are
    1072
    so common, to Members of Parliament who are always subjected to them—had it not been for the extraordinary tone adopted by champion after champion on both sides of the House on Women Suffrage, which has given me a very poor idea of the strength and vitality of the faith that exists in these supporters of the suffrage. The main burden of their speeches was the complaints of those who had been frightened and seduced away on the cause of Women Suffrage by the machinations of certain mysterious Gentlemen who moved about the House. Hints were given of the dark influences of Ministers. One would suppose that all the Ministers were on the one side. If some of the Ministers used their influence with individual Members, they were perfectly entitled to do so; because other Ministers not less active, certainly not less able, and not less versed in Parliamentary machinations, were working for all they were worth on the other side. I cannot for the life of me see what cause the champions of Women Suffrage have to complain in this matter. I think that that particular aspect of the case ought to be dropped.
    One thing the women have to congratulate themselves upon, and that is that they have succeeded in inflicting a great deal of humiliation on the House of Commons, and not the less humiliation seeing grown men getting up, and before the public— because we speak here before the public— whining and complaining of the machinations to which they have been subjected. Let me say a sentence or two, I will be very brief, on another extraordinary aspect of this case. It was the consideration put forward by the right hon and learned Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division. He raised it first, when he spoke of pledges given lightly, without consideration, and without serious intention. I have seen that sort of thing going on myself pretty often, and I must confess it did not strengthen my admiration for, or faith in Parliamentary institutions. When hon. Members claim, as did the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil just now, that this is a thing which can only be decided, and must be decided by a Government measure, that they will counsel the women of this country to accept no other solution but a Government measure, I say they are talking absolute nonsense. Every Member of this House, and every intelligent man and woman in the country, knows that they cannot get a Government measure, That

    1073
    any man should use that language, that any man should tell the women that they blame the Government for deceiving the women of this country—well, I say it is they who are deceiving the women, by telling them to abandon all practical means of advancing their cause, and pursuing a "will-o'-the-wisp" that will only lead them into an impassable morass. How can you get a Government measure on this question? The two sides are divided, and as we have seen in our own experience of the last few days, rather bitterly divided. They are divided almost in two equal halves.
    7.0.p.m.
    Now let me put this consideration to the hon. Member for Merthyr and other enthusiastic advocates of Women Suffrage. Supposing we did adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walton, and supposing it was taken up vigorously, and that a Committee was formed from all parties in the House who support Suffrage, let them then form a Government. Remember the number of influential men there would be on that Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) intimated that he would join and would accept the Chairmanship of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a combination which none of us ever expected to live to see. When women interfere in politics the results are extremely strange. On that Committee there would also sit, I suppose, the Noble Lord the Member for the University of Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil), and the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil), and there would be the Leader of the Opposition, all presided over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now I make a fair offer, as one who takes a strong view about this question being made a Government measure. Let this Committee form a Government and appeal to the people of this country on that issue. No one can say that the Government so formed would be wanting in intellectual and political experience. Let them, therefore, form this Government. It is the only rational and, I think, practical plan for those who really talk about a Government Bill, and let them appeal to the people of this country, and, although I do not profess to be a very great authority on the politics of England, still I doubt very much if they would come back to power. I say, although I do not expect my counsel or opinion will carry much weight with the women of England who
    1074
    are supporters of this movement, although hundreds of them are friends of my own and old supporters of the Irish cause, I say to them that if they follow the counsel of the hon. Member for Merthyr to press forward to have this made a Government measure and to refuse all other means of forwarding their cause or his counsel of throwing themselves back into the methods of the militants, instead of advancing their cause they will ruin their cause, and, although my counsel is that of an opponent, it is honest counsel, which they will find far more useful, if they choose to act upon it, than the counsel of their Friend the hon. Member for Merthyr.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I do not doubt for a moment that the counsel of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is honest counsel, but I should like to know from him does he really think at the present moment that the friends of Women Suffrage should agree to support no Government until they have a Government of their own, and does he really suggest that the proper action for the supporters of the Women Suffrage in the Government would be to resign?
    Mr. DILLON: That is exactly what I did not' suggest. That was the recommendation of the hon. Member for Merthyr.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Then I misunderstood the hon. Member. But my motive in rising was not so much to reply to the hon. Member as because I feel it is necessary for a Liberal supporter of Women Suffrage to rise to give some expression of his opinion in regard to the proposals which the Government has made at the present moment as an alternative by which to secure Women Suffrage. I think it is very much to be regretted that the hon. Member for Merthyr and the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, who both are supposed to be strong supporters of Women Suffrage, should have refused absolutely to consider with fair and impartial minds the position in which the supporters of Women Suffrage are placed by the withdrawal of the Bill to-day. I do not know whether they wish to complain of the action of the Government in withdrawing the Bill. For my part, I have no criticism whatever to offer of the Government or of the course taken by the Government for dealing with the difficulties which arose out of Mr. Speaker's ruling. I think, from the-moment that ruling was given, it was vital to all interested, whether they are

    1075
    supporters of Women Suffrage or whether they are opponents, that a Division should not take place. They knew that no clear issue, which it was an essential part of the Prime Minister's plan to provide in this House, could be voted on. The supporters of Women Suffrage were placed in that position from the moment that that ruling was given. It then became clear that a vote for the triumph of Women Suffrage would be a vote for destroying the Bill, and if we wanted to carry the Bill we should refrain from voting in favour of Women Suffrage. We would have to choose between Women Suffrage and the Bill, and this choice only being given it was obvious that there could be no fair Division on the merits of the question Personally, therefore, I am grateful to the Government for not going on with the Bill in the circumstances in which we found ourselves placed.
    The really important question, and I think that will be accepted by all parties in the House, that confronts the supporters of Women Suffrage at the present moment, in whatever part of the House they sit, is whether the equivalent which the Government is offering in substitution for their old pledge, which was really a pledge for an opportunity of carrying Women Suffrage—the Prime Minister and the Government indicated many years ago that they would give the House an opportunity of trying to carry it—whether that pledge is being carried out. It was in response to a question of mine at a deputation that the Prime Minister stated that the Franchise Bill of the Government when introduced would be accessible to a Women Suffrage Amendment, and I accept in the fullest degree the statement of the Prime Minister that the decision of the Speaker was an entire surprise to him and to the Government, as I think it was to the whole House. The essence of the Government pledge was this, that in certain circumstances in the progress of Women Suffrage proposals, if they ever reached that stage, namely, after the Report of the Bill in this House, this Women Suffrage Amendment, if carried, would become part of the Government measure, and in future would have all the resources of the Government behind them in order that they might become part of the law of the land. That was the great merit of the opportunity in the eyes of the supporters of Women Suffrage. Undoubtedly it was a very great advantage
    1076
    from one point of view. It was an immense advantage to us to feel that if we could secure a vote in this House in Committee and on Report in favour of the Suffrage proposals, thereafter they would become part of the General Reform Bill, in support of which the Government itself would be bound up, and that these proposals could not disappear without the disappearance of the Government. That was the advantage which was opened up to supporters of Women Suffrage in the House and in the country, and upon which they laid great stress, and I think it must be realised that any departure from that demands calmness of mind and a most careful review of the circumstances. I do not think that ought to release us from fully considering the offer made by the Government. There was this great advantage in introducing Women Suffrage into a Government Franchise Bill; there was also the disadvantage which, I think, has become very visible in the last few days. I am quite well aware and fully realise that it is practically impossible to get a fair Division on Women Suffrage at the same time if it is to be a part of the Government measure. Many considerations are involved. The hon. Member for Mayo complained of the attitude of some supporters of Women Suffrage, and I think, especially towards Members of his own party. I think he must realise why that attitude was taken.
    Mr. DILLON: My complaint was en-entirely about myself. Some Members of my own party are supporters of Women Suffrage.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I am aware of that, but I think the hon. Member would not deny that to himself and to all Members of his party the fate of Home Rule and the fate of the Government of Ireland Bill is vastly more important, whether they are supporters of Women Suffrage or not, than the question of Women Suffrage. I do not think he will deny that, and I do not blame him for a moment. I think it is a natural and proper attitude for hon. Members who have sat in this House for a generation in order to secure one thing for their own country that they should watch the Parliamentary situation, always giving first attention to the question which they are sent here to guard, and the very fact that they wish first of all to safeguard the position of Home Rule, that very fact prevents them from approaching the question of Women

    1077
    Suffrage solely on its merits. There are many hon. Members on this side who are in the same position. There is not a single Liberal Member on these benches who would wish by his support of Women Suffrage to endanger the existence of the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I confess I do not altogether understand how the minds of some hon. Members opposite work. I should be very much surprised to find if a Conservative Government was in power that these hon. Gentlemen in order to secure the passage of a particular measure would be ready to destroy the existence of a Government which in other matters they supported. I do not say that in any stage of the progress of a measure a Member might not have to separate himself from the Government of which he was a supporter, but surely those hon. Members will not deny that except in the last extremity that is not a course Members of a party would be likely to take.
    Mr. MOORE: It depends how you pledge yourself and the country.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I think it depends on how you think. I have given no pledges in this country that I am not prepared to carry out. Hon. Members would not find themselves in difficulty if they do not give pledges except as they think, and I commend that course to the hon. Gentleman who interrupts me. Mixing up Women Suffrage with the fate of the Government and Government measures undoubtedly tends to place Members from Ireland and Members upon these benches in a difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) has quite frankly expounded the difficulties which a good many other Members feel but have not so frankly explained. I do see advantage in the new course proposed by the Government, inasmuch as that sort of pressure will now be removed from the women's cause. Hon. Members from Ireland will no longer feel that the cause of Home Rule is mixed up with Women Suffrage. Members on this side will no longer find Government measures mixed up with it, and will therefore find themselves in a much easier position. I would like to say that I myself had hoped that the Government would have adopted another alternative. They might have suggested that in the early part of next Session—I hope it is not too late to consider this point now—an opportunity should be given of debating Resolutions on
    1078
    Women Suffrage. We might have had a general Resolution in favour of women franchise, and then a Resolution on the particular form it should take. I see nothing inconsistent in that course with the pledge given by the Prime Minister. If the House by Resolution decides that it wishes Women Suffrage to be included in the Reform Bill, then the Government could insert such a Resolution in their Bill. That method was adopted by Sir Robert Peel when dealing with a situation very much analogous to the one in which we find ourselves to-day. A divided Government and a divided House of Commons in the case of Sir Robert Peel's Bill submitted a Resolution in favour of that emancipation, and after it had been adopted it was embodied in Sir Robert Peel's Bill.
    Earl WINTERTON: As that is an historical fact of some importance, may I say that prior to that two Members of the Government had resigned because they did not agree with it?
    Mr. LEIF JONES: We do not break up our Governments now on questions of reform, and I do not see that what I have suggested is a hopeless method. I fully recognise the difficulty in which the Prime Minister finds himself, but it does seem to me that it would be possible for the Government to have said, "We will accept a Resolution of the House and Amendments at the hands of the House." I suggest that as a possible alternative, and it would be carrying out to the letter the promises which have been made by the Prime Minister. I think the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) have very much undervalued the proposal which the Government have made for dealing with this difficult question. What is the offer which the Government have made? It is that in the early part of next Session opportunity shall be given for a Women Suffrage Bill, and time will be found for that measure to go as far as the House of Commons wishes to take it. If it carries it to the Third Reading, time will be found for it, and it will then go to the House of Lords. If it is rejected, time will be found in a second Session to pass it, and if the House of Lords again rejects it, and the Government are still in power, time will be found in the third Session to pass the measure into law and thus get the benefit of the Parliament Act. That is a greater offer of

    1079
    Government facilities than has ever been made to the supporters of Women Suffrage before.
    As a rule when people talk about a private Member's Bill they mean those which have had practically no facilities in this House. We have never before been promised that a private Member's Bill should be practically placed in the position of a Government measure, and that full resources with regard to the matter of time should be at our disposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) asked the Government not to pledge themselves to a Guillotine Motion, and he suggested that if such a motion was to be moved it rested with the supporters of Women Suffrage to move it and not the Government. I am not in favour of Guillotine Motions, and at any rate I do not want one for Women Suffrage, but the pledge of the Government is full time for carrying Women Suffrage. Even if they could give us plenty of time we are ready to argue the Bill through. We are not afraid to go on as long as necessary fighting the legitimate arguments at any length brought forward by hon. Members who are opposed to us. The inconvenience of all that would fall upon the Government and not upon the supporters of Women Suffrage. If they want to shorten discussion it is for the Government to introduce the guillotine. That pledge is very valuable and important because the amount of time which the Government can allocate is limited, and it is of the utmost importance to us to know as Suffragists that if it is necessary, and if the Government cannot give us time enough to carry it without a Guillotine Motion, then the head of the Government must come down and say how much time he can give to this question to enable us to get the measure through in the course of the Session. That pledge has been given to the Women Suffragists, and it is important, in view of the speech of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, for Liberal Members to look fully at the proposal made by the Government. With regard to the operation of the Parliament Act I will assume that we have passed a Bill twice in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire said we ought not to use the Parliament Act to carry a Suffragist Bill. I do not know why not. It would be very hard for the House of Commons, and indeed, would it not be ensuring the defeat
    1080
    of the Bill if, after the House of Commons had twice passed the Bill, we were told that the Government would not give us facilities for the third Session. All the Government can do is to give the House of Commons the opportunities of using the Parliament Act if it so desires, and the Parliament Act will not come into operation until the House of Commons acquiesces.
    All the Government pledge themselves to is, if we pass the Bill twice we shall not lose it in the third Session for want of time if the House wishes to make use of the Parliament Act. There is one advantage of the proposal of the Government which I commend to the attention of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, and it is that the operation of the Parliament Act might run over a General Election. If at the end of two Sessions there should come a General Election before a Women Suffrage Bill has become law, our Bill does not die with that Parliament or that Government. There might even be a change of Government and still a Suffragist majority, and if they united in the first Session of the new Parliament on the Bill which has twice gone through the House of Commons in that way we could ensure that it would become law under the Parliament Act. For my own part, though I did not at first welcome the proposal that we should proceed by a private Bill, I am bound to say that the more I look at it the more the advantages of the present proposals of the Government commend themselves to me. Some strange currents of opinion have been running through the House during the last week, and this House has been a kind of exchange, and there will be a very great advantage in the new proposal under which we shall not have a repetition of those proceedings which reflected very little credit upon the dignity or the honour of the House of Commons. I hope we shall not come to a definite decision to-night. I think it is only reasonable to give us time to consult our supporters in the country and the women outside. I think the proposal put before us merits the most careful consideration of Women Suffragists throughout the country. It seems to me that the Government have offered us an opportunity which well merits our most careful consideration, and if properly used within the next two years may give us the enfranchisement of women.
    Mr. MONRO-FERGUSON: It is no doubt difficult nowadays to break up a

    1081
    Government, but I think if the hon. Member who has just spoken is allowed to have his own way he is just about the man to do it. I am not much alarmed at the prospect of a Government Bill upon Female Suffrage. I do not think that any Government in our time is likely to bring in a Bill to deal with that question. I am, however, alarmed a little about the Government pledges. The Government has been very free with its pledges, more free than I, as a free member of a free assembly, quite like. Not that their undertakings would affect my own vote, but because I desire to see this measure treated in a free House, and if the Government is entangled by entering into too many understandings, that result cannot be obtained. I have great sympathy with the Government, but I desire to protest against any entanglement which does not leave us free to deal with this question when it comes before the House. What with this influential Committee and the guillotine and the Parliament Act, I am not so sure that we shall be able to enjoy that complete freedom. Unlike the Colonial Secretary, I am not an unreserved admirer of the Parliament Act, but I agree with him that it would put a very severe strain upon it to carry a measure for Female Suffrage in this Parliament. The day for fancy franchises has gone, and there will be nothing of that kind in the future. The only real limitation that can be devised is one as regards age or conduct, and judging from my own experience, I should say that probably most of us commit more follies between twenty-one and twenty-five than at any other period of our lives. I think there is much to be said for making the age limit twenty-five years. None of these fancy limitations can be permanent. The only real Amendment is that put forward by the hon. Member for Bernard Castle, although I should vote against all the Amendments, but if I had to vote for this principle in any form, I should vote for it in that form, because none of the other Amendments can stand, and that means a tremendous addition to the franchise. I say it would be a great strain on the Parliament Act to carry an extension of that kind within the lifetime of the present Parliament. The electorate of this country, I believe, is against all the Amendments. I should like to see that opinion tested, and I do not know any way in which it could be tested except by the Referendum. I am no great admirer of the principle of the Referendum which I
    1082
    think would take away from this House any remaining shred of responsibility that hangs about it; but I see no other way, as no Government can deal with this matter, of testing the opinion except through the Referendum. I do not know how you would arrange the Referendum, and perhaps that will engage the attention of the House or the new Committee; but whether it were left to the present electorate of the country or to the men and women of the country I still believe the Amendments would be rejected.
    There is one other alternative. We have heard a good many comparisons of the extension of the franchise to women in the Oversea Dominions and in the United States of America. The whole of this House is deeply committed to devolution, and to give the franchise to women in the domestic Parliaments would be the equivalent of giving the franchise in the Oversea Dominions or in the State Legislatures of the United States. I submit to the promoters of the Bill that their real object would be gained by that franchise. After all, what is it they are seeking? It is not equality. We hear a good deal about equality, but the thing does not exist. The real claim is one of justice; it is that when social legislation which is rapidly increasing in quantity affects the whole unit of society—women, children, education—women should have a voice in the settlement of it. Those are questions that would be conducted by domestic legislatures, and over those legislatures I hold women should have control with men. I believe, if the Government would pursue its settled policy of Home Rule all round, that in giving devolution they would settle at the same time the real need of women in respect to their protection and the protection of their homes, and in that way they would settle this question. If I am certain of anything, it is that whatever machinery you may invent this country will never give women the franchise in the Imperial Parliament.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I confess I think whatever discouragement the advocates of Women Suffrage may have had by the events that have taken place, it will not be removed by a proposal that they should wait for Home Rule all round. Considering that so far the only step in that direction has been the passage of a Bill entirely inconsistent with any possible scheme of Home Rule all round, no woman

    1083
    who was not animated by an unselfish zeal for the political rights of her granddaughter would interest herself in the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. Nor can I agree with him that the day of the fancy franchise has gone. Surely it is very silly to say you cannot have them applying to the Parliamentary franchise when, as a matter of fact, you have them applying to the municipal franchise, and when very notably the Government did not even propose to change them in this Bill which related to local government. You have got the fancy franchise there, and you are likely to have it for a good many years. Why should you not have it in the Parliamentary franchise too? I should like to say one word with regard to what was said about militant tactics by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie). That was a deplorable utterance. I say that, not only on the ground that militancy has done the cause of Women Suffrage a great deal of harm, but on the ground that to suggest militant tactics, tactics of violence most of all, if they are to be extended, as in one regrettable instance they have been extended, so as to imperil life and limb, as in the outrages in Dublin and the attempt to burn the Colonial Secretary's house— called for, or could be justified, or could excite anything but the utmost loathing and horror among all respectable persons, whether supporters or opponents of the movement, is to lower people's conception of morality as well as to do bad service to the cause of Women Suffrage. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil cannot claim for militancy the slightest defence or the slightest excuse as long as Parliamentary methods are not exhausted, and no delusion could be greater than to suppose Parliamentary methods of giving women the suffrage are exhausted.
    I am not in a position to give advice to hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, because I do not know what is precisely their point of view, but it is certainly obvious the scheme of the Government puts in the hands of the out-and-out supporters of the movement an advantage they did not before possess, because there are going to be two Bills brought in, one, a Government measure, relating to the general treatment of the franchise, and the other a Women Franchise Bill, which the Government are going to allow to be brought in. It is obvious it will lie in the hands of the advocates of Women Suffrage, who are quite numerous enough to
    1084
    make the difference, how much progress the Government are allowed to make with their own Franchise Bill. They can use that weapon to any extent they think proper for advancing the interests of the Bill properly brought in by the private Member in favour of Women Suffrage. It is, therefore, utterly untrue to say they are being cheated of their opportunity or that they are being placed in a worse position. They are actually being put in a position of great advantage for the purpose of carrying out the view they have at heart. Nor is it reasonable to accuse the Prime Minister of a breach of faith in this matter or to suggest anything of the kind. I have a very high opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's intellect and a very low opinion, not of his private, but of his Parliamentary character; but, bad as my opinion of his Parliamentary character is, I certainly should not have suspected him of this elaborate manæuvring to put his Government in the position in which he finds it to-day. It would be to carry suspicion beyond the limits of all reason to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman really designed what has come to pass.
    The discussion has turned very largely on an interesting point in connection with the application of the Parliament Act. It is certainly true that Members on this side of the House who support Women Suffrage would on general grounds have great reluctance to overrule the other House of Parliament by any means except a reference to the people of the country. I hold very strongly that there never ought to be a question of this House overruling the other House except by appealing to the people. The question of the application of the Parliament Act, however, is not one that will arise next Session. It could only possibly arise when the Bill was brought up a second or a third time, and it is not inconceivable that by that time we may have a reformed Second Chamber and proper procedure of referring great questions to the judgment of the people. What is it that has produced this collapse of Parliamentary procedure? A great many people are representing that we are a foolish Assembly, strangled by our own deference to precedent and red-tape. We are strangled only because the Constitution has been upset by this present Parliament in passing the Parliament Act. If we were legislating under the old system, or, better still, if we were legislating as we should have been legislating if the view

    1085
    of the Unionist party had prevailed in respect of the Parliament Act, none of this difficulty would have arisen at all. How-has it arisen? It has arisen because, first of all, we are not able to invent a Parliamentary remedy for the difficulty. The Parliamentary remedy would have been to withdraw the Bill and bring in another Bill, but the Government have so managed matters that we are driven up against the end of the financial year and it is impossible to spare the time to begin the whole thing over again. You therefore cannot have recourse to the proper Parliamentary remedy. What is to blame for that? The Parliament Act. It has forced the Government into putting all their Bills together in a single Session.
    If we were not under the Parliament Act, we should be perfectly able to take any measures we liked, and, if the Second Chamber did not accept the Bill, there would have been, had the Unionist view prevailed, a proper provision for referring the question to the people, and of deciding it. How immensely better that would have been both for the advocates of Women Suffrage and its opponents! Now, however, this matter is determined, there will always be a great deal of bitterness, and there will always be a sense of a trick played on the one side or the other, because there is no arbitrament which is really respected by the two contending parties. The idea of the Parliament Act was to make the House of Commons the supreme judge as distinguished from and as opposed to the electorate. That may have been an idea acceptable to some people, but in the opinion of the great mass of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House the House of Commons lacks the moral authority to exercise that sort of controlling voice. We do not really think the House of Commons ought, or is animated by motives which qualify it, to judge on a question on which feeling is deeply moved. Therefore, there is a dislike to the idea of passing it under the Parliament Act, and the supporters of Women Suffrage are constantly complaining that some indirect influence will rob them of the advantages they possess. On neither side is there a real belief that the House of Commons ought to be trusted as the supreme judge in a matter of this kind. But if we had the Unionist party's constitutional arrangement, the arrangement for which they are contending, it would be quite simple; the Bill would go up to the other House, and, if rejected, it would be referred to the people; it would be
    1086
    decided by the people, and in our view questions upon which the House is divided should be decided by the people.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is that still the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite?
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the hon. Member is referring to an entirely different thing. There is a special Referendum and the normal Referendum; the latter is the cause of the difficulty.
    Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: Would that include the question of Women Suffrage?
    Lord HUGH CECIL: If it were not for the present arrangement they would not bring into question of dispute this extraordinary, foolish, ill-thought-out, partisan, gerrymandering measure called a Parliament Act. That Bill never had any merits whatever except the single merit found in it by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), that he could carry Home Rule by it, even although the people of this country disapproved. It certainly had not one single good quality. Talk about machinations; what were the machinations which passed the Parliament Act? They were machinations of the most impudent intrigue. Now this country is suffering from the miserable dish they cooked. It is feeling the indignity to which it is brought in this House; it is feeling how absurd it is that we should have all our measures brought into a single Session and be unable to withdraw a Bill or take any reasonable method of getting out of the difficulty because of this precious Constitution, which was only the work of the basest partisanship. The first duty of an enlightened Parliament, a duty far more important than any suffrage question, will be to place the Constitution on a more democratic and more workable basis.
    Sir W. BYLES: I do not propose to discuss either the Referendum or the Parliament Act. But the Noble Lord will allow me to say that I differ in toto from his estimate of the Parliamentary abilities and character of the Prime Minister. I understand that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, when I was out of the House, and necessarily out of the House, made an attack upon me. As I did not hear it I am unable to reply to it. But I want to assure the House that I am perfectly prepared to stand by my original words, which he thought fit to criticise, and with which the

    1087
    hon. Member for RushCliffe and a great many of my hon. Friends, even those who are most earnest and enthusiastic in supporting Women Suffrage, will agree.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I did not say that they agreed; I said they felt some of the hon. Gentleman's difficulties.
    Sir W. BYLES: Perhaps I put it a little too strongly. At any rate, they did not disapprove of the position I thought it necessary to take up. I maintain that the view I put forward is one with which a great many Members of this House sympathise. I am an earnest and sincere supporter of the cause of Women Suffrage. But there is one thing I would not do, in order to give it; and that is destroy the present Government. We have undertaken great responsibilities in the country, and we must do our very best to achieve them. I would not allow this question or any other to come in between that achievement or between our hopes of final success. I would not have risen except that I was anxious to draw attention to a Bill which is on the Order Paper for to-day. I am, on the whole, quite satisfied with the proposal of the Government. I believe we shall achieve our object in the way in which it is proposed, and those who have shown themselves half-hearted in this matter will find out their mistake. But there is another and quicker way in which it might be done; there is a Bill on the Order Paper for this very day dealing with among other things the removal of Women's Franchise disabilities. It was brought into the House by the late Sir Charles Dilke, and I have kept it alive
    since his death. It proposes to establish a single franchise at all elections; it would abolish university representation; remove the disabilities of women, and, in fact, it is entirely an Adult Suffrage Bill. If the Government thought fit to give facilities for that measure, or if the House of Commons read it a second time to-night and allowed it to go into Committee we might at once enter upon this great question and settle it before the end of the Session.
    Mr. HILLS: Is not that a local government Bill only?
    Sir W. BYLES: Not at all. I will read the main objects in the Bill—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is hardly entitled to do that.
    Sir W. BYLES: I only wanted to inform the hon. Member of its provisions, but he can get a copy in the Vote Office and satisfy himself. I sincerely hope that the solution of this question, which has been so skilfully and so ingeniously arrived at by the Government, by which they have convinced not only their own Friends but their opponents that they have acted in the most straightforward, frank, and generous way towards women, I say I can only hope their scheme will end in the success of the cause.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 112.

    Division No. 559.

    AYES.

    [7.55 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Brace, William

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Cotton, William Francis

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Crooks, William

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Buckmaster, Stanley 0.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Alden, Percy

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Cullinan, John

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Davles, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Armitage, Robert

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

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

    Arnold, Sydney

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

    Dawes, J. A.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Byles. Sir William Pollard

    Do Forest, Baron

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Delany, William

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Delvin, Joseph

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Barton, William

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Doris, William

    Bentham, G. J.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Duffy, William J.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Clough, William

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Clynes, John R.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Boland, John Plus

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Leach, Charles

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Richards, Thomas

    Falconer, James

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lundon, Thomas

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Ffrench, Peter

    McGhee, Richard

    Robertson, Sir Scott (Bradford)

    Field, Wiliam

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

    Robertson, J, M. (Tyneside)

    Fltzgibbon, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Robinson, Sidney

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    M"Kean, John

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Gilhooly, James

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rowlands, James

    Gill, A. H.

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

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Ginneil, Laurence

    Manfield, Harry

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Goldstone, Frank

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Meagher, Michael

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrlm, N.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Middlebrook, William

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

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

    Millar, James Duncan

    Sheehy, David

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

    Molloy, Michael

    Shortt, Edward

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Hackett, John

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)

    Wall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Mooney. John J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Snowden, Philip

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Morrell, Philip

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morison, Hector

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Muldoon, John

    Sutton, John E.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Munro, R.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcllffe)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Neilson, Francis

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hayward, Evan

    Nolan, Joseph

    Thomas, James Henry

    Hazleton, Richard

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Norton, Captain Cecil W,

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Connor, John (Klldare, N.)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Dowd, John

    Wadsworth, J.

    Hinds, John

    Ogden, Fred

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Grady, James

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., lnce)

    Hodge, John

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

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Malley, William

    Wardle, George J.

    Home, Charies Silvester (Ipswich)

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E, (Clackmannan)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Webb, H.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Shee, James John

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Outhwaite, R. L.

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

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

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

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P,

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Wiles, Thomas

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Jones, Lelf Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Joyce, Michael

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Keating, Matthew

    Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pringle, William M. R.

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

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Radford, G. H.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Reddy, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Blair, Reginald

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchln)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T, Griffith-

    Chaloner, Col, R. G. W.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Boyton, James

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Carlile. Sir Edward Hildred

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Barnston, Harry

    Cave, George

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Croft, H. P.

    Bird, Alfred

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxord Univ.)

    Doughty, Sir George

    1090

    1091

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclcsall)

    Fell, Arthur

    Locker-Lampson, G. Salisbury)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Forster, Henry William

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Gardner, Ernest

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Sandys, G. J.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Malcolm, Ian

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Smith. Harold (Warrington)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Grant, J. A.

    Moore, William

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Gretton, John

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

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddlngton, North)

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

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Swift, Rigby

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Newman, John R. P.

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

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

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Hills, John Waller

    Nield, Herbert

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hoare, S. J. G.

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

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

    Hogge, James Myles

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Pease, Herbert pike (Darlington)

    Winterton, Earl

    Home. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Perkins. Walter F.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hunt, Rowland

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Worthington-Evans, L,

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Younger, Sir George

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Castlereagh and Mr. Arnold Ward.

    Larmor. Sir J.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Question, "That the Order be read and discharged, and the Bill withdrawn," put accordingly, and agreed to.

    Order read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  TRADE UNIONS (No. 2) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he thinks it reasonable to take the Bill at this time? I should not have ventured to intervene if there had been one of my right hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench. The Debate on the other matter went on for a long time, and had every appearance of running for a good time longer, because a good many hon. Gentlemen opposite got up to speak. I think it is very inconvenient for the Opposition, and treating them with a want of consideration to take a Bill of this kind at this time. The right hon. Gentleman will lose nothing in the end if he agrees to an Adjournment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the Noble Lord has overlooked the fact that last Monday the Prime Minister announced that if the "Grey" Amendment were defeated, this Bill would be taken at 7.30. If the Noble Lord will look at the file of the "Times" for Saturday, he will see it was there stated that the Bill would be taken immediately after the Prime Minister's
  Motion to withdraw the posed of.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first Amendment raises the Vacher case, which is the most important Amendment to the Bill? It would suit the convenience of everyone if the Debate could be Adjourned.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If hon. Members who are interested in the Bill are not present they have only themselves really to blame.
  Earl WINTERTON: It is a misapprehension.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understood that the Noble Lord was one of those who contemplated that the "Grey" Amendment would be defeated. If the Noble Lord says that up to 3.30 he knew nothing about the intentions of the Government, I can only say that the announcement was made that we should proceed with the Bill at 7.30 if the "Grey" Amendment were defeated.

  TRADE UNIONS (No. 2) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Liability of Political Fund).
    Section four of the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, shall not apply to any action in respect of any tortious act committed in furtherance of any political object. Provided that execution upon any judgment or order obtained by the plaintiff in any such action against any trade union shall only extend to the political fund of the union.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause raises the question of the conditions under which the political activities which the Bill permits to trade unions shall be carried on. The Bill permits what is in law a new category of activities to trade unions. I am fully alive to the view held by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite and a great many people in the country down to the time of the Osborne Judgment, that political activity was a matter which, in the nature of things, under the old Trades Union Acts, was permissible to trade unions. I do not in any way wish to raise any controversy relating to that question. I accept the historical fact that trade unions did, to a great extent, carry on political activities in a growing degree down to the time of the Osborne Judgment, particularly during the years that preceded the Osborne Judgment, but the fact remains that the basis of the Osborne Judgment was that the constitution of trade unions as contained in the Trade Unions Acts was one which excluded political activity. That being so, it raises questions of historical importance and of present importance. I for one am strongly in favour of trade unions being given the power of carrying on political action. In spite of much that has been said by various Members, particularly of the party below the Gangway opposite, and in various periodicals and papers, I believe that the great majority of those who sit on these benches are also in favour of trade unions having political activity. We are all anxious that the working classes should be adequately represented in this House. There is one reason which seems to me to be paramount on that question, namely, that the solution of industrial difficulties, the solution of the great question of industrial unrest which has been so much before us recently, must lie more and more as years go on in the action of Parliament. If that be so, it stands to reason that in order that such solution should be satisfactory, we should have a real sanction given to legislation by the presence of representatives of the whole of the industrial classes concerned in that legislation.
    While conceding that main proposition, I submit that it is only right that when the new activity is conferred upon these great and powerful bodies, that power should be conferred subject to the ordinary conditions upon which this Parliament is
    1094
    in the habit of conferring new powers on any bodies which it creates. There is no precedent in our legislation for the conferring of statutory powers on any statutory body which does not attach to those powers what I may call the common, ordinary condition, that if the powers are misused some legal liability may attach. I observe on the Government Bench the powers, so to speak, of law and order—the Law Officers and the Home Secretary. Can they give this House any justification in common sense for giving new powers, and at the same time saying to the repository of those powers, "Do what you like, misbehave as you will, do as much injury as you choose, you may do it with complete immunity"? I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not for one moment suggest that I have any ground for saying that any of the great bodies in this country which are trade unions to-day will misuse the political powers conferred upon them. When a railway company or a corporation comes to Parliament for statutory powers, does that company or corporation resent it if it is said, "You shall have your powers, but upon the ordinary conditions which attach to every company and to every corporation that is known in this country, namely, that if you do wrong you shall be responsible for the wrong you do"? I venture to make a twofold appeal, on the one hand to the Government, and, on the other hand, to the Labour party. I submit to the Government that here is a proposition which is self-evident. If you give new powers you attach to those powers an adequate sanction to their abuse. I appeal to the Labour party—it is an appeal which in their heart of hearts they cannot but recognise as right and just—I say that I believe that the trade unions of this country have been a great and potent power for good. I believe that is a mission which they will continue to carry out. But the great success of that mission must, in the ultimate resort, depend on the degree in which they retain a firm hold upon the confidence of the public of this country. The complete confidence of the public of this country can only be retained if they convince the public of their complete responsibility for all that they do. Take this case of political activity. There is a choice before them. They may go to the country and say, "We have been given these new political powers, but we have been given them under terms of complete irresponsibility. We can, if we choose

    1095
    in the course of an election, libel a candidate in our trade union paper, and we shall be perfectly immune from all results, however much damage it may do," or they can go to the country and say, "We have asked for these political powers, but as evidence of our good faith, as evidence of the responsible character of the policy which we promote, you see we accept in regard to these new powers liability and responsibility before the law of the land in case we should do wrong." That is to the people of the country an appeal which will not only meet with general approbation at the present time, but one which will inure to the permanent advantage of the trade union movement which I am so anxious to support. The language of the Clause is simply and solely that of the Trades Disputes Act, an Act passed in the first instance to deal with liability incurred in respect of trade disputes. I recognise fully the claims of the trade unions at that time to be free from liability in respect of the acts of some of their servants. But I wish to call the particular attention of hon. Members below the Gangway to the limited character of the liability, which I suggest is appropriate. As we are dealing in this Bill not with the wider subject, but only with the question of political activity, it is right that the only funds which should be made liable should be the political funds collected under the Bill. I urge upon the Government and upon the Labour party to accept this Clause.
    Mr. HILLS: I beg to second the Motion. I would say respectfully to the Labour Party they must recognise that power brings responsibility. Under this Bill they are asking, and I suppose they will obtain, very large new powers. Those powers are conditioned by the responsibility which they have to exercise, and unless that responsibility is accepted, you will at some time lose the powers, for unless you can convince the people of this country that you are asking for a fair extension of your powers, in the long run I by some way or another, you will lose those powers. All this Clause asks is that where a trade union outside its ordinary trade activities, in the course of a political action should, in its corporate capacity, commit a libel, the political funds of that trade union should be responsible for that libel. The Clause makes a very clear distinction between the general funds of the trade union and the political funds of the
    1096
    trade union, and between the general activities of the trade union, which under the Trades Disputes Act is legalised in all respects, and whereby the trade union is immune from all action of contract or tort and its political activities. I ask any fair-minded man in the House, does he think it is right to use the machinery of the Trades Disputes Act to extend the area of that dispute into the political arena? I am certain no one wants that. I do not for a moment accuse the trade union world of wishing to libel, damage, and perhaps ruin thereby, their political opponents, but these things may happen. If they happen, ought not the trade union which commits the libel to suffer in its political funds? I should very much like to know the answer to that. This Clause is absolutely limited. There is no liability for tort imposed on the ordinary benefit fund or on the general funds of the trade union. But now it is going into political life. I think inevitably, and I am sure rightly, when it goes it must go as any other body goes. It must go with full responsibility upon it, and I hope this Clause, which is consonant with ordinary justice, will be accepted by the general sense of the House.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The question which is raised by this Clause is undoubtedly one of some importance. I think, in order to understand it, it is necessary to retrace our steps a little, and to follow what happened on the passing of the Trades Disputes Act of 1906. I note in passing, with satisfaction, that the hon. Gentleman avows himself a friend and supporter of trade unions, and that he has no fault to find against the actions of the trade unions, speaking generally. So far, of course, we are in complete accord. But what the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves out of account altogether is that when the Trades Disputes Act was passed, as it was, by the common consent of this House, there was no Division on the Third Reading—
    Lord HUGH CECIL: This particular consequence was unforeseen.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am coming to that. At that time the whole matter was elaborately discussed. I am sure no one who remembers the passage of the Act through the House will suggest that it was not considered in all its bearings. At that moment it is well that the House should remember that it was thought by all lawyers—certainly by the vast majority

    1097
    of lawyers—that trade unions were entitled to indulge in the political activities. At that time the Osborne trial had not commenced. It was not in contemplation that there would be such an action, and what we were discussing then was whether the funds of trade unions should be granted immunity against the consequences of tortious acts committed by trade union officers or agents. This House passed Clause 4, in which it was made clear that the funds of the union were never to be made responsible, and I think in this respect there is an enormous amount of exaggeration as to the effect of that Clause. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) fell into the error. He is too good a lawyer for that, but he certainly did not point out that all that is done by the Trades Disputes Act, and all that will happen if we do not pass the Clause, as the hon. and learned Gentleman is now proposing, is that the funds of the union itself will be exempt. But it is quite a fallacy to argue from that, as is very often done—I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman said it—that individuals are not responsible for their acts.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I admit that.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I know the hon. and learned Gentleman does, but there are many who do not. There are many who are not as well aware of the state of the law as he is, and I am stating this for the information, not of those who are lawyers, but for the purpose of clearing the ground, and making it perfectly clear to those who say, "You are giving an immunity and a privileged position to members of unions—it is something unheard of—for all their actions." All I say is that individuals are responsible for the acts they commit. Whether a man is an official or otherwise acting as an agent for a trade union, or acting with the authority of a trade union, the act he commits is an act for which he is responsible. The civil law remains unaltered in that respect, and to the criminal law every man is amenable. It is erroneous to say that an action will lie against an individual which will make the funds of the union responsible. It is an exaggeration to speak, as some hon. Members do, and certainly as some people do outside, of Members of trade unions being able to do what they like, and no evil consequences will arise. What is the reason the House granted this immunity to trade unions in 1906? [An HON. MEMBER: "There was a division on the
    1098
    Clause."] When the Bill came to the Third Reading it was passed without any division at all. The reason why this House granted the immunity was because it realised how impossible was the situation created by making trade union funds responsible in cases where it was impossible to limit agency as applied to trade unions. Exactly the same reasoning applies to the particular funds we are dealing with in this case. In the discussions on the 1906 Bill it was argued that political libel might be perpetrated by a number of trade unionists, and that the trade union should be made responsible for it. I fail to understand myself why you should draw a distinction between a political libel and another libel.
    Viscount WOLMER: This Bill deals with politics.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think it is right to make some provision to remedy the difficulty under the Osborne Judgment.
    Viscount WOLMER: I do not think it would be in order to deal with a subject which is beyond civil action.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Am I to understand that if it was in order what would be proposed would be the repeal of the Trades Disputes Act? All that I am pointing out with reference to the matter is that if you allow the Trade Disputes Act to stand, I do not see the reason why you should draw a distinction between political libel and any other libel. I understand the point if you say in argument that Parliament was wrong when it passed the Trades Disputes Act of 1906. If that is the argument, I follow it. I understand the Noble Lord to say that it would be out of Order in this Bill to deal with the subject. If that is so, I come back to the position that there is no reason why there should be a, distinction drawn between one class of tort and another. The distinction was not drawn in the discussions on the Bill in 1906, and so far as I understand it, the law is even stronger in restraining political libel, and would apply with greater force than in any other form of libel. Suppose there is an election and some libellous sheet is issued, you can proceed by asking an order of the Court to restrain at once the publication of the libel. That is the remedy which would be taken. You might proceed against the printer or the individual responsible. You could do all that, but the only thing you cannot do by this is to proceed against a trade union. All the rest is

    1099
    open to you. You would have an opportunity of preventing the repetition of the libellous statement by that means.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that it is the law to-day, under Section 4 of the Trades Disputes Act, that an action is entertainable to stop the doing of a wrong, in spite of the fact that no action lies for damages.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman followed what I was saying. What I said was, that although you could not proceed against the trade union, you could proceed by injunction against the printer, publisher, or individual, who may be responsible. I purposely drew that distinction.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I did not follow that.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Assume for a moment that you have this state of affairs—assume that there is a libel published by a trade union. There is no more reason why a trade union should publish a libel I suppose than any other association. The difficulty with regard to a trade union is not entirely confined to them. Suppose for example a tariff reform union or a free trade union, or a Liberal or a Conservative association, were concerned, what would happen would be that any competent lawyer would advise the person who was libelled to proceed at once against the printers or publishers or persons who could be made responsible. He would find a difficulty in pursuing the association. The association is not even an entity as the union is declared to be by the Taff Vale judgment. It is nothing else but en association. There are difficulties of all kinds. I dare say there might be some means of meeting it. If you can find out the individual you can obtain redress against him, but really what you want in all these things at election times is, not so much to get damages as to get an injunction, and then you can proceed to get damages if you think fit against the responsible people. I do think that the House should bear in mind what the position was in 1906.
    At that time, I will not put it so high as to say all, for there may have been some exceptions—but the vast majority thought, as they have thought for many years, that trade unions we're entitled to do what they were doing before the Osborne Judgment had been thought of, and in
    1100
    spite of all that no such Clause as is now suggested was introduced. The hon. and learned Gentleman's very moderate demand is to confine this execution against political funds. It is difficult to see why we should. Political funds equally are funds obtained from members who are willing to contribute, and who do not claim exemption, and they are in exactly the same position as other moneys levied either for the purposes of the war chest, to give strike pay, or for any other purpose. Exactly the same consideration applies. You have got this money paid into a certain fund. It makes no difference if you call it a political fund. The only reason we draw the distinction in this Bill is because it is thought right, inasmuch as all members are not bound to contribute, but those who desire can claim exemption, to keep the fund separate from the general one, and as the Bill applies to all the members of the trade union, it was desired that the money should not get mixed up in any way. My submission to the House is that there is really no ground for this distinction, and that exactly the same principle which applied in 1906 should apply now.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I wish to associate myself with the speeches made by my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this new Clause. It is a fact, which I think hon. Members below the Gangway know, that the Conservative party, the Unionist party, are not averse to trade unions. On the contrary, I could quote, if necessary, many admissions that the original charter of trade unions, which they prized enormously, proceeded from the Unionist party, and I should like to say, as a matter of very much less importance, that I myself both have written and spoken in this House on the occasions when I thought that trade unions were not receiving entirely fair play. The Attorney-General would perhaps remember the occasion when there seemed to be a certain conflict with principles of justice, between the decisions which had been arrived at in what was called the Mogul case and another case, and in these cases I supported such amendments of the law as were then required in my opinion, giving trade unions similar rights of combination as those which I conceived were enjoyed by the employers. Therefore I claim, for what it is worth, that both the party to which I belong and myself, individually, speak without any desire to injure trade unions.

    1101
    I heartily agree with what was said by my hon. Friends that trade unions have done a great deal of good in this country, and I also believe that under proper conditions the country and this House get an advantage from their extending activities, which were originally merely industrial, into the arena of politics. But it is an amazingly different proposition to say that the immunities which they received, and received advisedly, from this House, and avowedly simply, because there was a desire to make them operate on equal terms with the employers in trade disputes, those immunities which many men thought most dangerous and most extreme, should be projected from the field of trade disputes into the arena of politics. I do not think that what the Attorney-General has said with reference to the history of this subject is in the least relevant, but he is utterly wrong, as reference to the Bill will show, in supposing that this House was anything like unanimous in the passing of this particular Clause in that Bill. On the contrary, if he stretches his memory back he will find that my distinguished friend and his predecessor, Sir Lawson Walton, only the year before this passed, warned the Government in the gravest and most emphatic terms of the danger of having one law for trade unionism and one for individuals. The Attorney-General used the word "unanimously" several times. I say that this House was not unanimous. It divided against the Clause, and his own predecessor was dead against it, and so were the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor. The Attorney-General goes on to talk of civil equality, and it was amazing to hear a lawyer state such a proposition.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me, but what I said was civil equality as regards individuals, and I have the assent of the hon. and learned Gentlemen who proposed and seconded the proposition.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I am not talking about individuals, but trade union funds. The remedy against those individuals in this matter is practically futile. The individuals who have been put forward are men of straw. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] You are going to put forward persons who may be shot at while the trade unions cannot be, and the result will be that the persons who are aggrieved will have to go
    1102
    through a very expensive form in endeavouring to assert their rights—in fact, having been aggrieved, an extra tax is put upon them because they can get no remedy from the other side at all. Great as is the title of trade unions to recognition and to public gratitude, what have they done above all other associations in this Kingdom to make them immune in a field it was not contemplated they were going to enter at all? The Attorney-General, in the latter part of his speech, referred to the question of libel, but libel is not the only wrong in respect of which trade unions are rendered immune; there is a great number of other wrongs, such as conspiracy and the like, to be considered. An injunction, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, is not sufficient against an individual, and is very likely to be again futile; therefore, you really do come back to this, that though in 1906 the general funds of the trade unions were rendered immune, yet there was no discussion on the subject of their entering the field of politics, for it is now a political fund which is being created under the law—{an HON. MEMBER: "No "]—a political fund which did not exist previously. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Let me put it again. Politics are now made a field of operations by trade unions. Immunity is to be given to them in that field, which, after all, is productive of the most fiery disputes and where the greatest temptation arises in time of political warfare to use the weapons of violence and illegality.
    I am not in the least suggesting that trade unions are more likely to use them than other people, but if other people do use them they are punished for it; yet, though even under greater temptations than others, trade unions are alone rendered immune from consequences. I ask hon. Gentlemen who sit on those Benches opposite to project their minds four or five years from now. Public opinion in this country is, I believe, ultimately in favour of justice and fair play and against discrimnation in favour of one class against another. But this proposal is to discriminate this is to give a preference. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes, I think it is—a preference to one organisation which is not given to another. I do not know why the Attorney-General mentioned the Tariff Reform League and also the Free Trade League. I am quite aware that he held the balance when he mentioned both sides. I do not think the

    1103
    Tariff Reform League or the Free Trade League constitute a fair comparison, but if any person were aggrieved by the action of the Tariff Reform League or the Free Trade League it would be quite possible for him to sue a number of individuals in their representative action, and the person so suing might get substantial damages. The right hon. Gentleman unintentionally, I imagine, but very really, obscured and confused this issue. There is a satisfactory remedy against the Tariff Reform League or the Free Trade League in such cases, and substantial damages could be recovered. Against the individuals representative of trade unions, however, there would be no substantial remedy whatever. You are setting up in the field of politics an immunity which was never intended in 1906, and really, in the best interests of trade unions, it ought to be rejected.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I am one of those unfortunate individuals who break the unanimitiy to which my right hon. Friend has referred, for I believe it is not in the interests of trade unions to make the concession of absolute immunity in respect of an action of tort. I see no reason to alter the opinion which I formed some time ago, although at the same time I am bound to confess that the history of trade unions, both prior to the passage of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and subsequent thereto, has been almost absolutely free from the commissions of torts for which they would be liable. I think that is a tribute to those who are concerned, and I think my right hon. Friend opposite will concede that what I say of trade unions is correct. I am not prepared to admit, with the Attorney-General, that there is any serious obstacle to limiting the doctrine of agency. His was not the view held by his distinguished predecessor. Sir Lawson Walton, who drafted a Bill which, if I may say so without egotism, was founded upon one which I had previously introduced into this House, and which, curiously enough, had as the backers of it, every Labour Member in this House, with, I think, the solitary exception of the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie). I do not find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman in his pronouncement on the doctrine of vicarious responsibility. That is a doctrine of not very ancient origin, but it is a doctrine well established in the law of this land, and it is a doctrine which is entirely
    1104
    subverted, I think, so far as the trade unions are concerned. Neither do I agree with him in his view that trade unions, if not as quasi-corporate made responsible, that the man who suffered the tort could recover from the individual. He could not recover satisfaction from the individual for a very obvious reason. In many cases the quantum of damages sought to be recovered would break even the imaginary individuals to whom my right hon. Friend alluded. I know of one case, which I think the Attorney-General also knows of, in which £200,000 was sought to be recovered from the union. I certainly think that it is a solecism in law that you give absolute immunity to trade unions in respect of damages. It is obvious that the effect of the Amendment, if carried, would in the main be directed against libels and slanders committed during the course of an election. Neither do I agree that satisfaction could always or generally be obtained from the printer or publisher, because the printer or the publisher—and I am sure hon. Members below the Gangway will not challenge the accuracy of this statement—of any circulars or any libels that might be circulated would be the trade union itself. Therefore the trade union would be immune, and the individual aggrieved would have no remedy against any printer or publisher other than the trade union, and not against the trade union.
    So much for general observations upon the attitude which I take up with regard to this question of immunity. I now want to appeal to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Leslie Scott), and I think he will probably agree with the view I take. In the first place, I do not think that this is the right way in which to meet this question. I think my right hon. Friend opposite took up the correct attitude. His speech was a speech which might very properly have been directed to the Second Reading of the Trades Disputes Act in 1906. This Bill does not seek to repeal the Trades Disputes Act of 1906; it simply deals with the latter section, and what the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes is this: He says, inasmuch as a trade union is setting up a separate establishment, financially at any rate, in respect of political objects, make that establishment, that is the fund belonging to that establishment, liable for torts committed in furtherance of political objects. He limits the repeal of the Act of 1906 to torts committed in furtherance of political objects. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman examined this Bill with care?

    1105
    In the first place, remember that this kind of tort which would not be exempted if this Amendment should pass would be, generally speaking, a libel or slander committed during the course of some political controversy, generally an election. It would be a libel or slander perpetrated by a trade union or by agents of a trade union for which the trade union would be liable. I think it is not a very violent assumption to say that such a libel would if committed would be probably associated with some economic grievance of the trade union, that is to say, some question between capital and labour. If it should be associated either by literature or by speech at a political meeting with this economic object it would cease to be a political object, because if the hon. and learned Gentleman will turn to paragraph (e) of Subsection (2), Clause 3, he will find this:—
    "on the holding of political meetings of any kind, or on the distribution of political literature, or political documents of any kind, unless the main purpose of the meetings or of the distribution of the literature or documents is the furtherance of statutory objects within the meaning of the Act."
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: The main objects.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: What are statutory objects? Statutory objects are mentioned in the Acts of 1871 and 1876. Statutory objects under Section 16 are Acts regulating the relations between workmen and masters and Acts in restriction of trade. I can hardly conceive a case of a libel or slander against which this Amendment is undoubtedly directed in which it might not be pleaded that that libel or slander was perpetrated under the protection of Sub-clause (e) and therefore was not a political object. That, to my mind, is a conclusive argument, I do not say against the theoretic value but against the practical value of the Amendment. In other words, suppose that in the course of an election the trade union enter into it and say, "So-and-so is a bad employer; he underpays his workmen or overtaxes their hours of labour," and that an action was brought by that employer of labour, then the trade union would be able to plead paragraph (e) of Section 3 and to receive immunity. I think therefore the Amendment is valueless; I shall vote against it. If the Amendment had been on broader or more Catholic lines, I might have supported it. What is done is done, and
    1106
    however that may be, I cannot support this Amendment, because I think it impracticable and inefficacious, and because I think it is not the true way of dealing with what I believe, and what I say with all due deference to my hon. Friends below the Gangway, is a statutory protection which is not only absolutely gratuitously unnecessary but mischievous, and one which if properly argued and discussed among my hon. Friends, I am sure not one of them would wish to see in justice, but would regard as unnecessary.
    Mr. CAVE: Most of us will agree with a great deal that the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Atherley-Jones) has said, but the conclusion of his speech was somewhat lame. Having laid it down that he strongly supported this Clause, he concluded by saying that he would vote against it because it did not go far enough.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: And because it was ineffective.
    Mr. CAVE: It would be effective so far as it goes. But the hon. and learned Gentleman wants it to go further, and therefore will not support it, even as far as it goes. The point involved is very short and simple. I should like to hear the views of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite with regard to it. I want to know how far they claim, the special privileges which the Bill, unless this Clause is adopted, for the first time gives to them. Let me put it quite shortly. A person who commits a wrong is liable in every case. If that person is an agent of any body, whether a corporation or not, then in the case of every body, except a trade union, you can make the principals liable. In other words, supposing, as nearly always happens, the agent who is liable theoretically to be sued and to pay damages, is not worth powder and shot, you can go against the person who prompted the wrong and employed and perhaps paid the agent, and you have a better chance of recovering damages for the wrong done to you. That applies to everybody, subject only to the Trades Disputes Act. Under the Trades Disputes Act of 1906 immunity is given to trade unions. It is provided that if they employ and pay a man to do wrong they alone of all bodies are not liable to pay damages for the wrong done at their instigation and by their agent. I am sure the Attorney-General would not say that that provision was not strongly opposed upon this side of the House? I myself certainly

    1107
    opposed it; I know I voted against it. I think it wrong in principle, and I would vote for its repeal to-day. I think that that section of the Trades Disputes Act was, and is, wholly indefensible. But it was limited in this way—not by its terms, but in the nature of things. At that time the objects of trade unions were strictly limited. Unions could only be formed for what are here called statutory objects—for the purpose of promoting trade interests. Therefore, any wrong that would be done would in most cases be done in furtherance of trade interests. That circumstance imposed a practical, if not a legal limit upon the operation of Section 4 of the Act of 1906. By this Bill you are extending the objects for which a union may be formed. For the first time you are going to authorise unions to pursue political objects—to hold election meetings, to publish election literature, to contribute towards election expenses, and matters of that kind. Therefore to-day for the first time you are empowering trade unions to commit other and far more numerous wrongs. Under this Bill a union may, I do not say will, be guilty of corrupt practices and other wrongs. That is a new thing. Under this Bill for the first time you authorise a union to go into a field of action where, these wrongs may be committed. I am not saying—I do not think that anybody would be disposed to say—that a trade union is more likely than any other body to commit wrongs in the exercise of these functions. But every body, every corporation and every kind of association, may from time to time be led into a breach of the law and thereby cause damage to individuals. The point is, that if you pass the Bill without this Clause you extend the immunity given by the Act of 1906 to a body formed for trade objects to a trade union acting in political matters; therefore unless you adopt, the Clause you are extending the immunity.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in his general statement of the law; but trade unions participated in political action prior to 1906.
    Mr. CAVE: It is true that they were taking some part in political action, but I doubt whether it was so full a part as they are authorised to take under this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Always."] Whether I am right in that or not, I think it is the fact that many lawyers
    1108
    doubted whether they were authorised to take that part. At all events, it is the declared law to-day that they were not so authorised. Therefore I am right in saying, arguing on the law of to-day, and not on what was in men's minds seven years ago, that for the first time according to law you are authorising trade unions to take political action. Therefore for the first time you are authorising them to do this thing in which special torts may be committed, and unless you pass this Clause you are extending the immunity given by the Act of 1906. If that is so, my hon. Friend is entitled to say, "If you are going to extend the power, do not extend the immunity." That is the whole purpose and effect of this Clause. I ask hon. Members opposite to give attention to this point. Unless you pass this Clause you do discriminate; you are giving to these bodies, which hitherto have had excellent objects, and which are now to have other purposes not so excellent—I mean, of course, political objects—which may be liable to criticism—you are going to give to these bodies alone in our country immunity for wrongs committed in pursuance of those objects. Do trade unionists claim that discrimination and that exemption? I am not sure that they do plainly and openly. I expect they would try and explain them away, but to my mind they are incapable of being explained away. I do not think the discrimination ought to exist. I do not think that it ought to be the law that if, say, a political pamphlet or broadside or sheet is published having at the bottom "Printed and published by Such-and-such a Company, Ltd.," that company should be liable to be sued for libel; while if it has at the bottom "Printed and published by Such-and-such a Trade Union" that union shall not be liable to be sued for libel. That is the plain result of this Bill; a plain, clear discrimination between one body and another. I submit to the House that it is not a fair and proper thing, and I want to know whether hon. Members below the Gangway think it is, knowing, as they must know, that the effect of the Bill is to claim exemption for their unions.
    Mr. GILL: It is with some diffidence that I rise to speak on this subject after half a dozen lawyers, but it is interesting, and I think gratifying, to know the careful manner in which trade unions are being discussed, and the careful way in which arguments against them expressed.

    1109
    It is suggested that you are going to give trade unions power that they should not have. So far as we are concerned we cannot accept that statement. From 1874 until a very few years ago, trade unions were conducted in a way known to the public, and never a single word was said by anyone during the whole of those thirty-five or thirty-six years against that conduct. It cannot be accepted by this party that we are getting new political powers. We are simply getting a portion of the powers restored to us that were taken away from us in 1909. It is said that we ought not to have power to obtain funds, and it is rather suggested that those funds were not in operation in 1906 when the Trades Disputes Act was passed. That cannot be argued. It was not well known to this House that trade unions had those funds. It was definitely known that the Labour party was in existence, and that the trade unions throughout the whole of the United Kingdom were contributing their levies to that Labour party.
    There was a large body of Labour Members in this House in 1906, when twenty-nine, who were closely connected with the Labour party were returned. These were getting part of their salaries from their trade unions. When that is understood—and it must have been known at the time—I do not think it can be said that the fact that we are going to be allowed to levy and get funds from members at the present time, after this Bill is passed, is anything new. It has been done since 1874 and until a little while ago. We are simply getting back a portion of the powers that have been taken from us. It has been suggested that violence and illegality may be committed by certain trade unionists when they are engaged in politics. I take it that it is meant by that, that when an election is taking place there is nobody that can be accused in connection with such an act of illegality. Have we ever seen it done? Has there been any election where trade unionists have been candidates and where those elections have not been conducted as fairly, as peaceably, and in other ways as rightly as any other election in which the orthodox parties were concerned? I venture to assert that such elections as I refer to have been conducted more fairly and with much less expenditure of money than have the others. We do not ask to be given preference. We
    1110
    only seek to have fair play, and to be put on exactly the same terms as the other political parties are. One hon. Member referred to the Tariff Reform League. He said they were different from the trade unions in this particular respect, that if some of their members committed a wrongful act they were generally wealthy men and could be sued—
    Mr. CAVE: All can be sued.
    Mr. GILL: And substantial damages obtained. And it was suggested by the same hon. Member that the men connected with trade unions were poor men and men of straw, from whom substantial damages could not be got if they did anything wrong. I have yet to learn that the whole of the Tariff Reformers are wealthy men. If elections are anything to go by, there must be a large number of working men who vote for the Conservative party and the principles of Tariff Reform. If that be so, they are exactly in the same position as trade unionists, because if one of these poor men should commit an illegal action he can be sued in exactly the same way as any of those connected with a trade union. So far as the suggestion is concerned that trade unionists will be men of straw, and that no substantial damages can be obtained, they are exactly on the same footing as Tariff Reformers. It has been suggested that the political fund only is to remain liable, and that it is used as an argument that the matter is only a small one. But it is an exceedingly large matter so far as the political action of trade unions is concerned, inasmuch as when this Bill is passed we shall not be able to use the general funds for this purpose. We should only have the political funds for the purpose of dealing with elections, registration, and all the necessary paraphernalia connected therewith. If therefore damages are to be taken out of the political fund it must follow that we will not be able to run the number of candidates that we have been accustomed to run, or may want to do, and that we shall be accordingly crippled in our political action. It is suggested that the law of agency should come in in this particular case. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman who last sat down suggested that every other body could be sued except the trade unions. Does he say that Liberal associations, Conservative associations, or Tariff Reform leagues can be sued if a canvasser going round for votes makes use of some libellous words?
    Mr. CAVE: If any agent of these bodies commits a wrong the body itself or a committee of the body can be sued.
    Mr. GILL: Is the canvasser considered to be an agent of the body if he is a man who is not working for money, but simply a person going round to induce his fellow men to vote? I venture to say that he would not be considered an agent. Therefore, I think the only one to be sued would be the man himself—who did the wrong; and that is exactly the case in regard to trade unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes, we say that individually we are quite prepared to act exactly as do the Liberal, the Conservative, or other parties. If we commit any illegal action the man who commits it is prepared to stand the responsibility. That is what ought to be. But if a person commits some illegal action and the trade union knows nothing about it is it fair to charge that trade unions, to mulct their funds, and cause damages to have to be paid because that man has done something wrong. Everybody knows we should be entirely in an unfair position and handicapped severely if we had to come under these laws, as hon. Members opposite want us to do. The only thing we want is that we shall be allowed to act in regard to political action on exactly the same lines as other people. I have yet to learn—certainly nothing has been said yet—that we were to have the benefit of any privilege whatever. Reference has been made to the publication of certain libels, and it has been stated that if trade unions print libels they are not to be liable for damages. How many of the trade unions do their own printing? [An HON. MEMBER: "Publishing."] I only know one trade union that prints its own matter. I hope that this Clause will be rejected on the ground that it is entirely unfair to the working men who come to this House.
    Viscount WOLMER: The Attorney-General has cited what he has described as the unanimous decision of this House in the case of the Trades Disputes Act. He has said that if this Clause were pasted we should be going back on the decision of the House in the case of the Trades Disputes Act. I should like to point out to him the very fundamental difference of what is now being proposed and what was decided by the House in 1906. It is this: It was felt in the country that the great hardship of the Taff Vale decision was that a single action in the Law Courts could rob working men of thousands of
    1112
    pounds which they accumulated for their sickness benefit and their strike benefit. That was one—I do not say it was the only reason—but it was one of the strongest reasons why there was such a strong demand for the repeal of the Taff Vale judgment. What we are proposing here is not going to touch the benefit funds, the strike fund, or the general funds of the unions at all. I interrupted the learned Attorney-General in his speech, but I do not think that he quite understood the nature of my interruption. My point is this: That insomuch as this Bill makes a distinction between the general funds of the union and the political fund of the union, and ear-marks the political fund into a watertight compartment as it were, it is possible to make the union responsible for its political actions by way of its political fund without affecting in the slightest degree the general fund. That is what we desire to do. The hon. Member for Bolton has said he is only claiming that trade unions should be treated on an equality with every other body in the country. I can assure him that is all we ask.
    Take as a concrete instance the Tariff Reform League, and suppose they issue a leaflet libellous in character, and the person affected sties for libel. He can sue the executive of the league, and he could sue members of the league as well and get substantial damages for the wrong inflicted upon him. On the other hand, if a libel was published by a trade union upon some member of the Tariff Reform League that member could not sue the trade union. The hon. Member opposite said that the tariff reformer could sue the member of the union, but that is not the point. What recompense would it be to a man who has been libelled, who had had his political chances impaired, and had damage done to him in his trade or business to get a trade unionist sold up? The only recompense that can be made to a man in those circumstances is financial compensation for the loss incurred. What satisfaction is it to a man who has had his business injured to be told that he can revenge himself by getting the man who has injured him sold up? That is no recompense at all. It is quite true that it is a deterrent, but it is no recompense to the injured man if he does not get adequate compensation for the injury inflicted upon him. That is our answer to hon. Members opposite. They tell us that it is always

    1113
    possible to proceed against an individual person. Of course it is, but no compensation is derived thereby, and it is no satisfaction to the injured man simply to have his revenge on some unfortunate man who has simply been, as it were, the instrument of a larger and more powerful corporation.
    Sir W. BYLES: He gets the verdict.
    Viscount WOLMER: Yes, but he does not get his costs, and he has got to suffer the loss inflicted upon him. The hon. Member for Bolton said that there were many poor members of the Tariff Reform League, and it would be no use proceeding against them from the point of view of getting financial compensation.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: They are on committees as well.
    Viscount WOLMER: A man can select a member of the committee, and he can bring his action against him.
    Mr. GILL: Does the Noble Lord suggest that he can sue the League?
    Viscount WOLMER: No, but they can sue the members of the committee. Hon. Members opposite will not deny that if any one of them was libelled by a member of the Tariff Reform League or the Free Trade Union it would be quite easy for them to get full damages for the libel committed upon them, whereas if the libel was perpetrated by a trade union it would not be possible for the libelled man to get his damages. That is why we say the law makes an unfair distinction between a trade union acting in its political capacity and other political organisations. We quite see that it would be unfair to distrain upon the general fund of the union contributed by all members of the trade union, whether they had contributed to the political fund or not, merely for some libel that had been committed by the managers of the political part of the union. We therefore desire that it shall be the political fund of the union contributed for carrying on party politics by those members who presumably approve of the objects to which that fund is going to be devoted. We say it is only fair that that fund should bear the cost if those powers are used illegitimately.
    The hon. Member for Bolton asked what accusations have we to bring against trade unions for the manner in which they have conducted their political warfare in the past. I am not prepared to bring any
    1114
    accusation against them, but it is common knowledge to all of us that in the course of elections and after the election is over, when partisan feeling is running high, libels have been committed upon Members of this House in the past by all political parties. I see hon. Members opposite who have been libelled by particular persons, and this shows the risk which politicians run in this respect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was libelled two or three years ago. These libels, as the hon. Member for Durham suggested, would not be confined to industrial matters, and I quoted the instance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's libel action to show that politicians are often subjected to libels which affect their moral character. The Chancellor of the Exchequer obtained £1,000 damages for the libel that was made upon him, and the right hon. Gentleman explained the other day in his native village that he ascribed that libel to the animus of his political opponents. That shows that when a man has reached sufficient notoriety to be thoroughly well beloved on one side and thoroughly well hated on the other side he runs a risk of being libelled which ordinary persons do not run. I would say to hon. Members opposite that they might find themselves in exactly the same position a few years later, because I venture to say if anyone of them fell out with the trades union body, of which they are at present such distinguished ornaments, there would be bound to be some very bitter words. We see in politics that old friends, when feuds arise, show great bitterness, as witness the difference between President Taft and Mr. Roosevelt, and also our old friend, Mr. Lansbury, who has been confirming what I am saying about the Labour party for three years past. I would ask hon. Members opposite, supposing they ever fell out with their unions, and supposing they considered they had been libelled by their old political companions, they would be in the position of not being able to get any compensation for the injury that had been done them, and I would warn hon. Gentlemen that in trying to set up a privilege for their unions and themselves like this, that is not a policy which will be to their advantage, and that in time to come they will find it cuts both ways. I would point out that a time may come when they will be in the position to find out that the immunity and privilege which they have secured for trade unions is one that is not entirely to their benefit.

    1115
    We have heard this afternoon something, as usual, of judge-made law. I know hon. Gentlemen opposite object very much to judge-made law. I would like to point out to them that this Clause which we are proposing is designed to remove the effect of the decision of the Vacher case so far as it extends to politics, that is to say, this Clause is designed to remove a piece of judge-made law as it affects trades unions in their political capacity, because when the Trades Disputes Act was passed, most people considered it only affected trades union when they were engaged in trade disputes, and by this piece of judge-made law it has been proved that the House of Commons was, as usual, wrong. All we are trying to do is to remedy this piece of judge-made law and therefore I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who bear such invincible hatred of judge-made law will support us in the action we are taking. I venture to hope that if this Clause is inserted in the Bill, it will do nothing to injure trades union, but will strengthen them by taking away the impression that at present prevails amongst the public that they are in an unfair position as regards their political opponents. It will do nothing but place them upon absolute terms of equality with the men whom they have to fight politically in the constituencies in this country, and it will do nothing but to strengthen those who accept the lawful powers given to them by this Bill.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I rise to oppose this Amendment mainly upon two grounds. First, because it seems to me to make a very grave inroad into the principles which were embodied in the 1906 Act; and, secondly, because it is based upon a series of assumptions and assertions which I venture to say are entirely unfounded in fact. It is not surprising that the Noble Lord should have spoken with a certain looseness and confusion of expression, being a layman, when you have from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, an assertion of a similar sort in a more definite way. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to explain precisely what he meant by that part of his speech, but he said I should have an opportunity of dealing with the matter when I got up to speak. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he repeated over and over again that the Act of 1906 placed trade unions in a position of privilege and
    1116
    immunity, and also when he said that this Bill, as it now stands, proposes to extend that immunity, if he can state any single case of an incorporated body which, as a body, is liable in law to an action for tort? I do not care whether he takes a congregation in a Nonconformist place of worship which employs a minister who may libel a person, or whether he takes the Church Defence Union, the Central Campaign Committee for the Promotion of Welsh Disestablishment, or the Central Conservative Association, or the National Liberal Association, the Cobden Club, or the Tariff Reform League, Anti-Suffragist Society, or the Suffragists' Society. I ask him if he can give one single case where an unincorporated body is liable in law as a body in its funds for tort?
    Mr. HOHLER: Can the hon. Gentleman state a single unincorporated body which is wholly exempt by its members from all punitive legislation?
    Mr. EDWARDS: If the hon. and learned Member puts it in that way, I could tell him in every unincorporated body the position is this, and it is the same in the trade union body. If you can show that a trade union official is the authorised agent of X, Y, Z, who are members of the union, you can not only proceed against that agent and his property, but you can also proceed against the individual property of X,Y, Z. There is nothing in the law which prevents that with regard to trade unions, but what you cannot do is this: You cannot with a trade union take your agent and say he was authorised to do certain acts by X, Y, Z, who are interested in certain trade funds in which A, B, C are also interested, and collar these trade funds without regard to whether A, B, and C authorised the wrong act as well as X, Y, Z. That is precisely the position, and I challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that that is not precisely the law with regard to every unincorporated body at this moment. I shall go on with my illustration. I take a club which is not a registered club. I do not care whether it is a distinguished critic club of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a distinguished member, or a football club or a social club; the position is this: There is no single case where you have a body of persons who are not a corporate body where there is collective liability of that body for the wrong acts of its servants. The law of agency with bodies of that kind only goes so far as to

    1117
    make liable in their property those members who authorise the wrongful act. I think the right hon. Gentleman felt his proposition could not quite stand, and that there is no legal immunity for trade unions in tort different from any legal immunity enjoyed by any other incorporated body. There is this distinction: If you take another body, like the Tariff Reform League, you have a number of individual members who, if they authorise the committal of a wrong by an agent of the league, have sufficient substance themselves as individuals to satisfy any claim in a Court of Law. The real immunity which is enjoyed, if it be an enjoyment, by a trade union, as compared with another incorporated body, is, therefore, that the trade union consists of a body of persons who, for the most part, are poverty-stricken, whereas other bodies have persons of substance and of wealth whose property can be attached.
    The Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer) seemed to think that was the real ground of distinction. I am not sure he was not correct. Taking it for granted for the moment that he was right, I was not surprised he should advocate trade unions being put in a special legal category by themselves as distinct from these other bodies, because these other bodies have substantial persons whose property may satisfy judgment, and trade unions have not. Therefore, you must place these bodies of poverty-stricken persons in a position, not of immunity, but of special collective liability, before the law, and thus penalise them for their very poverty. That seems to be the proposition. It is said by the Noble Lord that what is proposed by this Amendment is to undo a judge-made decision, namely, the decision given in the Vacher sense. He spoke of the Vacher case as though it were one that took no one by surprise who had anything at all to do with the 1906 Trades Disputes Act. The final form of the fourth Section of the Trades Disputes Act of 1906 was, as a matter of fact, due entirely to amendments which had been proposed because of a precisely similar case to that of the Vacher case, namely, the Linaker v. Pilcher case, which was an action brought against the newspaper of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. It was to shut out that kind of tort as well as the other that the final form of the Act of 1906 was decided upon.
    1118
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, followed by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) suggested that the political funds of trade unions are something quite new and were not in existence in 1906 when the Trades Disputes Act was introduced. I venture to say it was very largely the Taff Vale decision in 1900 that caused the great political funds to be subscribed, and I venture also to say the amount of money in the political funds of the trade unions in 1906 was very much larger than at the present moment. Nobody, of course, in 1906 suspected, there was never a whispered suggestion from any of those benches, that the trade unions had not an absolute and legal right to raise money for political purposes. The right hon. Gentleman very rightly referred to the work his party have done with regard to trade unions. His party in 1876 brought in a Bill amending the Trade Union Act of 1871, and that Parliament for the first time I believe was fortified by three or four distinguished Labour representatives who came to this House by reason of money subscribed by the members of their trade unions. There was never a suggestion on the part of Mr. Richard Cross, as he then was, the Home Secretary responsible for that Bill, that these people had no right to have spent the money of their unions in getting elected to Parliament, and, though a great deal of money was spent on Municipal elections as well as on Parliamentary elections from that time down to the time of the Osborne Judgment, there was never a whispered suggestion from any part of the House or from anyone in the country that trade unions had not an absolute and unquestioned right to raise money for political purposes.
    It would be acting with ill grace if this House in restoring to trade unions that political power which they were supposed to have enjoyed without question were to accompany that by an Amendment of this kind which is not only calculated to restrict the usefulness of that concession in itself, but is also calculated very seriously to militate against the general usefulness of trade unions by making an inroad upon that protection which was given them on their industrial side by the Act of 1906. It is suggested it is only attempting to restrain them on the political side in the matter of libel. I wonder whether there is a single lawyer in this House or any layman who can tell when a political libel

    1119
    begins and an industrial libel ends. In nearly all the statements which are alleged to be libels issued by trade unions, no one can draw the real distinction; and, if you are going to open the door for actions for tort by which you may attack their funds by way of damages, and if you are going to let that depend upon whether the judge takes the view that it is a political libel or a libel committed in furtherance or in contemplation of a trade dispute, I venture to say there are very few circulars which trade unions may issue in which there are untrue statements where you will not find the funds of the union made liable in damages. Therefore I ask the House to reject this Amendment, not only on the unfounded assumption upon which it is advanced, but also because it would, I believe, make a grave and vital inroad upon the protective provisions of the Trades Disputes Act of 1906.
    Mr. H.TERRELL: The hon. Member opposite endeavoured to oppose this Amendment by saying it was in substance going behind the Act of 1906, Clause 4, and that that Clause was passed by this House of Commons unanimously. It is no doubt true that the Third Reading was not challenged on a Division, but I do not think it is true that the Clause was not opposed by the Opposition as strenuously as they could. If it be said that whenever a Division is once taken upon a point and the Opposition do not go on and divide upon that point at every stage of the Bill therefore the Opposition are to be taken as assenting to it, then it will become essential for the Opposition to take a Division more numerously than ever before. I do not think it can really be said that the Clause was passed in any degree unanimously, and for this purpose I will refer to the speech of the Prime Minister. It will be in the recollection of this House that this Clause was taken from a Bill introduced by Mr. Shackleton in 1903, and the present Prime Minister, speaking in reference to it in this House on the 8th May, said:—
    "I do not think it would be expedient from the point of view of combination, either of the employers or of the workmen, that those who are in favour of their effective existence and vitality should attempt to ask Parliament to lay down a policy of this kind, that large trade organisations possessing large funds and directed by a controlling authority should not be responsible for the unlawful acts shown to be committed by their agents, if they be really their agents within the scope of their authority."
    I do not think consistently with that the Prime Minister can have supported Clause
    1120
    4 of the Act of 1906 unless the Prime Minister had turned round entirely from what he said on that occasion. I want to say a few words with reference to the law laid down by the hon. Member for Glamorgan. He challenged my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, to say that unincorporated associations could be sued in the Courts for tort, I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman could ever have read the Taff Vale judgment, for that was the point which was argued there and which was decided in the judgment. Let me read to my hon. and learned Friend a passage in the judgment:—
    "Mr. Haldane, indeed, was bold enough to say that if a wrong was committed by a body of persons acting in concert who were too numerous to be made defendants in an action, the person injured would be without remedy unless he could fasten on the individuals who, with their own hands, were actually doing the wrong. Then, he was asked, what would he say to such a case as this: Suppose there were a manufactory belonging to a co-operative society, unregistered, and composed of a great number of persons (as well there might be but for the provisions in the Companies Act making illegal an unregistered trading society consisting of more than twenty members), and suppose such a manufactory were poisoning a stream or fouling the atmosphere to the injury of its neighbours, might it do so with impunity? Mr. Haldane said, 'Yes, you must pounce on the individual offender. It seems to me this is a reduction to an absurdity. I should be sorry to think that the law was so powerless, and therefore it seems to me that there would be no difficulty in suing a trade union in a proper case, if it be sued in a representative action by persons who fairly and properly represent it."
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. EDWARDS: That does not in the least contradict what I said. Apparently I have not made my meaning clear. What I said was, "You can do with the trade unions what you can do with other bodies; you can take certain individuals as defendants and make them representative of the body as individuals who authorised the wrong, but you cannot take the body quâbody in the case of an unincorporated society."
    Mr. TERRELL: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has ever read the Trades Disputes Act, 1906. Let me call his attention to Clause 4.
    Mr. EDWARDS: I drew the Amendment to Section 4 of the Act of 1906, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had been in the House at that time he would have remembered the passage of arms between the then learned Attorney-General and myself in regard to that matter. As to the Taff Vale case, I was in that.
    Mr. TERRELL: The hon. and learned Gentleman must have forgotten. Let me

    1121
    read to him the Section. It not only deals -with actions against unionists but with actions against trade unions, whether workmen or masters, or against any members or officials who, on behalf of themselves or of their members, may be responsible for the wrong alleged to have been committed. There you have a trades union in a different position to any other incorporated body.
    Mr. EDWARDS: The hon. and learned Gentleman has, I am sure, quite unwittingly, misrepresented me. What I say with regard to that is this. You may sue your individual members of a trade union, but you cannot sue them on behalf of the trade union. You may sue an individual member of the Tariff Reform League, but you cannot sue him quâmembers of that league.
    Mr. TERRELL: If you have an unincorporated association of persons, and those persons commit a tortious act, you can go for the fund of those persons by action if they have any funds in common. You can go against the management of that association, they can be sued on behalf of themselves and others, but you cannot do that with regard to a trade union. When the hon. and learned Gentleman challenged my right hon. and learned Friend to put to him a case where an unincorporated body could be sued in respect of tort, and any property of an un incorporated body could be made avail able for damages sustained by the persons injured—
    Mr. EDWARDS: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman state one single case where that has been done apart from a trade union?
    Mr. TERRELL: If the hon. Member will look at the Tail Vale case he will see that Lord Justice Lindley referred to many cases in which it had been the common practice for many years past for persons who have sustained a wrong to sue one or more in order to get an injunction. The hon. and learned Gentleman was absolutely wrong when he challenged my right hon. Friend to say whether his view was that an unincorporated body could be sued and their property made responsible. I say that undoubtedly any unincorporated body, except a trade union, which by its agents commits a wrong, is liable for that wrong, can be made responsible for that wrong, and the property of that body can
    1122
    be taken to answer the damage suffered by the person who has been wronged. By the Act of 1906, you put the trade unions in a position occupied by no other body of persons in the country, and you put them above and beyond the law. Under the Act of 1906, the lawful activities of trade unions are limited by what are described as statutory trade union objects. So long as a trade union is operating within those objects it can commit any unlawful act it pleases; it can impose any loss upon any other person it pleases, and the trade union and its funds cannot be reached by the person injured. But if the trade union goes outside those objects and embarks in an activity which is ultra vires a trade union the immunity does not apply. Now you are going to make that immunity to apply by making any conceivable activity the union chooses to engage in a lawful activity. In this Bill you are providing that a trade union may, by its rules, include in its objects, provided it has the statutory objects as its prinicpal objects, any object it pleases. Those objects will become lawful objects. It may, in the carrying out of those objects, commit any wrong it pleases without any remedy being given to the person who has been injured. This Clause is intended to limit, to a minor extent, that which seems to me absolutely contrary to the law in every other civilised country; it is a law which places a body of men above and outside the law. You are asked by this Clause to limit that immunity, so that it shall not include the political activities of the trade unions.
    May I put to the House this case? You may have, and you have in some places, a trade union which conducts a newspaper. You may, and you have in some places, political associations which conduct newspapers. You may have an election. You may have a trade union candidate, one representing their political organisation. If the trade union paper libels the opposing candidate that person cannot get an injunction to restrain that libel. He may get an injunction against an individual person, but not against the union. The union may employ a different man to publish the paper every day, for that is a merely nominal act. The trade union can day after day during an election continue the libel, and the man will have no remedy, not only no remedy in damages, but he cannot even stop it by an injunction. If, on the other hand, the newspaper which is run by his political opponents publishes

    1123
    anything in the nature of a libel on the trade union candidate, that can be stopped at once. He can obtain an injunction at once against the organisation which is running that paper, and he can seize that paper in execution for any damages he has sustained. An hon. Member said that all the trade unionists want is to be put in an equal position with every other section of the community. Is that placing them on an equal footing and giving them equal rights, if one side can stop a libel and the other side cannot, and one side can be sued for libel and the other cannot? If this Clause is rejected that will be the position. Whenever an election is fought hereafter in which a trade union candidate is supported by a trade unionist paper, and another candidate, either a Liberal or a Conservative, is opposing him, supported by a Liberal or a Conservative paper, that extraordinary position will obtain. The trade unionist candidate will be able to stop anything in the nature of a libel against him, whereas the Conservative or Liberal will not be able to do so.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Would not an action lie against the printer?
    Mr. TERRELL: Yes, possibly against the printer, but the trade union itself can print it, and then the action will not lie. The trade union can change its printer every day if it pleases. Such a state of things is absolutely contrary to the principles of democratic government. As I understand them, the principles of democratic government are based upon law, and without law there can be no democratic government. If it be true democratic government it insists that every man within the State shall be amenable to the same law; that there shall not be one law for one section and another law for another section, and, above all, that there shall not be a single section which shall be above the law. By objecting to this Clause you are emphasising and extending the favoured position of trade unions. You are extending their position as being above and beyond the law, you are placing them in a position which makes it extremely unfair to those who are not trade unionists, which may, in the circumstances I have suggested, work a gross injustice. That is done in the name of fairness and equality of treatment between all sections of the community!
    Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: I shall not venture to discuss the principles of the Bill. They have been decided already by this House on the Second Reading. There may be an opening for drawing distinctions such as have been drawn, as to equality in the eyes of the law. For reasons too lengthy to enter upon, this House and the country, I believe, have decided to give a certain immunity or some advantages to trade organisations. At the present time, under this Bill their funds will be divided into two parts; one relating to disputes arising out of trade questions, the other, which is usually the smaller part of their funds, to be devoted to political objects. So far as the funds which are reserved for trade questions are concerned, those funds are protected. Any question of libel arising out of a dispute on a trade question will not hold against the funds of the union, and we are asked now to make a distinction in favour of the smaller reserved funds devoted to political purposes. Under ordinary conditions of fighting an election, for it is of course at election times when these difficulties arise, surely we do not suppose that the unions themselves are going to fight the election. They are the backers. They nominate, it is true, the candidates, and send speakers to support them, but they are as much a reserve force as political organisations are for the other parties in the State. The election is fought under electoral law. The candidate emerges from his union and becomes subject to all the contingencies, the risks and penalties of electoral law. Those who are working for him are his agents. Many of them will have no connection with the unions at all. The unions cannot call out all their men from the factories and mines to fight an election. The work has to go on, election time or no election time, and therefore the liabilities of an election and the risks of a candidate, whether he be nominated by a union or not, are exactly the same under the law. That that is so is proved in the course of this Debate, for the only suggestion I have heard has been the risk of libel, printed and published in a newspaper or in the form of a pamphlet. A paper is of no use unless it is circulated. A pamphlet is of no use in an election unless the candidate adopts it, refers to it in his speeches, and employs his agents to distribute it. All these men will come under the common law, and therefore it will be useless to publish a pamphlet which you could not

    1125
    circulate, or circulate a paper containing a libel which could not reach the very persons that you want to make the libel effective. Under ordinary circumstances there is no such risk as has been suggested.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Why should not a trade union send by post a pamphlet or newspaper to every elector?
    Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: That would be commented on. A speaker who speaks on behalf of a candidate cannot be dumb about it. They will be asked questions at meetings. The candidate has practically to adopt it, and, of course, will run all the risks, unless the union keep their own printing press, or employ a printer, who will be the object to be shot at under the law of libel. I think this is really the kernel of the case.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I should apologise to the hon. Member (Mr. Gill) for the fact that I too am a lawyer, but I certainly owe no such apology to the hon. Member (Mr. Clement Edwards). If the hon. Member were here I should have felt disposed to try and resolve to him the conundrum which he propounded. He asked when does an industrial dispute end and a political libel begin? My answer would be that there are people who think that that particular moment of time might arrive when the hon. Member himself went down to the district. The hon. Member has attributed looseness of expression to two distinguished lawyers on the Front Bench on this side of the House. He has himself been guilty of the most utter looseness in a statement of the law affecting this subject. He asks what other incorporated body is liable to the obligations which it is sought to attach to trade unions, and he regards that as putting a flat-footed proposition to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman completely overlooks the fact that the Legislature has granted to trade unions certainly two distinguished qualities which belong to corporate bodies. I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman say that the judges have stated that the Legislature, in giving a trade union the capacity to hold property and to act by agents as though incorporate, gave it two essential qualities of incorporation. The hon. and learned Member's point of departure stands upon an unequal basis of comparison. He is wrong not only in one respect, but two. If he is not comparing a trade union which possesses some qualities of corporation with corporate bodies,
    1126
    he has no right to compare a trade union which has some with unincorporate bodies, and to put the proposition before the House in that naked way certainly indicates a want of knowledge of the legal position, or a tendency not to be perfectly accurate in the statement. There are two cardinal distinctions which ought to be present to the mind of everybody who discusses the question. Trade unions have certain corporate qualities. They may act by agents. There is, first of all, this point: There is no body having corporate qualities other than a trade union which is not liable for the action of its agents. The second proposition is that there is no uninacorporate body other than a trade union which cannot be made liable by a representative action for the action of the representative members of it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. H. Terrell) pointed out that you can get a representation order when you are dealing with bodies of persons who are not incorporate—bodies of persons who are numerous and acting in concert—and you can get at the funds of these persons if they have common funds for common objects. First of all, therefore, you have a trade union in the position of having corporate qualities, and it is sought that it should not be liable for its agents, though it acts by its agents. Then you have the alternative provided by the Act of 1906, which makes it impossible to act against a trade union in bulk by getting a representative order against them. This is a complicated question of law. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill) says quite mistakenly that a trade union stands in exactly the same position as the Tariff Reform League. Nothing could be further from the fact, and I am certain the Attorney-General would not be responsible for such a statement. It is a totally different question. It is not a question of property.
    Not long ago the hon. Member for Leicester suggested that it would be a reasonable thing in dealing with trade unions, where you find a difficulty in getting agreements observed, that the trade unions should give pecuniary guarantees that agreements entered into will be honourably observed. If that is true, that is again a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. If it is fair to insure against a wrong being done by a breach of contract by providing a guarantee, what is there unreasonable in protecting against another wrong which does not rest on con-

    1127
    tract by insuring that there shall be some substantial remedy? If a wrong is done, the hon. Member who has just spoken says you may go for damages, but you must be content with your verdict. Does that commend itself as a specimen of natural justice to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the other side? The Attorney-General says that an injunction is the appropriate remedy. Suppose in the course of a political campaign—we are dealing only with political purposes in this Amendment—a gross and grievous libel is published on the eve of an election—and such things have happened— what use would an injunction be? And even so, if a trade union exercises to the full the objects with which it is now capable of being endowed, that is not merely statutory objects but subsidiary objects, it is the easiest thing in the world for a trade union not to be a society for protecting the worker as regards wages and conditions.
    It may also make itself not merely the printer but the publisher of a newspaper. That newspaper may be made the medium of the wrong which is being done, and then not only can you not go for damages, but you cannot go for an injunction. You have neither remedy. Does that commend itself to the sense of fairness and honour of hon. Members on that side. The hon. Member for Bolton said, "We are prepared to stand the responsibility. We do not want to be in a different position from anybody else "What does the hon. Member mean? What share of responsibility as regards these matters have trade unions taken to-day? We are not asking to withdraw from them any exceptional immunity that hitherto they have got. All we are asking is that exceptional immunity should not be enlarged. When you come to extend their area of activity you should not extend the immunity. To do so would be a very dangerous practice. This is not a question of limiting the old law. The law has always been the same. I disagree with an expression which has been used on both sides of the House as regards judge-made law. There is no such thing. You approve of the Vacher case and you disapprove of the Osborne case. You call the Osborne case judge-made law.
    Those who disagree with the Vacher ease may think it judge-made law and approve very highly of the Osborne decision. There is no such thing as judge-made law; it is merely a question of inter-
    1128
    pretation and declaration. The law is exactly the same as it was in 1906, when the Trades Disputes Bill was under consideration, and as it was when the law was declared in 1909, by the House of Lords. It is idle to talk about the law as if it had been changed. The law is sought to be altered by this Bill. The law was not altered before except by the Trades Disputes Act, 1906. Why is special sacro-sanctity to be given to trade union funds, even when they are misused? I am not suggesting that there will be any misuse, but so long as human nature is human there are bound to be faults which though not commonly or generally approved by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, all the same are to be given special sacrosanctity, so that the funds of trade unions may be placed cut side and beyond the law. I wish to hear one single principle on which such a proposal can be commended or defended. I care not to hear discussions of law upon it but I earnestly urge any speaker on the other side to tell us of anything which will show how it is in accordance with justice and commonsense to place trade-union funds beyond and outside the law. If there is a misuse of the funds, if wrong is done, if agents may act for trade unions while the principals are not responsible, I want to hear something to justify such a course. The granting of power carries with it correlative responsibility. But you are not merely granting power, you are extending power, and you are extending it without any correlative responsibility. It is not a case of power with responsibility; it is power coupled with irresponsibility. Instead of conferring on trade unions power within reasonable limits, you are conferring upon certain people, not liberty, but opportunity, to misuse, if they choose, the power this conferred—an unbridled licence without any sort of responsibility to the law or remedy for those aggrieved. I cannot believe that to be either democratic or in the best interests of society, or even of trade unions themselves. The Amendment is a very necessary one. It does not seek to make trade union funds generally responsible for any wrongs done in their political activities. You have no political funds, or they are inconsiderable. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] And this Amendment comes simply to this, if you have political funds, and if you do a wrong by your agents, then it is altogether beside the point to make the agent and not

    1129
    the principal responsible, and it adds nothing to the value of the argument to say that you cannot be responsible for some one who is your agent. When you engage in political activity, create political funds, engage in political controversy, make it possible to do wrong; when you take the power to do wrong then will you not take with it, to the extent merely of such political funds as you have at you disposal, the duty of making good to those you wrong by pecuniary damage the wrong that you have done?
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: I have been engaged nearly all my life in connection with trade unions, and I am in constant contact with trade unions personally. Let the House observe the conditions under which trade unions work. You will find, at all events in my business I find, men engaged in the trade union with very little experience, harum-scarum fellows who start an agitation and who are agents it may be of a union. The time of the head officials is generally taken up in putting a stop to the silly nonsensical proceedings of some of their agents. The hon. Member said that there is the general case of the agents of the union embarking in controversy with the employers. I beg to differ from him. My experience is that all those agents want to become Members of Parliament and to displace some of the Gentlemen sitting on these benches. It would be manifestly unfair to make the funds of the trade unions, whether they be political funds or not, liable for any action of those sub-agents. Let the House recognise what agents mean. You have some 900,000 members in the miners' organisation, and you have thousands literally of agents who have no connection with the executive body. It would be manifestly unfair that the political funds or general funds of the union should be liable in respect to irresponsible statements, whether they be libels or language made use of by people in their private capacity. What can you do more to punish the man who makes those statements, if they be libellous, than to sell his home and to give damages which break up the home of the man who commits the wrong, That is how the existing law stands. With regard to the printing of libels, I would point out that for the last three or four years we, who have been interested in the management of industrial concerns, always worked on the assumption and the whole business trading has been carried on
    1130
    on the assumption that the funds of the trade unions were not liable. I deeply regret that hon. Members opposite for some reason or other, I think unfortunately, seem always to oppose trade unions. I am sure it is not for the purpose of damaging them. It probably arises from the fact that hon. Members opposite generally are not so much connected with trade as we on this side arc. If they were in daily contact with it they would see that most of the difficulties which they anticipate are more theoretical than practical. An hon. Member opposite referred to a case in which a libel was circulated through a newspaper. I assume, as a layman, that the printer would be liable, and that the plant might be attached.
    Mr. N. CRAIG: The case I put was where a trade union made one of its objects the printing and publishing of a newspaper. Then your remedies would be gone.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I should have thought there would be protection under the regulations made by the Registrar, and that injustice from that direction would be prevented in point of fact. In addition to the printer, the publisher of the newspaper would be liable.
    Mr. N. CRAIG: The union is its own publisher.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I have no right to speak on a legal point, but I assume that if a libel appeared in a trade union newspaper, I would have a right to apply to the Court against the publisher.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Normally a newspaper is printed and published by the same person.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: There must be some person responsible for the printing.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: He is the same person. That is the point.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: He must be a more or less responsible person in the sense that he has a home at any rate. Take the case of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie). If he came to my workmen and made an attack upon me; if he incited my workmen, as he incited the women this afternoon, to commit certain unlawful acts; if he incited them to throw a brick at my head, and someone threw one, I presume I could bring, not only a civil, but a criminal action against the hon. Gentleman. Therefore, one has a right to

    1131
    bring, not only a civil action, but a criminal action if what he complains of goes outside the scope of what is called the ordinary law of libel. Criminal libel, I believe, is a very broad term, and people can be sued for criminal libel for actions that they may by no means consider come within its scope. On the broad question I would say that the object of this fund is to enable Members of Parliament to come to this House. In what position do the trade unions find themselves to-day? If you are going to take this fund for the purpose of paying damages to people who may successfully claim them in a Court of Law, what will happen? I would put it to the House to remember that in actions for libel the law is not quite the same for all the political parties in the State! Mr. Claude Hay, for example, obtained very heavy damages—to the extent of thousands of pounds—from a large number of newspapers for printing a statement that he had spoken in a schoolroom on Tariff Reform. Therefore, if you are going to obtain large damages against trade unionists, what is going to be the effect of it? Many trade union Members of Parliament who attend this House at the present, find the greatest possible difficulty in paying the cost of the registration to enable them to come here and the ordinary expenses entailed by their election. Hon. Members on the other side, I am certain, do not desire to prevent their coming here, and you must put them in a position, seeing they have not capital funds, to come here. They cannot get here by voluntary subscription, because workmen will not subscribe. The Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) laughs. But I do not care for what object or purpose you want funds for the unions, with a voluntary levy the men will not pay. I have had many years' experience, and what I say is that there are a great many men who are quite willing to take the benefits of the unions, but who do not want to pay for them. In one of the collieries with which I am connected we had constant strikes, which affected the membership of the union. It was not quite a question of men refusing to join the union; those who did refuse were the old members and officials who had been in the union, and the officials had quarrelled. In order to make trouble with the union and the employers they refused to pay the contributions. What happened? The colliery was stopped. We decided that whether the men liked it or not, their
    1132
    contribution to the union should be stopped at the office: the men were made trade unionists whether they liked it or not. It may be said that that is tyranny.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Hear, hear.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: In my experience I have never known a single case where the men have objected to that on principle— not one!
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Because you would have dismissed him.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: During all that time two cases only came within my notice. Both those men had grievances outside the trade unions. They said, "You are stopping our money." "I said, "Take your money, back money and all and go." Every man is in the union; no man objects to it, and every man who has paid into the union has had corresponding advantages in every way. I ask hon. Members opposite to put themselves into the position of these men. Suppose the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University was an agricultural labourer, and suppose he was making contributions for the purposes of his trade union. I ask him what he would say if his neighbour was willing to take all the advantages the union obtained for its members but was unwilling to pay any contribution? I am sure he would peacefully persuade him to join the union which was doing so much to promote his material prosperity. If this Amendment were carried it would take away money from the political funds. An hon. Member opposite made the statement, I am sure quite sincerely, that he did not wish to place any impediment in the way of the trade unions, but if these funds are taken away how can Labour Members, who are not capitalists and have not funds of their own, come to this House? It is said they can come by voluntary levy, but how is that to be done? You will not get the money. Registration and election expenses are heavy, and if Members of the Labour party have to pay them themselves they cannot do it and will be debarred from coming to this House. We have carried on the industry of this country for thirty-five years in the belief that under the law as it exists trade union funds should not be attached. Why is this sudden calamity to come upon the whole industry of this country? How is it that trade unions which year by year are being more and more educated, are quite suddenly going to do this

    1133
    wrong? I assure hon. Members opposite that having had the widest experience and knowledge of trade unions, that that is not a policy which trade unions with any hope of success would try to accomplish. I do not think the House would be wise to accept too much the legal qualifications and the legal manner in which this question has been put before the House by lawyers. I do not believe that these terrible calamities which are prophesied will occur, and if they do occur, surely the punishment provided will be sufficient.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: The hon. Baronet opposite has made a very interesting speech, but it appeared to me to have only a very shallow bearing on the Amendment under discussion. The hon. Baronet is mistaken if he thinks that those who are supporting this Amendment are animated by a spirit of hostility towards trade unions.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I am quite sure you are not.
    11.0 P.M.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: It is necessary to emphasise that point, because I noticed the other day it was stated that I had taken part in the election at Flint, and that my speech had produced no particularly good result because of my known hostility to trade unions. As a matter of fact, I did not go to Flint Boroughs, and I have no hostility to trade unions. I believe trade unions are an essential part of our industrial life, and nothing is more desirable than that labour should be organised, and that trade unions should be extended. I warmly sympathise with strikes being made a possibility, and if the Taff Vale decision makes what has been put forward by hon. Members opposite impossible, then it is necessary to render strikes part of the available machinery of industrial organisation. But this Amendment does not deal with it. It is merely a question of whether an exemption from the ordinary law believed to be necessary to carry out labour controversies in trade disputes should be allowed to be extended to cases which have nothing to do with trade disputes, and which affect other things in regard to which wrongs are committed. It is said that the cases contemplated are very rare. I dare say that may be true, and a great deal of argument has been used to show that the case of libel might arise. If those are facts, why are hon. Members opposite reluctant to concede the point? It is a point that does not much matter, and surely the reasonable thing
    1134
    should be that the ordinary law should prevail and that this doctrine should not be extended to cases which are so rare. We press the matter because we think that it is in the interests of all classes of the community and certainly not least the interest of the poor man that the general principles of law should as far as possible be treated as sacred. We may be sure that a system out of which the Courts of Law are shut will in the end terminate favourably to the rich and unfavourably to the poor. The law is the friend of the poor man rather than the rich man. If you have as in America a lawless system where you have a great wealthy corporation grinding down these people, where the law is put on one side more than is possible hero. We say you ought to maintain the principle of the general sanctity of the law. One of the principles of law is that there should be no special exemption given to particular people, but that the law should be the same for all classes and all persons. The general principle has been tacitly modified for the purpose of trade disputes, and we say the modification ought not to go beyond that, but ought to be confined to that special occasion. It seems to me that is a reasonable argument. It is not by those who happen to sit on the Liberal side of the House coercing their employés to become members of trade unions that you will advance the cause of labour in the end. The hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) appealed to me. I would rather cut off my hand than treat anyone dependent upon me, as he is not ashamed to say he has treated those dependent upon him. There is not a Member on this side of the House who is familiar with the relations of landlord and tenant or of landlords and their labouring employés who would not hear with amazement and indignation that a free Englishman is constrained under pain of dismissal to join an association, which of his own free will he would not join.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the Noble Lord aware there are Members on that side of the House who prevent their workman joining trade unions? [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] "Jardine."
    Sir A. MARKHAM: May I remind the Noble Lord that a man knows the condition of employment. I do not force him to join.
    Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for West Ham

    1135
    (Mr. W. Thorne) has accused Members on this side of the House of having prevented persons from joining trade unions. I ask whether it is in Order for an hon. Member to make an accusation of that kind against other hon. Members without he is prepared to gives names and produce evidence in support of his statement?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the Noble Lord aware that an hon. Member on that side of the He use will sack a man who is a member of a trade union?
    Mr. SPEAKER: These interruptions all seem to be utterly irrelevant.
    Mr. W. THORNE: He knows it is true
    Lord HUGH CECIL: You do not improve the relations of capital and labour by allowing particular employers to act in this arbitrary fashion. The true security of a labouring man is that he should have his rights according to law and should be protected in those rights against his own mates, employer, and any other human being in the world. What we contend for is the supremacy of law, as we are satisfied the supremacy of law is the great bulwark of liberty. The Labour party are pursuing a very short-sighted policy. I deeply sympathise with the fear many people have that we are on the eve of coming to a great period of plutocracy, when a number of rich men will dominate the world. That is quite a possible danger, and the true tactics against that danger is to stand strictly by the law, as the law is the true bulwark of liberty.
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) was not very clear. The Amendment has no kind of connection with the freedom or otherwise of members subscribing to the funds of their unions When he goes into the question of voluntary levies and accuses us of being in favour of voluntary levies, he is not only making an accusation quite unfounded,
    but is referring to a matter which does not relate to this Amendment. I only want to refer to one thing—a vexed case brought up several times to which we have a perfectly clear answer on this side and no sort of answer on the other side. I moved an Amendment in Committee, and quoted this Committee. A trade union has chosen in the course of an election contest to publish a newspaper and circulate it. It would not in that case be liable in an action for libel. No one could be made liable. It is quite conceivable such a case might arise. My Noble Friend has in general terms referred to the undesirability of putting trade unions in this privileged position, and I only want to ask those who have accused us on these benches of being hostile to the general interests of trade unions to point to a single Amendment or to a single word which has been said which can be considered hostile to those unions in their proper sphere. What the Government and the Labour party are objecting to here is the proposal to put trade unions in exactly the same position as every other body. There is no attack upon their proper functions and no interference with their proper political activity, and those who vote against this Amendment will be voting in favour of a form of privilege which will eventually land trade unions in this country in the same position as the great corporations in America are in at the present time. Whenever individuals attempt to arrogate to themselves functions and positions which belong to other people they are eventually destroyed by the general good sense of the community, and that is what will happen to the trade unions if they persist in their present attitude.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 83: Noes. 259.

    Division No. 560.]

    AYES.

    [11.10 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cator, John

    Glazebrook, Cant. Philip K.

    Amary, L. C. M. S.

    Cautley, Strother

    Goldman, C. S.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Cave, George

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Gretton, John

    Barnston, Harry

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

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

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Boyton, James

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Cralk, Sir Henry

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Nobler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Butcher, John George

    Fleming, Valentine

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Campion, W. R.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Carlile, Sir Hildred

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Hunt, Rowland

    Mount, William Arthur

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Peel, Captain R. F.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Perkins, Walter F.

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

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Knight, Captain Eric (Ayshford)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

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

    Pretyman, Ernest George

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

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

    Pryce-Jones, Col E.

    Winterton, Earl

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Macmaster, Donald

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Sandys, G. J.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Leslie Scott and Mr. Hills.

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Swift, Rigby

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

    Talbot, Lord E.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Addison, Dr. C.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Gill, A. H.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Alden, Percy

    Glanville, H. J.

    Manfield, Harry

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

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

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Armitage, Robert

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Martin, Joseph

    Arnold, Sydney

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

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Guest, Hon. Frederick (Dorset, E.)

    Meagher, Michael

    Barnes, G. N.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Hackett, John

    Middlebrook, William

    Barton, William

    Hall, Frederick C. (Normanton)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hancock, J. G.

    Molloy, Michael

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

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hardle, J. Keir

    Morison, Hector

    Black, Arthur W.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Muldoon, John

    Boland, John Pius

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Munro, R.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

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

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

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hayward, Evan

    Neilson, Francis

    Brace, William

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nolan, Joseph

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hinds, John

    O'Dowd, John

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Grady, James

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hodge, John

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Malley, William

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

    Clough, William

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Clynes, John R.

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Shee, James John

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hudson, Walter

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

    Crooks, William

    John, Edward Thomas

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Cullman, John

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pointer, Joseph

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

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Joyce, Michael

    Radford, G. H.

    De Forest, Baron

    Keating, Matthew

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Devlin, Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Dillon, John

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Reddy, M.

    Doris, William

    King, J. (Somerset, North)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

    Richards, Thomas

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Leach, Charles

    Richadson, Albion (Peckham)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Falconer, James

    Lundon, Thomas

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lynch, A. A.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Ffrench, Peter

    McGhee, Richard

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Field, William

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    1138

    1139

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Webb, H.

    Rowlands, James

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    Tennant, Harold John

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Thomas, James Henry

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Wilkie, Alexander

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

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Sheehy, David

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Shortt, Edward

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Wadsworth, J.

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheoe)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Smith, H. B. L. (Normanton)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Smyth, Thomas F (Leitrim)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Snowden, Philip

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Waring, Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Sutton, John E.

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow (Tuesday).
    The Orders for remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  MURDER OF INSPECTOR WELLS, EASTBOURNE.
  Mr. MUNRO: I hope the House will forgive me if I direct its attention for a few moments to the case of Williams, who has been condemned to death in connection with the Eastbourne murder. May I say that my interest in the matter is simply this: He is the son of a clergyman in the north of Scotland, and his brother has asked me to look into the case on behalf of the family. May I say at once that I have no intention at all of attacking the verdict per se which was returned at the trial. But, in view of what I am about to say, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Homo Secretary to bear in mind three matters in connection with the trial. The first is, that according to my information, there was no direct evidence at all with regard to the identity of the prisoner; the second is that the material, if not indeed the essential, witness for the Crown case was a man of notoriously bad character; and
  1140
  the third is that the judge stated, I understand, in charging the jury, he was satisfied that there was no deliberate intent on the part of the prisoner to kill his victim.
  That being so, I would just like to add that a good deal has happened since the verdict was returned, and since the case was heard by the Court of Appeal. A variety of documents has been sent to the Home Office, all of which pointed strongly in the direction of the innocence of the prisoner, and in the direction of the guilt of another party. I am quite sure that if the Home Secretary could assure the House that very full and careful investigation of the matter raised by these documents has been made, he would do a great deal to allay the uneasy feeling which prevails outside this House with regard to the justice of the verdict returned. If he could do so, he might also do something to assuage the grief of the stricken mother of the prisoner, who was quite unaware until she recently learned in a tragic manner, of the identity of this man with her son, and who now lies on a sick bed which on Wednesday might very easily become a death bed. While I recognise that that consideration is not a relevant consideration as compared with the public interest which the Home Secretary no doubt protects, at the same time I think it does bear on the suggestion I venture to make that any statement which he can make would be welcomed in all quarters. Such a statement I would ask him to make after he has heard what any Member desires to say.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I desire very briefly to associate myself with the remarks that have fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for the Wicks Burghs. I would be the last person in the world to

  1141
  say anything about the verdict of the jury at the trial which took place at Lewes Assizes, for knowing as I do the learned and merciful judge who presided over the court, I believe that verdict was in accordance with the facts laid before the court. Nor do I wish to refer to the decision of the court which considered the appeal from the Lewes Assizes. But I should like to direct the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to certain statements which have appeared in the Press with regard to the sanity of John Williams who has been convicted of the capital offence. I would refer him particularly to the letter which I saw personally in the various papers of the country on Saturday from a well known sanity expert, Dr. Forbes-Winslow. From that letter one could gather at least that there was something to be said from the general impression being created, rightly or wrongly, in the country that John Williams the culprit is insane. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend's attention has been directed to that letter. I myself should feel satisfied if he tells me himself it has been, and that he has weighed it very carefully before refusing to John Williams the prerogative of the mercy of the Crown which is in his hands. I am perfectly certain that my right hon. Friend will give, in the hours that remain, attention to every important fact that has been brought to his notice—I understand there have been a great many—in this case. All that my hon. Friend and I, and I understand the Noble Lord, the Member for West Perthshire who may also speak on this point, desire is to feel satisfied that in the very painful circumstances in which we speak all the facts that have arisen after the case came from Lewes Assizes and the Court of Appeal have been carefully considered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I entered into this case, from the very same reasons as hon. Members opposite give, as I was requested to do so for personal reasons, and knowing something with regard to the relations. When I entered into the case I did so on a perfectly clear understanding. That was if I thought there had been any injustice on the part of the jury, or any loophole of any sort, I should not hesitate to say so; and that if I was satisfied personally that the jury had been correct and the evidence had been correct, I should equally say so if the necessity arose. No one realises more than I the extremely pain-
  1142
  ful position in which the Home Secretary is placed. Some people seem to think that a Home Secretary signs a warrant of this nature lightly. Nobody knows better than I do the extreme difficulty which he has had in this case. I am sorry to say that I have not been satisfied that I can honestly get up and say that I am satisfied that the jury or judge have been in the least wrong. I am going to say something else. Naturally, in all these cases, evidence is brought up afterwards always in mitigation. I do not think anyone of us blames those people for bringing it up. I say frankly enough that if any of us were in the same position we would probably do the same if we could to get off. There is no good trying to blame those people, though there is a great deal I should like to say with regard to the people who use their trouble for journalistic enterprise, and they do not help them, and only do it to sell their papers.
  What I say to the Home Secretary is this. I do know that this is a very painful case so far as the relations themselves are concerned. That, of course, cannot weigh in the matter. I know perfectly well that the police must be protected, and that in these cases if undue leniency is shown when there is no good reason for showing it it is simply an encouragement to others to go and do likewise. Therefore, I only say that in this particular case there are special reasons, and that the doing away with one life, though perfectly justified, may very likely do away with four others, or at least three others. The only thing I will say is that this particular case is not one of those brutal murders of a certain description which are brutal in themselves, but was really unpremeditated, although, if a man chooses to act as this man did and murder takes place he must take the consequences. I am not going to press the Home Secretary in any way, but he may still think that justice may be met, and an example properly set by changing the sentence to one of imprisonment for life even at the last moment. I am not thinking of the criminal himself, I am thinking of other people. If it cannot be done, I certainly am not going to blame him, and I believe, so far as the law is concerned, and by the actual letter of it, the sentence was perfectly justified. But I do think there is some reason in this case. The murder was not premeditated. The man had been a soldier, and he shoots not perhaps to kill, for he

  1143
  might have wounded the officer. Still, that is no justification at all. I only say that it was not a premeditated murder in one sense, though I fully realise the attitude which the Home Secretary may be forced to take up.
  Mr. CROOKS: I hope the Home Secretary will not in any way take this discussion as challenging his right or justice in this matter. The fact of the matter is the public conscience has been aroused, and, while it is possible to give a satisfactory reply, yet on the case laid before us it seemed to me that justice was meted out to this man, not so much on the ground of the murder he committed, as that he was regarded as a very bad man. It may be that the man committed the murder, but I think the Home Secretary in considering the case cannot dismiss from his mind whether the verdict of the jury was not rather biassed by the fact that the accused was admittedly a member of a very bad gang indeed, though there was very little to choose between him and his accuser. I should have been sorry to be called upon to judge between the two; and I am sure that if there were any possibility of using the prerogative it would give satisfaction to many. I was wondering whether Forbes-Winslow's diagnosis of this man's case has been considered. The right hon. Gentleman has been hurried and overworked, and very weary and tired, and I was wondering if, having regard to the circumstances, he came to a hurried and sudden conclusion, in seeking to satisfy himself that justice was being done.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I hope I may be allowed to say that I think it only fair to state that so far as the police are concerned a good many of the things which have been said about them are absolutely unsubstantiated.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The House will understand that there is no part of the Home Secretary's duty which throws greater responsibilty upon him, or is indeed more painful, than that which has to be exercised in connection with the prerogative of mercy. Of course any man would be only too glad to find a scintilla of evidence or reason, or I might say to invent a reason, which would enable him to save a human life. But my duty, as I understand it, is to act in accordance with the law and the traditions of my office.
  1144
  My hon. Friend below the Gangway spoke of this as a hurried and sudden decision of mine. It is not my decision; it is the decision and verdict of the jury, who heard all the evidence, had all the witnesses before them, and who had every opportunity of judging whether they should or should not believe any of the witnesses for the Crown. The jury came to a unanimous decision—a decision with which the judge agreed—and so far really there I is nothing to be said upon the case. The only point that could be brought up now—however undesirable it may be to bring up these questions at all in the House of Commons—is whether there has been any subsequent evidence which would justify a reconsideration of the case.
  The question has been asked me by my hon. Friend, whose tone and temper when speaking was, if I may say so, most admirable, whether I had given full and careful investigation to the story put forward by one who signs himself in the letter addressed to the prisoner as "Freddy Mike." I have investigated that story to its very foundation. I have traced the family history of the man who calls himself "Freddy Mike," and I find beyond question, and I may say even on his own admission, that there is not a shred or shadow of foundation for his story from beginning to end. It is said, he said, that he had a twin brother. He has no twin brother. He said that the twin brother or a friend of the twin brother was in Eastbourne that night. There were no such people, and the whole story is a pure invention, as he himself now admits, written and concocted by him after reading the evidence in a newspaper, and because, having known John Williams in the past, he did not like to think of his being hanged. So much for this story upon which so many of the newspapers have devoted columns of their space in order to get up some human nature and public belief that justice was not being done.
  Then I am asked, with regard to Dr. Forbes-Winslow's letter on the subject of the prisoner's sanity. Dr. Forbes-Winslow I do not think has ever seen the prisoner; but, however, when the question of sanity was raised the medical officer examined the prisoner and reported to me and after consulting experts I was satisfied that there was no foundation whatever for any suggestion of insanity, so that that loophole for escape was definitely closed. My hon. Friend advanced another point,

  1145
  also raised by the Noble Lord (Marquess of Tullibardine), in a speech which I think I am justified in saying was extremely brave, that there was no evidence of intention to kill. That point, of course, was raised at the trial, but it is quite obvious, even if it were not merely as a matter of law, that it ought to be so in law, if it were not in fact, that if a person takes a pistol, a murderous weapon, particularly a pistol of this kind which was of comparatively large bore—if he takes with him a pistol loaded—it is with the intention to shoot if he is in danger, and if he shoots and kills, he must be held guilty of murder.
  If one looks at the question from the other point of view, and considers the fate of the unfortunate policeman, one whose example is followed in scores of cases year after year—and they carry their lives in their hands, themselves unarmed with pistols, and never hesitate to arrest a burglar whom they find at his trade—and
  1146
  if a burglar who shoots and kills under these circumstances is not to be held guilty of murder, we should be doing a gross injustice to the police. The only last, point to be raised is that which was so movingly urged by the Noble Lord and by my hon. Friend—the question of sympathy with the parents. I am sure the whole House must feel the deepest sympathy with the parents in this most tragic case. They are, as I am informed, so moved that the mother is in danger of losing her life. But is that a reason that can, or ought to be, taken into account when the law has to be vindicated, as it must be, in a case like this? The fullest expression of sympathy is bound to be made for the parents, but I should not be justified if upon that ground I were to fail to do my duty in the present case.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MALE CLERKS.
  MALE CLERKS.
  SOLDIERS.
  SOLDIERS.
  Customs and Excise (Statistical Office).
  Customs and Excise (Statistical Office).
  Road Board (Expenditure in Ireland).
  Road Board (Expenditure in Ireland).
  Postal Expenditure (Scotland).
  Postal Expenditure (Scotland).
  Motor Traffic.
  Motor Traffic.
  Technical Instruction (County Wexford).
  Technical Instruction (County Wexford).
  Castleisland Parish Committee.
  Castleisland Parish Committee.
  Magistracy (Ireland).
  Magistracy (Ireland).
  Grant for Proposed Road (Dirreenavourig).
  Grant for Proposed Road (Dirreenavourig).
  Reinstatement Application (W. R. A. Johnston).
  Reinstatement Application (W. R. A. Johnston).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  H.M.S. "TORCH."
  H.M.S. "TORCH."
  ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
  ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
  GUNBOATS AND FISHING GEAR (DAMAGE).
  GUNBOATS AND FISHING GEAR (DAMAGE).
  Woolwich Arsenal Wages.
  Woolwich Arsenal Wages.
  Special Reserve Commands.
  Special Reserve Commands.
  Malta (Hotel Site).
  Malta (Hotel Site).
  Canada and West Indies Trade.
  Canada and West Indies Trade.
  Public Educational Staff.
  Public Educational Staff.
  Notes.
  Notes.
  Young Men (United Kingdom).
  Young Men (United Kingdom).
  White Slave Traffic (India).
  White Slave Traffic (India).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Largest Industries.
  Largest Industries.
  Rates (Metropolis).
  Rates (Metropolis).
  Board of Trade (Medical Staff).
  Board of Trade (Medical Staff).
  Colour Blindness.
  Colour Blindness.
  Places of Refreshment (Scotland).
  Places of Refreshment (Scotland).
  Underground Telegraph Routes.
  Underground Telegraph Routes.
  Telephone Service (Glasgow).
  Telephone Service (Glasgow).
Preamble
The Earl of ORFORD—Took the Oath.
KIRKCALDY DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to claims for exemption by Irish migratory labourers;
2. Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners—

I. as to agreements for compensation or damages;

II. as to payments on death of deposit contributors out of amount standing to their credit in the Post Office Fund;

3. Provisional Special Order, dated 25th January 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Irish Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) (Ireland) Provisional Order, 1913;
4. Provisional Regulations, dated 25th January 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee—

I. as to the manner of calculating the amount of the annual Parliamentary Grant to be paid to the Navy and Army Insurance Fund;

II. amending the National Health Insurance (Time for joining an Approved Society) Regulations, 1912;

5. Regulations, dated 25th January 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee—

I. entitled the National Health Insurance (Time for joining an Approved Society) Regulations, 1913;

II. entitled the National Health Insurance (Married Women's Transfer Value) Regulations, 1913;

III. entitled the National Health Insurance (Value of Contributions, Exempted Institution) Regulations, 1913:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 196.)

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
Petition in favour of the Ordinance (No. 12) of the University Court of the University of Glasgow (Affiliation of the Royal Technical College, Glasgow);—Of the Governors of the Royal Technical College, Glasgow;—Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition that the "Area" in the Bill may be the whole Burgh of Leith Corporation.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, which has for its prime object the re-establishment of an Irish Parliament. Though I must not spend too much time in retrospection of events ranging as they do over hundreds of years and familiar to those of your Lordships who have dipped into the history of the political relations between this country and Ireland, with all its records of crimes and of blunders committed on both sides, yet it is due to the House to say something of the long chain of events which leads us to introduce this measure in its present form. First and foremost, the Parliament sought to be established by this Bill is not an independent Parliament of the kind which Ireland for long possessed, or at any rate claimed to possess, and her actual possession of which was agreed to for a limited time by all parties in this country. Through the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries this Parliament at Westminster, deeply actuated by economic jealousy, refused the claim of the Irish Parliament, and Lord-Deputies and Lord-Lieutenants, from the days of Sir Edward Poynings downwards, acted in Ireland in the spirit of Westminster. Irish legislation was during all those years ultimately framed by the English Privy Council. Then, as your Lordships will remember, in the year 1719 Parliament, at that time settling down to the rule of the House of Hanover, finally, as it thought, declared the subordination of the Irish Parliament to the Parliament of this country, both in its legislative and its judicial functions.

421
There is no need to glance over the proceedings of the next sixty years which ended in the Declaration of Independence of the Irish Parliament—that Declaration illuminated by the gorgeous eloquence of Grattan. But I would ask your Lordships to note that then, as often since, the political relations between the two countries took their colour from political events which occurred outside the confines of either. The Declaration of Irish Independence followed hard on the heels of the Declaration of the Independence of America, and we all know that, largely owing to the great strength of the Irish Volunteer movement, this country did not find itself in a position at that time to question the Irish demand. But I wonder if the House remembers the astonishing unanimity with which that demand for independence was granted. In creating the famous Parliament of 1782, if I remember right, it is the fact that the measure—which, of course, passed the House of Commons easily—passed this House with but one single dissentient. It is open to anybody to say that that was a Protestant Parliament. Of course it was a Protestant Parliament; but for the purpose of the moment the fact has to be considered that it was an independent Parliament, and its relations to the British Parliament, although it was intended to define them, were never as a fact cleanly defined. To speak of that Parliament, Grattan's Parliament as it is popularly called, as a total failure would be a really ludicrous overstatement. Its final doom became certain for three reasons. In the first place, there was a quarrel over the question of the Regency, which showed the monstrous inconvenience which a dual control of a matter of that kind within the ambit of these islands would be likely to cause. In the second place, its fall was due to the complete impossibility, as Mr. Pitt supposed, of reforming the Irish Parliament either generally or in the particular matter of Roman Catholic representation. And in the last place, of course, its fall was due to the rebellion of 1798.
Now, again, we have to look outside these islands for what may be called the causa causans. It was, of course, the French Revolution which gave its colour to some extent to the Revolution of 1798 and gave life to it, and above all else it was the dread of French Revolution principles and the dread of active revolu-
422
tionary interference which more than anything else brought about the Act of Union—far more that, I am afraid, than any real and definite prospect of thereby ensuring the prosperity of Ireland. Of course, hopes of ensuring that prosperity were both entertained and expressed by the promoters of the Act of Union. The speeches of that time are full of promises of equal treatment, of participated benefits, and of actual identification of interests. I am not going to weary the House by any lengthy examination, or with the briefest possible examination, of how far the history of the last century bore out those promises. I suppose, if I did, that my interpretation of that history might sharply differ from that of some noble Lords opposite; but we can all, I think, agree in giving all parties and all statesmen credit during those troublous years in Ireland of the nineteenth century for good intentions. From 1800 onwards Ireland was frequently misunderstood, was sometimes elbowed aside, but was not wilfully oppressed. The Coercion Acts, for which both English Parties were responsible, were certainly designed to repress crime even if sometimes they did not do very much more than curtail liberty.
But let us, passing over the actual history of those years, judge by results as we know them now. How far has the process of identification of Ireland with Great Britain gone in practice? First take legislation; and let me give the House one or two facts to show how far in this so-called United Kingdom—or United Kingdoms in the plural as they were called, I believe, during all the discussions on the Act of Union—how far legislation differs as between the component parts of the United Kingdom. How do we actually stand in regard to what were called the "equal laws and inseparable interests" which were foreshadowed by the promoters of the Union? although as a matter of fact at that time Great Britain simply dictated the terms of Union, and Ireland, altogether unlike Scotland ninety years before, came in as an inferior partner controlled by a British Executive. How do we stand to-day? First, of course, we find ourselves with altogether distinct Irish Estimates, approved by the British Cabinet and submitted to a Chamber mainly British. Then, again, half the public Statutes that are passed through Parliament here apply only to some part of the United Kingdom. In the five years

423
from 1906 to 1910, 269 public General Acts were passed, of which 104 did not apply to Ireland at all; 34 of those Acts applied to Ireland only, and 131 applied both to Ireland and to some other part of the United Kingdom. Thus you will see that one in two of all the Acts passed by the Imperial Parliament is either entirely British or entirely Irish, and only one Act in two which is applicable to any other part of the United Kingdom is also applicable to Ireland. If you analyse any previous period within the last thirty or forty years you will find results which are equally striking.
Take another test. Instead of taking the number of laws, take some of the subjects in regard to which the laws differ as between the different parts of the United Kingdom. Passing by the absence of a State Church in Ireland, note that Ireland has an altogether different marriage law, a different system of education, a totally different system of police and of the administration of justice, an altogether different land system, a different Poor Law, a totally different licensing system, and different enactments on such subjects as lunacy, industrial schools, fisheries, and I know not how many more. I dare say it will be said that all this is excellent evidence that under the present system Parliament carefully considers the various needs of the different parts of the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that has always been Parliament's desire, but as a matter of fact its fulfilment has been entrusted in the case of Ireland to a large British majority, mostly uninformed of the facts, altogether unconcerned in the results, and completely unaffected by the failure of any particular Statute.
To pass to administration, how far has the identification gone between administration in the sense that is to say that the Executive is immediately responsible in small things as in great to the elected representatives of the people? I can only state my own considered belief founded on personal experience. When I went to Dublin twenty-one years ago as Viceroy in company with my noble friend the Lord President it did not take me long, even with such experience of affairs as I then had, to realise that what we were actually carrying on was a system of Crown Colony Government. It was so
424
almost nominally in the days of plantations, and it has been so for the last century. The truth is masked by various phenomena peculiar to the particular case. It is often masked when the Chief Secretary is the principal figure in the Irish Government, and sometimes, as he often has been, the only Cabinet Minister. It is masked by the frequent presence in the House of Commons of that Chief Secretary side by side with other Ministers whose responsibilities to Parliament are real and continuous. It is masked, of course, by the presence in the House of Commons of a number of Nationalist Members, highly conspicuous Members of that Assembly in their different ways. But the fact remains, and I challenge contradiction of it, that the real Government of Ireland, however sympathetically or however intelligently from time to time it may be conducted, is in its essence an arbitrary Government from the outside. So that when a Unionist Viceroy, Lord Dudley, repeated the aspiration that Ireland should be governed according to Irish ideas he was generally regarded by noble Lords opposite as thereby showing himself a renegade from Unionist principles. If Parliamentary representation is to be regarded as tantamount to self-government, I will take another parallel. I assert, again without any fear of contradiction, that if you were to add to the House of Commons a handful of Members representing Ceylon and the Straits Settlements, or another handful of Members representing the West India group of islands, I have no doubt you would succeed thereby in disorganising and possibly ruining altogether the government of those islands, but you certainly would not make them self-governing by so doing. They would still be, as they are, Crown Colonies. No, my Lords, Ireland—by whose fault does not matter—has never become an integral part of Britain; her Government has in essence remained a Colonial Government, and Ireland has never become an integral part of the United Kingdom because the principle of Irish nationality has altogether refused to die.
We are told again and again that in reality there is no Irish nation, and I have noticed during recent debates that several speakers have reproduced the argument on which Mr. Pitt leant heavily at the time of the Union—namely, that a country without an Army and a Navy

425
of its own ought not to be dignified with the title of a nation. In the recollection of a great many of us here, both Bulgaria and Rumania were in that position; they had no independent forces of their own. It is not so very much earlier that Greece was in the same position, and I do not know who is going to defy either to Bulgaria, or Rumania, or Greece the style and title of a nation. This fact of the undying nationality of Ireland is the first that emerges from any wide study of history; and the second fact, not less relevant, is that without a single exception, so far as I know, the various benefits conferred upon Ireland by the Imperial Parliament during the last half-century have all formed part of the Nationalist programme and the Nationalist propaganda. I will not dwell upon the Land Acts, or upon the Labourers Act, or upon the establishment of an Irish University; but noble Lords opposite take to themselves great credit for the various Land Purchase Acts. We all know, for instance, that the Act of 1885 will keep green in the most literal interpretation of that phrase the name of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Ashbourne) who sits on the Front Bench opposite. We certainly do not forget the great measure of 1903 associated with the name of Mr. George Wyndham.
Yes; but, after all, land purchase was always one of the prime articles of the Nationalist faith. You have only got to read, you have only got to gland at the speech which Mr. Parnell made in another place on the Second Reading of the Land Bill of 1881 to see what the policy and hopes of the Land League were with regard to land purchase; and when Mr. Gladstone in 1886 added a great land scheme to his Government of Ireland Bill of that year, a scheme which offered to the owners of land in Ireland the strongest inducement to sell their land which they have ever from that day to this received, the inclusion of that in Mr. Gladstone's Bill was justified by satisfying one section of the Nationalist demand. I have never disputed that on this particular question of land purchase, just as also for a long time on the question of Irish University education, the Liberal Party here erred in the too rigid application to Ireland of the Liberal code as interpreted in Great Britain. But then it is a strong part of our case that the substitution of any form of Government
426
from outside for that of a Home Government has not always led to sound results, and if the Party opposite think that they have cut a better figure than we have in this particular part, it is only because in order to play it they attired themselves for the time being in Nationalist garb. On these two facts—the fact that Ireland is a nation, and the fact that experience has shown that Irish opinion has pointed the safest road in recent Irish legislation—this measure now before your Lordships' House is founded. Of the provisions which stamp the proposed Parliament as a subordinate Parliament I will say a word later.
But I wish first to pause at one aspect of it—namely, that its application is to the whole of Ireland, not to a part but to the whole, including the North East. I certainly have never said, and. I do not think that any Minister has said, a disparaging phrase regarding the position of that part of Ulster. There has no doubt been criticism of individual performances, and exception may have been taken to particular language used on certain occasions; but the whole attitude of the rank and file, inspired by those narrow but profound religious beliefs which have played so great a part in shaping the history of the three kingdoms, can only be regarded with respect however much we may deplore it. Any attempt at argument beats in vain against the massive rock of prejudice, which treats Rome as the great enemy and which treats the South and West of Ireland as being simply enslaved to Rome. We have asked—I hope it may be believed we have honestly asked—for sonic indications of the lines on which it is believed and feared that the Protestant minority will be oppressed. If the full exercise of public worship, if the marriage law, if the education of children and the title to hold public office of any kind—if all these are carefully safeguarded against that exhibition of bigotry which we ourselves do not believe will follow the passing of this measure but which some noble Lords fear may, what is the means by which oppression of the Protestants either in the North or the South is to be brought about? We have never been told; we are only asked if we believe that the men of Ulster are such fools as to wait until something oppressive is done, and whether they will not anticipate possible action by rebelling beforehand. This all may seem very

427
hopeless for the future administration of Ireland, but one can only trust that it may not prove to be as hopeless as it looks. Meanwhile on the other side we are seriously assured by those who are entitled to speak for the rest of Ireland that they cannot and do not ask for the granting of self-government to a dismembered Ireland.
But, my Lords, leaving out for a moment this question of the possible attitude of individuals in Ulster, I would ask the House to consider the subject from another side. I have just reminded the House that as we are now, Irish legislation runs on altogether different lines from British, and also that Irish administration is completely separate both in its purpose and in its operation. Supposing any further changes were to be made, the kind of change which might be brought about by agreement on both sides, it is quite possible that the whole of the wide area covered by Irish Private Bill legislation might be handed back to Ireland. The deduction that we make from all these facts is that the one remaining element of the political fabric—namely, a representative body—ought also to be restored. Noble Lords opposite do not agree, but on this particular point of Ulster I would ask them to note this—that nobody has ever hinted that any part of the completely separate treatment which now exists for the two countries could be applied except to Ireland as a whole. You have, of course, special problems of poverty, salient in some districts below a certain valuation and consequently administered by the Congested Districts Board; but if you take a broad view either of legislative or of administrative activity, all the divergencies existing between England and Ireland entirely disappear within the bounds of Ireland herself. All Acts of Parliament, whether beneficial or mandatory, all administrative Orders which are not actually parochial in character, have been applied to Ulster precisely in the way that they have been applied to all other parts of Ireland. What is the conclusion? It is that the reluctance of Ulster to be included in the Bill cannot have any political or any social foundation. It is simply built up as a part of an aloofness which is partly racial and partly religious, and while it would obviously be folly to under-rate an obstacle of that kind it cannot of itself justify us in reverting to a policy of despair.
428
Now I pass to the limitations which are proposed on the new body expressive of its subordination to the Parliament of the Empire. I need not enlarge upon the general power of veto which the Bill contains—a power of veto to be used, like all such powers, in restraint of flagrant action but not of action which the superior body merely dislikes or thinks unwise. But I would note, speaking in general terms, that the Crown, the Army and Navy, matters relating to peace and war and treaties, titles of honour, the law of treason, the law of naturalisation and kindred matters are agreed to be outside the scope of the Irish Parliament. Beyond this, the exclusion of external trade, exterior postal services, to say nothing of the services specially reserved, as to which I shall have a word to say in a moment, indicate a substantial distinction drawn in this Bill as between Ireland and other self-governing parts of the Empire. The reserved matters include, in the first place, the collection of taxes; secondly, the subject-matter of the great beneficial Acts of the last decade—Land Purchase, Old-Age Pensions, Labour Exchanges, and National Insurance; thirdly, the Constabulary; fourthly, the Savings Banks and Friendly Societies; and, fifthly, public loans.
So far as the Royal Irish Constabulary is concerned, in six years the service is to become Irish, and with various limitations the other reserved services may be taken over in time by a resolution of both Houses of the Irish Parliament. I cannot, however, leave this branch of the subject altogether without laying my own tribute of respect and goodwill as a former Viceroy before the Royal Irish Constabulary. There may be forces in other countries which are more generally acute than the Royal Irish Constabulary in the discovery of criminals, although as a matter of fact the R.I.C. have boasted some very notable detectives; but no force anywhere stands higher for loyalty to its chiefs, for discipline and devotion to duty, and for humanity in the discharge of its duties. In times of greatest stress the Royal Irish Constabulary has done itself the greatest honour. Its semi-military character has, of course, been the result of the history of the country. Whether that particular character will be permanent it is idle now to discuss. I am bound to say, however, that Irish conditions would have to alter

429
greatly before Ireland could altogether dispense with a centralised Police force. It may, perhaps, be permitted to doubt whether Ireland will ever come to the system of borough and rural Police with which we are so familiar in this country. Under our plan the Lord Lieutenant is relieved from the rather anomalous dual position which has never added to the convenience of any occupant of the office on either side—that of being at the same time the representative of the Sovereign and a Minister, sometimes a Cabinet Minister, under a Party system. By this measure the Lord Lieutenant is to hold his office for six years, presumably surviving a change of Ministers in this country, and, like the Viceroy of India, he will be bound to no Party. The heads of Irish Departments will be his Ministers combined as the Executive Committee, who will be, in fact, the Local Government of Ireland.
The Parliament is designed to consist of two Houses, and I believe that the wisdom of instituting a Second Chamber will be proved in the results. The House of Commons will contain 164 Members, giving an average of 1 to about 27,000 of the population; and in the nine constituencies which have more than two Members they are to be elected under a system of proportional representation and by the transferable vote. As to the Second Chamber, to be styled the Senate, the two objects served by such a body are the prevention of too hasty legislation and the admission to Parliament of some individuals who for various reasons might not care to contest seats in the larger Assembly. This House of forty Members, nominated for the first five years so as thereby to secure the representation of different interests, afterwards would be elected for the four Provinces by a system of proportional representation, and is designed with the hope of achieving the two objects which I have mentioned. The Senate is subject to certain disabilities in respect of Money Bills for which a great many Constitutional precedents might be quoted, and a point worth noting is the adoption of a plan which your Lordships will remember was conspicuous in the South Africa Act and has been talked of in relation to even more august Assemblies—namely, that of a Joint Session of both Houses and a joint vote in the event of disagreement between them.
430
We have had to face the exceedingly difficult problem of Irish representation in the Imperial House of Commons. Ought it to be abolished, as was proposed in 1886? Should we revert to what was called the "in and out system," endeavouring to distinguish between British matters and Imperial matters and calling in the Irish Members only for the latter, or should the Irish Members, in whatever numbers, sit for all purposes? Nobody can forget—I am certain my noble friend behind me (Lord Morley) does not forget—that both in 1886 and in 1893 there were no clauses that created greater doubts or dissensions than those which dealt in entirely different ways with this problem. In this measure, realising the objections which have been raised to the plan of exclusion on the grounds, first, that it would appear to involve a practical separation of the two countries; secondly, that it would violate the canon that taxation and representation go together; and, thirdly, that its adoption might block any further advance in the direction of a system of federation—realising also the insuperable objections which could be named to the "in and out system," we have here favoured a system of limited representation, forty-two in number, for all purposes. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite would be at all disposed to take the view which was taken by Mr. Pitt in 1800—that the number of Irish Members was of itself of little importance because if, as he said, there were enough to state the interests and convey the sentiments of Ireland it was a vain attempt to aim at theoretical perfection. In our opinion the number of forty-two satisfies those conditions named by Mr. Pitt. It does not, of course, pretend to satisfy a population scale, which would give, I think I am right in saying, sixty-four Members; but without departure from the current system of election for the Imperial Parliament we believe it will provide the House of Commons with something of a microcosm of Ireland which will be competent to speak for Ireland as a whole.
At this point I ought to mention the question of the Judiciary. I have had the honour of being on terms of friendship with not a few members of the Irish Bench, men who would have done honour to any tribunal of any period of history. If the Irish Bench has been the subject of more comment, not all of it good-natured,

431
than other similar bodies have, there have at any rate been a great many more of them to criticise. I remember being told by a distinguished legal authority in this country that at the time he spoke there were twenty-eight Judges of the High Court here, but that if our Bench were manned on the Irish scale in proportion to population there would be, not twenty-eight but 112; and this figure, as my friend went on to point out, would work out very unfairly for England because in this country there is such a much larger proportion of heavy business cases occupying a great deal of time that the 112, so far as sitting was concerned, would be in a poor position as compared with their Irish brethren. This anomaly has somewhat, as we know, been rectified, but I think that its long existence has helped to form—
LORD ASHBOURNE: When was that comparison made?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My recollection is that it was about the year 1894. I cannot say for certain, but I will tell the noble and learned Lord afterwards if be likes who made it. I was saying that the existence of that anomaly has, I think, helped to form the general Irish opinion that the Irish Judges, while enjoying a precisely parallel immunity from outside pressure and from irresponsible criticism that their brethren enjoy in England, ought to be Irish officials appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and, as we propose here, removable only by a vote of both Houses of the Irish Parliament. In the Parliament of 1782 the Irish House of Lords was the Court of Final Appeal, as Ireland Lad long before claimed that it was. Since the Union your Lordships' House has been the Court of Final Appeal for Ireland as well as for England. Now it is designed that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Imperial Court of the highest authority, should undertake this dignified task. To the Judicial Committee also is entrusted the duty of determining any constitutional points on questions of interpretation which may arise, and which are referred to the Judicial Committee with the consent of His Majesty's Ministers here.
Now I must set before the House briefly the financial provisions of the Bill. I say
432
briefly, not because the subject is in any way unimportant, because in fact there are obviously no more grave matters in the Bill than these, but I have spent so much time in speaking of the political side of the measure that I must leave it to some of my noble friends to give more time to the details of the financial clauses. Those clauses number from 14 to 26 in the Bill, composing, as your Lordships have seen, a large part of it. The system which they embody may appear to be an intricate one, but I venture to think it will be found after debate to be as simple as any of which the circumstances admit. The important thing to bear in mind is that there are two leading facts in our financial scheme. In the first place, the collection of all taxes in Ireland is worked by the Imperial Government; and, secondly, the British Exchequer every year pays a fixed sum, entitled the Transferred Sum, to meet the expenses of Irish Government. But first you must note the medium in which this machinery is to work. In 1886 and 1893, when different settlements, though neither of them absolutely permanent in character, were put forward, there was in each year a surplus on Irish revenue over expenditure on Irish Government. Now there is a deficit, into the causes of which it is not necessary to go, but it is estimated for the current year at a sum of £1,500,000. May I remind the House that this deficit will in no case, if matters remain as they are, tend to diminish. Therefore if the proposals in the Bill appear to involve a heavy loss to the British taxpayer it is not quite honest to tell that always suspicious person that he is being made in some way the victim of a new charge by this Bill, because he will have to meet that charge in any case and he might have to meet a great deal more, whereas by the Bill he gains a certain knowledge of how he stands and what his future liability will be, that liability being £500,000 for three years, diminishing each year after that by £50,000 until he finds himself paying £200,000.
Certain powers of taxation or of remission of taxation are of necessity reserved to the Irish Parliament, enabling it to secure some advantage from economical administration or, at need, to raise further money for Irish wants. But there are many things which it cannot do. The Irish Parliament cannot impose separate Customs duties, and it may only add to

433
existing Imperial Customs or Excise duties. The power of varying Income Tax or Death Duties is closely restricted. Stamp Duties cannot be touched, and the power of permitting drawbacks on articles of Irish production or manufacture in jealously guarded. Your Lordships will observe, on looking at the Bill, that the Transferred Sum is subject to certain fluctuations and possibilities of reduction if Irish revenues are affected either by the reduction of an Imperial tax or by the imposition of any tax by the Irish Parliament excepting those on beer and spirits exceeding 10 per cent. of the Irish product of that tax. I do not dwell at this moment upon the arrangements made to meet exceptions to the general rule that for Customs and Excise purposes articles taxable in the two countries are treated alike; but I may point out that some of those provisions which seem extremely intricate and elaborate as one reads them have for their object the securing of information upon the real revenue derived from these sources in the two countries, and that information, as I am told, is particularly needed for various purposes altogether outside this particular Bill. It is important to note that the Transferred Sum takes over the liability of the existing Guaranteed Funds, consisting of Exchequer grants in respect of Irish land purchase. All questions relating, not merely to the Transferred Sum but to the various relation, between Imperial and Irish taxation—or British and Irish taxation if you prefer so to call it—are committed to the final arbitrament of a small body called the Joint Exchequer Board, which is a Committee consisting of representatives of the two Treasuries with an independent Chairman. A body of this sort is an absolutely necessary wheel in, the machine, and even though some of your Lordships may criticise the financial proposals I cannot imagine that any serious objection will be taken to its inception as part of the scheme which we have put forward.
The only other point that I need mention is this. Whenever the time conies that the Irish revenue is found to exceed Irish expenditure on Government services so that Ireland might make a contribution towards the general expenditure of the Empire, or at any rate of the United Kingdom, then the financial relations between the two countries will stand to be reconsidered, and in order that Ireland
434
for such a reconsideration may be fully represented in proportion to her population a special deputation of Irish Members would be formed to sit in the House of Commons here for that particular purpose.
LORD ASH BOURNE: How many would be in that delegation?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think the number would be sixty-four in proportion to the population of Ireland—that would mean an addition of twenty-two.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Would they vote only on readjustment of relations or would they be members for all purposes?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Only for the special purpose, I understand.
LORD ASHBOURNE: And who would tell them when the special purpose was over?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I suppose the House of Commons would inform them through the Speaker or through the Government of the day. Such in general outline are the provisions of this Bill, accompanied by various clauses on which I need not dwell which are designed to secure the position of existing Judges and officials. I suppose that in the course of the debate we may expect to hear complaints from the Benches opposite of the scanty consideration which this measure has received in another place and of the use of the "guillotine closure" in passing it. We cannot be greatly moved by any general allegation of that kind because, to be effective, the charge must depend on specific instances, and I cannot help thinking it will be found on examination that every really important provision of the Bill received in its passage in another place a reasonable degree of discussion. I say that partly for this reason, that no one who has followed the course of the debates in another place can fail to be impressed by one fact—that a great number of the Amendments which were proposed nominally upon points of detail went in reality to the very root of the measure. Safeguards were to be instituted; the free exercise of administration, the free play of legislation, were both to be fettered—not, when one came to look at it, because serious danger was anticipated from the action which might be taken

435
either legislatively or administratively in relation to the particular subject under discussion, but because the Irish majority are not fit to be trusted either to legislate or to administer at all. The real basis of most of these minute and meticulous discussions was simply that there ought not to be any kind of Home Rule at all.
There is, however, one aspect in which this measure ought to be regarded apart from its actual effect as an enactment—namely, its possible relation to further projects of devolution and also of consolidation which have been described by the term of "Home Rule all round." What, for example, is the bearing of this Bill as it stands on a possible extension of self-government to Scotland? It is interesting to note that of the last five Prime Ministers, including my right hon. friend who now adorns that office, three have been Scotsmen. Of those three it would not be reasonable, no doubt, to expect from Mr. Balfour any approval of any system of Parliamentary reform. But of the other two, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was always one of the leading advocates of general Home Rule; while my noble friend Lord Rosebery, in his speech on the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill in 1893 in this House expressed his hope in that direction; and in the following year, in the debate on the Address, he used these words, which I venture to quote because to my mind they precisely represent our position in the matter. After pointing out the claims of Home Rule first to give satisfaction to Ireland, and, secondly, to be applied for the good of the Empire at large, he went on to say—
"And lastly, I view it from the higher imperial grounds, because I believe that the maintenance of the Empire depends, not on centralisation but on decentralisation, and that if you once commence to tread this path you will have to give satisfaction under the same conditions, certainly to Scotland, possibly to Wales, not in the same degree or possibly in the same fashion, but so as to relieve this groaning Imperial Parliament from the burden of legislation under which it labours."
Those words accurately describe the hopes and intentions of His Majesty's Government to-day. The burden laid on the House of Commons, altogether apart from the exceptional circumstances of this moment but laid in any ordinary active year, is by general admission an intolerable burden. Scarcely less heavy is the load cast upon the Government Departments. If this way, and
436
we believe it to be the only way, of seeking relief is followed, it surely is not in the least necessary that a slavish copy either of this measure or of any other Imperial measure or foreign Constitution must be hammered out for Scotland or for Wales. What is there to prove or even to make it probable that for these islands, uniquely divided as they are geographically and historically, a special federal system, if that is the proper term for it, cannot in due time be worked out with full regard to the different conditions of the parts and of the relations of the unit to the overseas Empire? To attempt such a task in a single Bill would be the act of an idiot. I dare say the problem of England, which in some matters is beginning to be tired of not being altogether mistress in her own house, is in some ways the most difficult of any. But it was imperative to begin with Ireland, because even if no further step forward be taken for some little time it would be idle as we think to attempt to continue her government upon the existing lines. I have no doubt noble Lords will not agree with and may even ridicule such a statement as that.
But in conclusion I should like to ask noble Lords opposite in all seriousness, Do they look forward with satisfaction or even with calm to the future of Ireland if they succeed in destroying this Bill? Noble Lords and their friends draw tremendous pictures of half Ulster in revolt against the Irish Government. Have they attempted to figure what would be the feeling and conceivably the action of the majority of the Irish people if they had to admit that the road of Parliamentary action was finally closed? It would be no case of frantic uprising of Republican conspirators, but the organised demand of a large community, very likely associated with no disloyalty to the Crown or to the Constitution of the Empire, backed as it would be by the sympathy of an equality if not a majority of their fellow-citizens in Great Britain, and possibly finding expression in Wales, which would make the administration of Ireland practically impossible. What in the event of the failure of this Bill or of some such Bill is the programme of the Opposition? Apparently it is to wean Irishmen from their political aspirations by lavish expenditure. The taxpayer here may have something to say upon that. He might even have something to say upon the issue of a vast amount of Stock at a

437
serious loss to complete with rapidity the system of Irish land purchase; and even that, taken alone, would not go very far in hypnotising Irish opinion. I confess it seems to me that there is no sillier error than that of those who assert that a purchasing tenant in Ireland thereby ceases to be an Irish Nationalist. I dare say you could produce instances. There are people everywhere to whom the jingling of guineas is the only sound that appeals to the ear, and who take no interest in their country or its fortunes. But if you succeed in closing the gate which now stands open you may see what Ireland, including the tenant purchasers, will say.
The indomitable persistence and the untiring hopefulness of the Irish townsmen as well as countrymen in their political faith is a wonder—almost, I think, one of the wonders of the world. See now what the strength of the demand is. It is not only the return at the last election of eighty-four Nationalists or even the majorities by which those Members are returned. In Cork and Limerick and in the Harbour Division of Dublin Nationalist stood against Nationalist. No Unionist appeared against I hose two Nationalists in any of the three. In the most Radical constituencies in the North of England, or in such constituencies as St. George's Hanover Square, or the Strand, if you could imagine an internal contest of the same kind, an opponent would certainly appear and he would probably have a very fair chance of success. But in Ireland so overwhelming in those cases is the majority that it was not even worth the while of any Unionist to come forward. Noble Lords opposite in the welfare of their domestic conflict have thrown aside the one weapon which for this purpose appeared to us to be their most valuable one. When Mr. George Wyndham spoke at Limerick in October of last year he said—
"When Unionists return to power the first item in their programme will be to carry a Tariff Reform Budget. [Cheers.] If the Home Rule Bill had been defeated Ireland, with a full representation in the Imperial Parliament "—
I always thought that the reduction of the Irish representation was one of the articles in the bill of fare of noble Lords opposite—
"would receive all the benefits of safeguarding her industries and be in a position to see that the tariff, which was undoubtedly coming, was framed with due regard to her peculiar interests."
438
Where are those peculiar interests now? The Unionist Finance Bill which is to make Irish agriculture flourish—and we know that agriculture is the prime industry of Ireland—by imposing duties on foreign produce will be put down for Third Reading at the Greek Kalends.
My Lords, the fate of this Bill before us on the Table is no doubt sealed. The Motion placed on the Paper by the noble Duke ensures that. I have as great a respect as Burke himself for what he described as "the temperate, permanent, hereditary virtue of the house of Cavendish," and I am quite sure that the noble Duke who is to move the rejection of this Bill will perform his task with fairness and a full sense of his responsibility. But I should like to ask him, and the noble Lords who will later assist him in his bloodthirsty task, to bear in mind that if this measure is rejected here it will still be alive and before the country, and I appeal to them in all seriousness to turn over in their minds during the long period which must then elapse before the measure becomes law any method by which, without altogether destroying its substance, it can be made less alarming to its most bitter opponents and in particular to the Protestants of Ulster. I can assure the House that any proposals advanced in this spirit will receive our most careful, earnest, and friendly consideration.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as the noble Marquess who has just resumed his seat has told you, the duty which devolves upon me this afternoon, is, I regret to say, somewhat of a hereditary one. But strong as the reasons were at the time my predecessor brought a similar Motion before the House of Commons in 1886 and before your Lordships' House in 1893, I think I can confidently assert that those reasons are as strong to-day. The noble Marquess opposite, at the conclusion of his speech, threw out what was either a challenge or a suggestion, but which certainly contained a reminder that the Government since Home Rule was last before the country and before your Lordships' House had passed the Parliament Act. We on this side require no reminder of that fact. It is one with which we are well acquainted. We are finding in the almost daily occurrences of Parliament and the

439
daily degradation of the House of Commons abundant food for reflection. I can conceive of no possibility or combination of circumstances which, however limited and attenuated your Lordships' rights and privileges may now be, would justify your Lordships in passing this Bill, or even in giving it a Second Reading.
The noble Marquess at the beginning of his speech referred to a number of Acts, with neither the number nor the nature of which I venture in the least degree to quarrel. But he claimed after enumerating them to have made out, as far as I could follow his argument, that they displayed an entire lack of identification between the English and the Irish people, and that therefore it was an impossibility for the Imperial Parliament sitting here at Westminster to legislate satisfactorily for Ireland. I venture respectfully to say to the noble Marquess that I doubt if he proved quite enough. Did he make out to your Lordships' satisfaction that the legislation to which he referred—I think only since the year 1906—was a failure, and that there was no possibility of the Imperial Parliament being able to legislate for the good of Ireland as well as for every other portion of the United Kingdom? I venture to assert that the noble Marquess did not press his argument home, and that he did not convince your Lordships that the Imperial Parliament has failed in the duties for which it is responsible. He also claimed that we were suffering in the past from the undying nationalism of Irishmen, a thing that we over here are ignorant of and cannot comprehend. I would like to ask him the simple question, how does this Bill remedy that state of things? Do you under this Bill recognise any nationality at all?
I shall have occasion to refer to this question again, but I would like now to make an allusion, not to the extensive range of history which the noble Marquess covered, but to some more immediate questions which deeply affect any such proposal as we are now considering, and also to the circumstances in which this Bill has come before us. Since Home Rule was last before the country and before Parliament there have been, as your Lordships full well know, two developments of the most supreme importance. We have seen the Union of South Africa and the Commonwealth of Australia. It is no purpose of mine to-night to attempt any comparison of what is contained in
440
those two measures, except perhaps so far as their internal effect is concerned if you could possibly contemplate any comparison between Bills different in themselves but which confer practically the same powers upon South Africa and Australia as the Bill which is under discussion in your Lordships' House to-day proposes for Ireland. Nothing could be clearer than that the Bills creating the Union of South Africa and the Commonwealth of Australia are completely and in every essential almost impossible for Ireland. Can any reasonable being for a moment suppose that such a Bill as I now hold in my hand could have been suggested by any responsible statesman as a means of solving the difficulties in South Africa or Australia?
But I wish to lay stress upon what led up to the passage of those two Bills in the Imperial Parliament. In the case of Australia the official act leading up to the establishment of the Commonwealth was the meeting of the Statutory Convention in 1897. That Convention produced a draft Bill, and that. Bill was submitted to the Legislature of the different States and amendments were made to it. The amended draft was considered by the Convention; the Bill was again altered and submitted to the State Legislatures, and after prolonged negotiations an agreement was arrived at. The Bill was then submitted to a referendum, and was carried by large majorities in each of the five States. In the case of South Africa a National Convention produced a draft Bill, and that Bill was laid before the four Colonial Parliaments. The Convention again met to discuss the amended draft; it was again submitted to the Parliaments, and in the case of Natal there was a referendum. In both those cases it was not until those elaborate precautions had been taken that any Bill was submitted to the Imperial Parliament for their ratification. It is hardly necessary for me to ask you to contrast the proceedings which have taken place in connection with Home Rule and the proceedings which led to the introduction of that legislation in South Africa and Australia. It is, indeed, difficult to ascertain the precise degree of affection which His Majesty's Ministers entertain for the principle of Home Rule. One can only judge that their affection and their regard for the introduction of this new Constitution for Ireland are somewhat dependent upon the state of their majority in the House of Commons. I am not at all

441
sure that the Prime Minister, had he been able to continue in a position of not being dependent upon the Irish Members, would have been so keen as he apparently is to-day for the introduction of such legislation.
The noble Marquess threw down a challenge—a somewhat courageous one, I am bound to admit—in which, far from there being any apology or defence for the use of the guillotine and the closure, he seemed to regard it as a rather satisfactory weapon for Parliamentary, warfare. No one acquainted with the House of Commons can deny that to at any rate a reasonable extent the Government of the day must have the means and the power of overcoming undue and unreasonable obstruction. But it is a very different thing to find on some occasions, even before the Committee stage of a Bill had been started—certainly in the case of this Bill after it had been in Committee but a very few days—a Host drastic time-table drawn up and the Bill forced through under those conditions. Not only has the time-table had a disastrous effect upon the debates, but its inevitable effect on the House has been demoralising and disastrous. I now come to the challenge which the noble Marquess threw out. As far as I could gather, the suggestion was that every matter of importance had come up for discussion in the House of Commons and been considered. I do not presume that he wishes to shelter himself under this, that in the Second Reading debates a reference may have been made to many and possibly to most of the leading principles in the Bill. But what is important for your Lordships to remember is that many matters have not received any discussion at all. I will, if I may, give instances. I cannot give a complete list now, although I am perfectly willing to provide it if necessary. I think I can give your Lordships a sufficient number of subjects of first-rate importance which have certainly received no discussion in detail. The question of the retention of Old Age Pensions, National Insurance, and the reserved services were not discussed. Then there is the collection of taxes, and also the relations between Great Britain and Ireland as respects Customs and Excise duties—Clause 16, a most important clause and one likely to give rise to the greatest possible difficulties in the future. I understand no reference was made to it at all. The question of Irish representation at
442
Westminster; the Irish Exchequer and Consolidated Fund—that is Clause 21; concurrent legislation by Imperial and Irish Parliaments—Clause 41—were never discussed. The important matter in connection with Clause 41 is that under subsection (2) the Government legal advisers claim that they have the greatest safeguard for the prevention of hasty and crude legislation taken in conjunction with the power of the Lord Lieutenant for exercising his veto.
Another clause which received no discussion at all was Clause 47, which allows a very considerable number of subjects of first-rate importance to be discussed and settled by Order in Council. I presume that Orders in Council are and must be necessary in certain cases, but I think it will be within the knowledge of all members of your Lordships' House and especially of those who have sat in the House of Commons that proceeding by Order in Council is a most unsatisfactory way of doing business. I venture to say I have made out a case to show that, whatever may have been discussed generally, there are certainly a very large number of subjects which never received discussion at all. It might be suggested and I think has been suggested that what has already taken place in the House of Commons is almost a sufficient justification for the rejection of this Bill. But I hope that your Lordships, in spite of the limited and curtailed nature of your privileges, will not allow this opportunity to go by without taking full advantage of such powers as you still possess. It is unnecessary for me to say that, in contradistinction to the House of Commons, your Lordships' House possesses the right of free discussion.
In referring to certain prominent features of the Bill I do not wish to institute any comparison in detail between this Bill and its two predecessors. When we come to examine it, both in its relation to Ireland and in its relation to the United Kingdom, we find the same fallacy and the same inherent impossibility in carrying it through. This Bill, like its two predecessors, halts between the grant of responsible self-government and the retention of legislative and executive unity for the United Kingdom. Either you go too far or you do not go far enough. You give with one hand, but you provide elaborate precautions for the prevention of the free enjoyment and exercise of the powers and

443
dignities which you confer. It may be only a small matter, but it is one of passing interest. We find in this Bill for the time the use of the expression "Irish Parliament." In 1893 Amendments were moved to substitute "Parliament" for "Legislature"; "Senate" for "Legislative Council" and "House of Commons" for "Legislative Assembly." Those Amendments were resisted by the Government of Mr. Gladstone and were rejected. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite and Nationalist Members think that because this Constitution is to be glorified by high-sounding names thereby some more intrinsic importance may be attached to it. Whether the Second Chamber is called a Senate or a Legislative Council, I doubt whether there would be any more inducement to any self-respecting member of the community to take a seat in it. But whether that is of importance or not, I venture to point out that it is an indication of what the noble Marquess referred to as the undying desire for nationality which had been presented.
I am quite prepared to take this Bill as it stands and test the question of nationality by the proposals which are contained in it. The Bill creates an Irish Parliament which shall have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, and then follow a page and three-quarters of limitations, followed by Clause 3 for the prohibition of laws interfering with religious equality. I know that necessarily, in comparing this Bill with any Colonial Act, the analogy does not go further than the steps that are taken by which the authority of the English Crown and Parliament are asserted, but certainly in no act granting independent nationality could we imagine there would be clauses containing such a number of restrictions. Could any self-confident, self-reliant nation think that it was going to spring into existence when it found that it was not allowed—at any rate for a series of years—to deal with the question of land, to collect its own taxes, or for a period of six years, and even doubtfully then, to manage its own Police; that it was declared by a public Statute to be incapable of managing its Post Office, savings banks, or its friendly societies. It is not allowed to make laws dealing with treason, treason felony, alienage, naturalisation of aliens, or to deal with trade outside Ireland. It cannot even be trusted to deal
444
with its own postal services unless they are purely confined to Ireland. It may not deal with coinage, with trade marks, or merchandise marks, or copyright, or patents. It is a little difficult to imagine what the legislative functions of the Irish Parliament may be. In fact the only way in which you can arrive at what the legislative functions of this new Parliament may be is by a process of negative surmise. It is impossible to admit the idea or the principle of Irish nationality if in the very forefront of your Bill you place these restrictions, restrictions which are quite illusory and in the opinion of the minority in Ireland quite useless for the purposes of their protection and defence.
What would be the position of an Irish Prime Minister if on some future occasion there is a renewal of the Colonial Conference? Will the Prime Minister for Ireland be allowed to take part in those deliberations, or will Ireland be left unrepresented altogether? What position will the Irish Prime Minister occupy? With regard to any question of Imperial defence he would be told he was not required, and that he had better wait outside while that was discussed, and as to Customs Unions or postal facilities he would take no part. My Lords, it is impossible to conceive that a measure designed, as the noble Marquess said, to recognise the nationality of Ireland can in any degree be said to recognise that nationality if it comprises clauses of this character. It is easy enough for members of your Lordships' House or of the House of Commons to say that new conditions will prevail in Ireland and that they accept this Bill. They may say so at the present moment, but it is not so long since that we heard a very different cry. I make no reference to what has been said, but by what possible means can you accept that on the assurance of men who, as they know full well, have no right to bind their successors in the least degree?
On this question of Ireland as a nation I would like to ask the Government for some further information as to the position which will be occupied by the Lord Lieutenant under the future conditions. To say the least of it, he is placed in a somewhat ambiguous position. Under certain conditions he has to act on the advice of his Irish Ministers; under another clause of the Bill as now presented he is to act

445
on the instructions of the English Ministers. This we are told is one of the principal safeguards. It needs no great stretch of imagination to see that the position of the Lord Lieutenant might very easily, and very probably would, become an extremely difficult one. Your Lordships can easily picture to yourselves the position of a Parliament fettered by these restrictions; but however much they may be fettered in legislation there is apparently nothing whatsoever in the Bill to fetter them in administration, and on the whole the danger which many who are well qualified to speak apprehend Loin this measure is not the danger of legislation but the far greater danger of administration. Say on, some small question of administration the advice of the Irish Ministers is one way and the instructions of the Imperial Ministers are another. It is not very difficult to imagine that a deadlock will ensue, and if the instructions came from His Majesty's present advisers, among whose many qualities courage is not one, in all probability they would at once defer to the advice of the Irish Ministers. But I hope that still further information will be accorded to us in the course of this debate as to what the duties and the responsibilities of the chief Executive officer in Ireland are to be.
I hope that it may be possible during this debate for further information to be given to us as to how the reserved services are to be administered. As your Lordships are aware, the reserved services cover rather an extended area, to say the least of it—land purchase, the collection of taxes, the Constabulary, and the savings bank. The definite question which I would like to ask is this, Who is to be responsible to the Imperial Parliament for the administration of these services? Some answers have been given in the House of Commons, but there is apparently the greatest ambiguity on that subject. I believe that the Chief Secretary did make some rather general reply to the effect that a Minister would answer any question which might arise, but it is not only the case of a Minister answering Questions across the floor of the House of Commons. That Minister must have the means of getting information and of carrying out the duties of these reserved services, and the bald question which I should like to ask is, Is it the intention of the Government that Dublin Castle should continue
446
to exist in order to provide work and occupation for the Chief Secretary for Ireland? Under the Act it is quite clear that there must be, I will not say in your Lordships' House, but in the Imperial Parliament, somebody who is able to deal with the ordinary questions of administration. We are, I think, entitled to know what is the view of the Government in this respect. It is not my intention, and I hope it is not necessary for me, to go into the constitution of this Bill, because I desire to base my advice to your Lordships to reject this measure on the great fundamental ground that this Bill cannot possibly bring a solution of the question. I hope I have said enough to convince your Lordships that as far as Irish nationality is concerned it is unreasonable to expect that any self-respecting or self-reliant nation should be satisfied with the proposals to which I have already referred.
I should like to turn to the Imperial aspect of this question. As the noble Marquess informed us, there had been a variety of views on the question of the retention of the Irish Members. In 1886, eighty Irish representatives were to be returned to the House of Commons, and the Irish representative Peers were to cease to sit in your Lordships' House. In 1893 there were to be eighty Irish representatives in the House of Commons, and twenty-eight Irish Peers. These were not to vote or deliberate on purely British matters. That is what was generally known as the "in and out" clause, and it was subsequently abandoned. Now we are to have forty-two Irish Members in the House of Commons. The noble Marquess informed us that the number of forty-two was fixed because Mr. Pitt had advised it. I am afraid until I have had further opportunities of studying Mr. Pitt's reasons it is impossible for me to say whether those reasons are sufficient to commend themselves to your Lordships. There is also another question the noble Marquess referred to. One of the most extraordinary provisions in this most remarkable Bill is, I think, that in certain conditions—I admit possibly most improbable conditions—it is contemplated that the Imperial Parliament shall issue an Order in Council summoning a delegation of twenty-two Members to the House of Commons—twenty-two in addition to the forty-two who will be already sitting there. How, or why, the Executive of the Imperial

447
Parliament should be the best authority to judge of the names and the qualifications and the capacity of the delegation which it is to choose one fails to understand. One would have thought that, if a delegation were to come at all, it might have been chosen by the people whom it was going to represent. But as far as I am aware this delegation is to be nominated, not by the Irish House of Commons, but by the English House of Commons.
This question of the retention of the Irish Members has been dealt with often, and I do not know that there is very much more to be said on the subject; but I venture to quote a speech which was made some years ago by the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Morley) when he spoke at Newcastle on April 22, 1886. I should like to quite candidly explain to the noble Viscount that I am not using this quotation as a charge of inconsistency. I have no wish to endeavour to score a cheap Parliamentary point by pointing out that in the year 1886 he advocated one course and is supporting a diametrically opposite course to-day. There is one further explanation. I think it fair to quote this pretty well in full and to give the full sense of the importance with which I wish to rely upon it although special reference is made to circumstances which are not apparent to us to-day. My reason for making this quotation is that I believe that nowhere in the English language is there a more striking condemnation, not of any one particular set of proposals, but of the general proposition which is now before your Lordships. The noble Viscount said—
"I do not care what precautions you take. I do not care where you draw the line in theory; but you may depend upon it—I predict—that there is no power on earth that can prevent the Irish Members in such circumstances from being in the future Parliament what they were in the past, and what, to some extent, they are in the present, the arbiters and masters of the English policy, of English legislative business, and of the rise and fall of British Administrations. You will have weakened by the withdrawal of able men the Legislature of Dublin, and you will have demoralised the Legislature at Westminster. We know very well what that demoralisation means, for I beg you to mark attentively the use to which the Irish Members would inevitably put their votes—inevitably and naturally. Those who make most of the retention of the Irish Members at Westminster are also those who make most of their being what they call a real and effective and a freely and constantly exercised veto at Westminster upon the doings at Dublin."
That is as true to-day as it was then. I venture to say the circumstances of the
448
two Bills are not the same, but the general purpose of this Bill—namely, of giving powers of legislation to a separate Parliament in Dublin and of retaining Irish Members here for all purposes—is as much covered by what the noble Viscount said at Newcastle in the year 1886 as was that of the Bill of that year.
It is unnecessary for me to point out the obvious absurdity that, while we have no right or claim under the provisions of this Bill to interfere with domestic affairs in Ireland, yet at present, whatever may be the ultimate views—and I think from the final observation of the noble Marquess we can conclude that the idea of federalism is by no means fully developed as yet and that we will have to wait some time before we see that development—whatever may be the ultimate views of the Government with regard to federalism, the Irish Members will, if this Bill becomes law, have as much right to interfere with the domestic affairs of England, Scotland, and Wales as they have to-day. Those who base their justification of a policy of this sort on the ground that the Imperial Parliament will thereby gain relief must, I think, be doomed to feelings of considerable disappointment. The noble Marquess opposite made a few allusions to the financial proposals of this Bill. I am afraid I cannot agree with him that they are comparatively simple once they are explained. I have done my best to comprehend them and to look at them purely from a business point of view, but it has been impossible for me to realise or appreciate their full importance. I know the House will be glad to hear that my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn who will, I understand, speak first to-morrow, will devote himself to a discussion of those proposals. In those circumstances it is not necessary for me to go into any great detail. I will only make one observation on the general character of the proposals. As your Lordships know, a Committee was appointed by the Government, under the Chairmanship of a most distinguished Civil servant, to investigate this question and draw up a series of suggestions for the guidance of the Government. Many of your Lordships know that a Committee tinder the guidance of Sir H. Primrose would not do its work in any way except thoroughly and conscientiously. But that Report was rejected, and up to the present, and I presume for some time longer, the

449
evidence and that Report are not to be published. I do not think that is a very satisfactory starting-point for the financial arrangements between the two countries.
I will do no more than briefly indicate what are, to my mind, some of the inherent vices of the scheme. It is complicated and involved, and, as far as one can see, contains no inducement whatsoever to administrative or effective economy. The responsibility is divided, and there is, as the noble Marquess told us, a novel principle introduced into this Bill—namely, that of the Joint Exchequer Board. As far as one can gather the duties and the obligations of that Board are contained in this Bill itself, but the Bill contains no provision for either the salaries or the management of the work of that Board. I can only presume, from that not being provided by the Bill, that it is the deliberate intention of the Government that the Joint Exchequer Board should be over and above the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Treasury. There are apparently no means under the Bill by which the action of that Board can be brought before tee House of Commons and discussed. That is a principle entirely contrary to our existing Constitution and usages. I am not going to dilate upon the merits or demerits of our present financial system, but at any rate in theory, and I hope in practice, it is impossible that money should be voted for any service unless it is expressly voted to that service by a resolution of the House of Commons. Furthermore, under our financial system as it has grown up and developed it is the duty of the House of Commons to trace that money through its various courses and see tint it has been spent in the way Parliament directed. That principle, again, is entirely ignored under the Bill. These financial proposals contain a principle hitherto condemned in this country. Certain services have to be paid for and the money is handed over in a lump sum to the Irish Exchequer, but there is no obligation on.the Irish Parliament to spend that money on the services for which it was designed to be spent by the English Parliament. That system is bound to lead to waste, and, I venture to think, to extravagance. It is a system which cannot possibly lead to proper control either by the Departments concerned or by the House of Commons in the future.
450
Then, again, it has always been alleged by the supporters of the Home Rule movement that, though Ireland was a poor country and England a rich one, the poorer neighbour necessarily had to live up to the standard of her richer sister. There may or may not be truth in that. There is great probability that there is much to be said for the contention, but the point I wish to make now is this. Assuming that to be true, and that economies can be effected in Irish administration, should not the first charge upon such economies be the deficit which is placed on the people of this country? But until three years, at any rate, have elapsed no revision can take place, and it is impossible that the English taxpayer will get any relief in respect of that deficit, whilst he has no reason whatsoever to expect that Ireland will make any contribution to her own defence and to that of Great Britain or the Empire as a whole. This system is complicated; it may possibly involve the erection of costly Customs barriers both in this country and in Ireland. If the Irish Government availed themselves of the powers which they would possess under this Bill to vary Customs within certain limits, it would be necessary that this costly system should be set up. I venture to say that on the question of finance as well as upon the questions of administration and Parliament itself little or no justification has been advanced by the supporters of this measure. It certainly does not satisfy the demands of many Irishmen; it certainly does not relieve the Imperial Parliament of many of its labours and yet, my Lords, this is a Bill which the Government are attempting to force through a mutilated Parliament, a Parliament which they are under a debt of honour to reconstitute and which, by their own admission, is not capable of dealing with questions of this magnitude.
The Government are attempting to force this Bill through Parliament clearly without any expressed mandate from the country, and, moreover, when—and this is to some extent in reply to the question with which the noble Marquess concluded his speech—judged by all the ordinary standards Ireland is happy, contented, and prosperous. Further than that, the Government are attempting to drive this Bill through and to impose it upon a portion of the country which certainly by every means it has in its power has shown that it will resist it to

451
the utmost. It is not for me to say whether Ulster is right or wrong. Ulster has spoken emphatically for itself. But at any rate you, the Government, have no right to ignore the question or to treat their protestations as mere "bluff." You and you alone have got to take the responsibility for your actions. You cannot claim that you do not know the real facts of the case. They are perfectly plain to you, and whatever may be the result you and you alone are responsible. I admit that, big as this subject is, far reaching as its consequences are, it has not been possible for me to do adequate justice to those who desire to maintain the union of the two kingdoms, but I trust I have said enough to justify myself in making this Motion to your Lordships and I trust most emphatically that your Lordships will reject this Bill on Second Reading.
Amendment moved—
To leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months").—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, in rising to take part in this debate my mind naturally goes back to the debate which took place in this House on the Home Rule Bill of 1893. On that occasion I had the honour of seconding the late Duke of Devonshire when he moved the rejection of the Bill. It is a great pleasure to me on this occasion to perform the same duty for my noble friend who has just sat down. The measure which is now under consideration differs in many respects from the Home Rule Bill of 1893, but having listened with the greatest possible admiration to the eloquent and able speech of my noble friend, and also having studied the debates which have taken place in another place, it appears to me that the arguments against Home Rule, strong as they were twenty years ago, are even stronger now. I think this Bill is likely to be shattered by the power of oratory used against it by those who are attacking it, while owing to the structure of the measure it places those who are defending it in a very weak and untenable position.
Having studied this measure I cannot discover from any of the provisions of the Bill what material benefit can be derived to any part of Ireland. It has many objections; it bristles with points and provisions which are likely to lead to irritation between Great Britain and Ireland, and cannot possibly prove of any material benefit to
452
the latter country. There is no finality about the Bill. I think even the most ardent supporter of the measure would write in the largest letters across every page of it, "Want of finality." You have heard many arguments in support of it. The most persuasive argument which has been used was by the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Admiralty on the introduction of the Bill, when the Prime Minister and the First Lord foreshadowed the scheme which I suppose is looming in the distance. We were led to believe that this wide and important measure is preliminary and fragmentary in comparison with the much larger and wider scheme of extending local self-government to different parts of Great Britain and Wales. The noble Marquess made some allusion to this in the course of his speech this evening, but he did not go quite so far as his colleagues in the other House.
We heard something about possible Houses of Parliament, not only for Scotland, but for York and Lancaster and the Midland counties of England and for ninny other parts of Great Britain. I have been looking forward with considerable interest to hear something further with regard to this scheme which apparently His Majesty's Government had in their mind. I am bound to confess the first thing that struck me was this—that if you are considering a scheme for further extending local self-government to England and Wales, why do you not now take into serious consideration the demands of the province of Ulster? Ulster, as the noble Marquess stated, is different in race and in many ways from the South and other parts of Ireland, and I cannot imagine why the claims of Ulster are not considered when the loyalists of Ulster, who represent the commercial enterprise, wealth, and energy of Ireland, implore to be allowed to remain under the government of Great Britain under which they have lived, thrived, and prospered beyond all expectations. After this persuasive argument, the most persuasive I have heard for this Bill, I cannot help thinking that the self-government scheme is in the very dim future, and in all probability will receive the same sort of treatment at the hands of His Majesty's Government as they have thought fit to mete out in the Preamble of the Parliament Act.
The first question I put to myself is, Who wants this measure? Of course, we all know that the answer from the opposite

453
side is that this measure has been produced because of the desire on the part of the Parliamentary representatives from Ireland. I may appear to be presumptuous in venturing to express an opinion and a conviction which I hold very strongly and which I formed in Ireland, that the cry for Home Rule does not emanate from the democracy of Ireland. During the time of my Viceroyalty in Ireland I took special trouble to ascertain as far as possible the genuine feeling of the people. It is, I know perfectly well, some years since I had the honour to be officially connected with Ireland, and perhaps I am speaking of what might very well and properly be termed somewhat ancient history; but during my term of office I did my best to ascertain the feeling of the country. I made extensive tours through what had recently been the most disaffected districts, and I think my noble friend Lord Londonderry, whom I succeeded in the Lord Lieutenancy, will bear me out that at any rate during the whole part of his Viceroyalty some of the districts in certain parts of Ireland were very disaffected.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: We heard of crimes of the most diabolical character taking place almost daily. I need not dwell upon that now; but owing to the firm administration of my noble friend, with Mr. Arthur Balfour as Chief Secretary for Ireland, and also the sympathetic administration in doing what they could to develop the industries of the country, which firm administration was carried on throughout the six years the Conservative Party were in office, that phase of things and the unsatisfactory condition of the country almost entirely disappeared. The noble Marquess opposite succeeded me, and almost immediately after his taking up office either he himself or the Chief Secretary gave public expression to the absolute peace which they found the country to be in at that time.
I will venture to tell your Lordships what my experience was in travelling through districts which had very recently been in an extremely unsatisfactory condition. I took every opportunity of conversing not only with people connected with the Irish Government but people connected with and living in those particular districts. The answer I received was invariably the same. A Roman
454
Catholic priest, amongst others in the country on whom I called and who offered me hospitality, in the course of conversation on general political affairs gave me this answer, "The people about here"—and I think he said "and throughout the whole of the country"—"are sick to death of political agitation and their one desire is to be allowed to live in peace." This answer was invariably given to me on every occasion and in every district I travelled through. Of course, that was in the year 1891; but I was very much struck by a speech delivered in the House of Commons by a personal friend of my own in the course of the debate on either the Second or Third Reading of this Bill. It so bears out the opinion I formed from my own experience that I should like to read a short extract from the official report of that speech. I refer to General Sir Reginald Pole-Carew. He said—
"I have the honour of living in Ireland when I am not in this country, and I live in the South of Ireland. We have heard a great deal about the North in these debates and very little about the South. My humble experience in the South of Ireland is that, so far from Home Rule being likely to give contentment to five-sixths of the people….even in the South of Ireland, if the hon. and gallant gentleman were to live as I do among farmers and go about and talk to them—I grant you singly, because if you get two together they dare not give an opinion—if you get them alone they tell you they are living now in fear and dread of getting Home Rule."
The speech of my hon. and gallant friend in the House of Commons completely bears out the opinions which I formed myself. I entirely agree with his statement that you get much more genuine information from conversing with people in Ireland individually rather than collectively, for reasons which must be well appreciated and understood by my noble friends from Ireland, whom I see around inc. Those people who suffered the tortures of being boycotted and the terrorism of the moonlighter or the hired assassin are not likely easily to forget the experience which they have been through. Furthermore, I greatly fear that under the most favourable of circumstances yet another generation may pass away before people in certain parts of Ireland entirely recover from the intimidation which was brought to bear upon them under the auspices and at the instigation of the National League.
Now I should like to turn my attention to one or two provisions of this Bill. Every clause of the Bill is open to attack,

455
and it is impossible for me in the time I have at my command to go through at any length the various clauses. I should like to call attention to one—the proposal to retain in the British House of Parliament forty-two Irish Members. I think here we might have very great difficulties to contend with, inasmuch as you would have sitting in the House of Commons forty-two Irish Members with full powers, not only to take part in the debates, but to vote on matters which do not belong to Ireland and relate simply to Great Britain and Wales. Whether that would be a cause for irritation is more a question for the House of Commons; but I think there is a much more important point to consider. I presume His Majesty's Government have two chief reasons for introducing this Bill. One I have already alluded to—because they wish to meet the desires of the majority of the Parliamentary representatives from Ireland. Another reason, I take it, is that they wish to alleviate in some way the congestion of business in the House of Commons. I am quite sure that all of us will sympathise with any attempt to lighten the burden of the hard-worked Members of Parliament at the present time, but I trust we are not for ever going to live under the present regimé. I trust that every session of Parliament is not likely to be of from nine to fifteen months duration, and that we shall not for ever be under a Government afflicted with so insatiable a thirst for experimental legislation. I trust that the Parliamentary representatives for Great Britain may not in the future be so heavily burdened with work as they are now. I am one of those who have very great confidence in the sound sense of the people of England, and before very long I hope a different state of things may be brought about.
I am speaking from memory, but I rather think Mr. Gladstone spoke very strongly against any such proposal for the Irish representation in the House of Commons. I think he went so far as to say that in his opinion the result of such procedure would be that the predominant Parliament would be in Dublin and the Parliament at Westminster would occupy a subordinate position. I think it very probable that such might be the case. The Irish Members would have every opportunity of taking an active part in the debates in the House of Commons, and they might produce a similar state of things to what we are
456
witnessing at this moment. We have had a good deal of experience lately of a Government supported by a majority consisting of minorities. If there are forty-two Members I imagine there would possibly be thirty-two Nationalists to ten Unionists, and it is quite within the range of possibility that we might again see a similar phase to the one that has now arisen. I have said already there is no finality to this Bill. In due course of time the Irish Parliament will pass their Bill, or whatever the mode of procedure may be, asking for further extensions of the present Bill. I do not know whether the Radical Party in the future will act on the principles they are acting on now, but if they do you will again be approached by the Irish Members, of course in a thoroughly constitutional manner, saying that under certain circumstances they hope soon to see the severance of the legislative tie which connects Ireland with Great Britain, and if they act in the same way it must end in the separation of Ireland and Great Britain.
I should like to say a very few words with regard to what I think is the most important question of all, that is with regard to the North of Ireland. The loyalists of Ulster, as I have said, represent the wealth, energy, and commercial enterprise of Ireland, and they have expressed in the most unmistakable terms their loathing and abhorrence of the very idea of this Bill. They beg and implore to be allowed to continue under the Parliament of the United Kingdom. They have proved their loyalty to us over and over again. Are you going to kick these people out and drive them from the United Kingdom against their will to live under a Government which they look forward to with loathing and abhorrence? I say that if by any dire contingency His Majesty's Government continue in the wild course they appear to be adopting, and if by any sad disaster they attempt to compel by force of arms these loyalists of Ulster to be driven out from the United Kingdom, they will be endeavouring an impossible task. These men enjoy the sympathy and the practical support of the entire Unionist Party; and if it comes to bloodshed in Ireland those who will be most guilty of plunging that country into a state of chaos, disorder, and ruin will be those on the opposite Bench who have not the courage to face a difficult situation in time. I beg to second the Motion that my noble friend has moved.
LORD LANGFORD: My Lords, we are all very much obliged to the noble Marquess for the historical facts which he put before us at the commencement of his speech. I would first like to ask him this question, Is the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under this Bill to be the representative of the King.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Certainly he is.
LORD LANGFORD: That is rather an important point, because at the present moment the King's representative has to be a member of the Protestant faith. Do you propose under the Bill that a Protestant King may be represented by a Roman Catholic. Is that so?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes, that is certainly so.
LORD LANGFORD: We have had from the noble Marquess and the noble Duke two very interesting speeches. I do not propose to discuss any of the clauses of this Bill. My main motive in rising is to support the noble Duke's Motion. He gave us a complete analysis of what the Bill is. The noble Marquess said that he supposed he would hear in the course of the debate that certain portions of the Bill had not been discussed by the other House. As a matter of fact, I think 120 lines of it were discussed, and 1,400 lines of it Lever were discussed at all.
We have been told several times that this Bill is asked for by the Irish Party because they wish Ireland to become a nation. If we follow legislation we find that both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party in this country laid it down as a great principle that the two denominations in Ireland should be on equal terms, and now in this Bill we who are living on equal terms with the other denomination are to have that taken away from us. I do not wish to say anything that would hurt the feelings of Roman Catholics. I live surrounded by them and am on the very best terms with them, but I live on the very best terms with them for the very reason that we are all living under the Imperial Parliament. The Nationalist Party are very optimistic, and I think the Liberal Party are equally so. We are asked to believe that Ireland will become entirely changed. We are asked to put
458
aside all the old phases of history, and the old periods of agitation and intimidation—which I have never suffered from myself, but which people do suffer from in some parts of Ireland—we are asked to put aside all that and to believe that Ireland is going to become like any other country. I am afraid we should require very great faith to be able to do that. I go further, speaking not only for the Protestant minority in the country but to a very large extent for a great many Roman Catholic friends and Roman Catholic farmers. We heard just now, what we in Ireland know so well, that when you talk to people individually they are very glad to tell you that they do not wish this legislation, and. I will take it upon myself to speak in that sense. There are a great many who want to enjoy the material benefits of living under the Imperial Parliament and who do not want to put themselves under the bane of a Parliament of their own in Dublin.
I was very glad to hear the noble Duke take up the English point, because there is not only an Irish point to this Home Rule question. There is a very strong English point too. Surely among other things it means the breaking up of the United Kingdom absolutely. The noble Marquess who introduced the Bill read a quotation from Lord Rosebery showing that Lord Rosebery at a certain time advocated Home Rule for Scotland. Are we to understand from that that the Government are going to bring in Home Rule all round, and that this is the first instalment? I wonder what Scotland would say to an instalment of this description, fettered and limited and tied. We are told to trust Ireland and to trust the people of Ireland, but you by your Bill show that you distrust them from the very first clause to the last. The Irish people are not to be allowed even to collect their own taxes. I do not like to read from speeches as a rule, but I want to read one little statement reported to have been made by the Leader of the Nationalist Party when the Unionist Government passed the Local Government Act of 1898. This is one of the greatest foundations of our distrust. This is what Mr. John Redmond is reported to have said on September 13, 1898—
"We desire toleration in the public life of Ireland. For my part, and I know I speak in the name of the Parnellites of Dublin, I would be willing to give them a fair, I would even say a generous, share of representation."

459
Now turn to the other side of that and see what is the result of the Local Government Act. There are 952 Nationalist members of county councils in Ireland. And what number have we got? We have 130. That is the sort of thing we have got to face. Human nature never can resist spoils. They rushed in and got elected, and having got elected they have kept there and nearly the whole of the administrative power of Ireland at this moment is centred in the Nationalist Party. Now they want to get all the legislative power as well. I ask any fair-minded man to say whether we have not got some cause to complain and to resent and try and stop what will be under this Bill our political and administrative disruption altogether. No man in any Party—I do not care who he is—can control the spoils and what other people want.
I want to give four very salient reasons why I am going to vote in support of the noble Duke's Motion and against this Bill. I shall vote against it first because it is a Bill without a clear mandate from the people. It was brought in to satisfy a debt, and because the Nationalist Party went into the Lobby and supported the Budget of 1909. This is the first payment of the debt under the Parliament Act and a shattered Constitution. The second reason I am going to vote against it is that such a vast change ought not to be carried without an appeal to the electorate of this country. I cannot understand the Government, in a great constitutional question of this sort, maintaining that they are governing for the people and yet not allowing the people to have a voice in this question, which not only affects this country and Ireland, but the whole of the Empire. The Leader of the Opposition in another place said that if we went to a General Election and the General Election was against us we would accept the decision. My third point is that the passing of this Bill would mean the breaking up of the United Kingdom; and my fourth point is that it would not be a message of peace to Ireland.
Do you for one moment suppose, these clauses being drawn as they are and all these obstacles put in the way, with a separate Parliament and an Executive responsible to that Parliament and with forty-two Members sitting in the Imperial House of Commons, that this Home Rule Bill if it passed would be received as any-
460
thing else but an instalment of future action? It is obvious that the safeguards which the noble Marquess read out to us are only so much waste paper. The whole danger of the Bill and the whole strength of the Bill lie in the separate Parliament and in the Executive under its control. I believe that there are, as I said just now, plenty of my Roman Catholic friends in Ireland who do not want the Bill but who have not the courage themselves to come out and say so and join issue with us and live contentedly on what the Imperial Parliament is willing to do for them.
LORD ABERCONWAY: My Lords, I do not attach very great importance to Home Rule as an instrument for the final reform of social or political life in Ireland, but having taken part in public life since 1880 in the House of Commons and having seen the transformation of the Irish question since Mr. Gladstone brought in his first Home Rule Bill, I am confident that the question must be solved in the direction of giving Ireland a certain amount of political independence. I was struck by the tone in which this debate was opened to-night and by the calm consideration which noble Lords are bringing to bear upon this complicated question, contrasting with the somewhat excited, I was going to say hysterical, enunciations on both sides to which we used to listen in the House of Commons five-and-twenty years ago. The feuds of centuries have been laid at rest, and this question of Irish Government is discussed now from a businesslike point of view. We no longer talk of the massacres of Elizabeth and Cromwell or of the dynamite conspiracies of Ford and the Fenians in the 'eighties.
The question has now reached a point at which it appears to me a practical solution is possible. Ireland has become a sane and a sober nation. The delirium of centuries has vanished, violence has disappeared, and both political Parties are prepared to consider what compared with former demands is a moderate and reasonable measure of reform. I should think there are not six noble Lords in this House who have voted for both Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bills as I have done. I have been in pretty close touch with the feeling of the country as a Member of the House of Commons for many years on this

461
question, and I venture to say that after twenty-seven years of animated and full discussion the country is perfectly ripe for a measure of this kind. Every card has been played on both sides for and against Home Rule, and if I am asked what is the real opinion of the country on this question, quite apart from by-elections and from the majority in the present House of Commons, I should say that the opinion of the average man in the street is one of comparative indifference to Home Rule. He is rather sick of the subject and regards it as a thing that must come to pass, and he is only anxious for it to be carried with as little friction and as little violence to the Constitution as possible. He looks upon the altered social condition of Ireland, upon the increase of educatior amongst the people; he knows that Ireland is vastly richer than it was a generation ago; he knows that agrarian crime has almost ceased, that land legislation has entirely transformed the political currents of opinion in Ireland; and with 300,000 peasant proprietors owning and farming their own land, with a multitude of old-age pensioners, the average Englishman thinks, and justly thinks, that you have a great conservative body of opinion in Ireland which will secure Ireland in future from all revolutionary propaganda. In fact, I believe that if you had Home Rule you would find in another generation that Ireland was one of the most stolidly conservative countries in Europe, which is always the case where you have a large body of peasants owning the land which they farm. This will constitute an army of defence against all rash innovations; it will secure the British connection. It will do more than that; it will create a new party cleavage in Ireland. The Nationalist Party will disappear, and you will have instead a party of the country and probably a party of the town, and you will no longer be faced in this country with those problems of separation which have done so much to prejudice this question for more than a generation.
Further than that, your average Englishman dislikes the present Parliamentary situation. He feels that the Irish in the House of Commons are not "playing the game" as he has been brought up to think it ought to be played. Every man who has sat in the House of Commons knows exactly what I mean. He knows that the
462
Irish may be in the House of Commons but they are not of the House of Commons; they do not sympathise with our Constitution, and what is more both sides of the House dislike—and the noble Duke gave forcible expression to-day of that dislike—any idea of the Irish holding the balance in our Constitution. The Irish to-day can make a Ministry or they can unmake a Ministry, and it is perfectly notorious that the present Government could not hold office and carry their legislative programme if it were not for the pledges the Irish Party have given to support them. That is not a political situation which commends itself to the average Englishman, nor does he like the over representation of Ireland in the House of Commons. He dislikes the small constituencies, and the fact that Ireland should return Members who can outvote Members representing the largest industrial centres in this country. He remembers the achievements of the Irish in the past in the way of obstructing legislation, and the congestion of business and the guillotine, all of which are rendered necessary by the present congestion which is caused by the presence of the Irish and the insistence of Irish demands in our British House of Commons. On the other hand he, or his father, has seen during the last century no less than twenty-eight independent Legislatures created in the British Empire, and all those have been created without friction and with complete loyalty to the Empire, and he thinks why should he be afraid of another? Twenty-nine will not make very much difference. Then, again, he has seen the Union of South Africa, one of the most startling experiments in our history, successfully carried out—far more dangerous and startling, as it was said to be at the time, than any measure of Home Rule which is likely to be given to Ireland. That is an extreme case, but we all remember the language which was used by Mr. Balfour in the House of Commons on the South African Confederation. He prophesied untold evils none of which have come to pass, and I fancy that the average Englishman takes the same view of the dangers of separation that he has been told so much about, and that he disbelieves in them.
The question of Home Rule to-day has, I am glad to say, been approached entirely from the point of view of detail. The noble

463
Duke, whose very interesting speech opened the door to speculations as to the future policy of his Party in case the Conservatives should again soon hold office, said nothing to startle the country on the question of separation. He abandoned the old warning that home Rule must mean the disintegration of the Empire, and wisely; because I venture to say that all reasonable politicians have now abandoned that idea. He dealt with the question entirely upon details. He said the Bill was unworkable; but he admitted by implication that a workable Bill could be produced, that Home Rule was possible, and I hoped to hear something from him as to what he would have considered a rational and workable Bill. His criticisms were mainly directed to the shortcomings of the Bill before us. As far as I could gather, he considered that the Bill did not go far enough. He objected to the reservations he referred to, and in fact there was not one of his points that could not be answered by this—that if the Bill went no further than it did it was because the Irish representatives were content with it as it stands. They have got what they asked for, and if noble Lords opposite are discontented with the small measure of justice Ireland appears to them to have received, let them refer to the Irish representatives and ask them whether or not they are content.
One can hardly help remembering the history of the Conservative Party in connection with Home Rule, and when one does so there is quite a good deal of light thrown upon the line evidently going to be taken by noble Lords on this debate. In 1885 Lord Salisbury and Lord Carnarvon undoubtedly entered into certain negotiations with Mr. Parnell which might in certain circumstances have led up to some measure of Home Rule. In 1902 and 1903 Mr. Balfour and Mr. George Wyndham were engaged upon a somewhat similar enterprise, and noble Lords will remember that in 1910, when the Veto Conference was proceeding, from which we moderate men hoped for so much but which unfortunately failed, it was notorious that negotiations were at all events considered by the Conservative Party with a view to bringing in some scheme of Home Rule which was then to be called devolution. Noble Lords have only to refer to the newspapers published at that time to see that nearly every Unionist newspaper dis-
464
cussed the question calmly and fairly with a view to getting some measure of devolution which would practically amount to Home Rule. Surely this is an occasion on which the Unionist Party might take the country into their confidence and tell us how far they would be prepared to go with a scheme of devolution. They cannot think that by rejecting this Bill they bang and bolt the door against Home Rule in any shape or form. Quite apart from the Parliament Act, they must feel that this question has got to be solved by legislation, and having abandoned the hard and fast idea adopted by some of their supporters that Home Rule means Rome Rule and disintegration of the Empire, they might let us know what measure they would support if they were in power.
But why reject this Bill on Second Reading? It is capable of amendment. No one has suggested that it is a perfect measure, and this House has some weeks during which it might devote itself to reshaping the Bill, except, of course, so far as the financial provisions are concerned, and letting the country know how far they are prepared to go in the direction of Home Rule. I should imagine from a purely Party point of view and for embarrassing the House of Commons you could not do a more skilful act than hang up the Bill for some weeks and send it back to the House of Commons somewhat drastically amended. Personally I should not like to see the Government embarrassed, but having regard to the present position under the Parliament Act and the relations of the two Houses it is perfectly clear that the simple rejection of this Bill would not retard the cause of Home Rule, and it would probably prevent any modified measure being introduced which might satisfy noble Lords opposite.
The question of religious prejudice has, I am glad to think, not been referred to in this House. It was used for all it was worth in the House of Commons, but to-day it no longer appeals to anybody. Ulster, a prosperous Province of Ireland is largely Protestant, but at least one-half of the inhabitants are Catholic, and we do not believe for one moment that the cause of Protestantism in Ulster or in Ireland would suffer by Home Rule. I sympathise with the Protestant element in Ulster. I think they are men whose help

465
and influence is an Irish Parliament would be of the highest value. We do not intend to injure Ulster. The reservations giving the House of Commons certain control are quite enough to protect Ulster from any attempt to treat her unjustly; and, after all, Ulster is not the richest Province in Ireland. She comes second to Leinster, and her population has diminished by emigration by something like a million during the last fifty years; and, further, Ulster has made out no case for exceptional treatment, and the Bill does as much justice to Ulster as to any other Province.
The criticisms to-night show that really, so far from having omitted to safeguard Ulster, the Government have gone almost too far in protecting minorities. Complaints were made that an Irish flag might fly on College Green, but as has been pointed oat a Welsh flag has been seen flying in Downing Street and a Scottish flag over Dover House at the Scottish Office. There is no doubt that the Irish Catholic constituencies will, as hitherto, send Protestants to Parliament, and those of us who have lived through a generation of this question feel that now the Nationalist demands are moderate, and both Parties are forgetting feuds, and that the condition of Ireland has so materially changed, this House would he doing a wise thing in accepting the principle of the Bill, and if possible amending it in some of its details, and not lose this great opportunity of placing itself once more in line with a popular movement. If I may venture to say so as a new member of this House, for this House to place itself in a position of constant antagonism to public questions which have been debated for a generation and which are now in process of solution does not conduce to its influence in the country, and every man on whichever side of the House he sit must feel that he has in his heart a desire to make the House of Lords a legislative unit of the Constitution in harmony with the drift of popular opinion. Holding the views I do on this subject, I venture to hope that before this debate has come to an end there may be some change in the attitude of the Leaders of the Party opposite towards this Bill, and that the Bill may, after all, be read a second time.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter to eight and resumed at nine o'clock.]
LORD KILMAINE: My Lords, so much will be said later by the numerous speakers to follow that I do not propose to go into any of the bad points of this Bill. Before the debate is finished they are certain to be adequately dealt with, if not exhaustively. I think no one will deny that this Bill may correctly be described as bristling with bad points. So much so that I think almost any committee of impartial men could devise a better Bill, if they set their minds to it, than the one now before your Lordships' House. But quite outside the merits or demerits of this measure, the outstanding fact remains that it has been framed and designed entirely in the interests of one section of the Irish people and against the interests of the other section. Any Bill framed without the consent of both sections of the Irish population must, according to my mind, be foredoomed to failure. Let it once become law, and then I think it will be an absolute disaster.
My Lords, who wants Home Rule? I have no doubt that Mr. Redmond would tell us, as he has been telling the English people, that the great Irish race, at home and abroad, are simply panting for this measure. As for the Irish abroad, I am not competent to speak; but I do say this, that this Bill concerns the Irish who live in Ireland far more than it does the Irish who live out of Ireland. What. about the Irish who live in Ireland? Is it proved that the great Irish race at home are panting for this measure? In the first place, the minority of that Irish race have ever since this Bill was first suggested expressed by every means in their power their determined hostility towards it. That leaves us with a majority of 3,000,000 or so of so-called Irish Nationalists. What is the truth about them? It is open to anybody who cares to brave the terrors of the Irish Channel to go over to Ireland and find that out for himself. He will see a great deal in a week, and hear more. For my own part, all I can say is that I have been living in Ireland continuously for the past nine months, and to the best of my knowledge and belief there is no genuine enthusiasm whatever for this measure but a considerable amount of enthusiasm against it.
I will quote to your Lordships, if you will allow me, some words from the recent Manifesto of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland issued in December last; but

467
before I do so I had better, perhaps, say that I am not an Orangeman myself and not even a Mason, but I quote the words simply because they express and coincide entirely with my own personal view on the subject. The words have reference to this present Bill, and they are as follow—
"Its only real friends in Ireland are men too ignorant to understand its ruinous consequences to their country; or men who, baring nothing to lose, think they have everything to gain by revolution; or, further, men who hope to use it to extort from England fresh concessions even more consistent with their anti-English sentiments."
The first two classes, those who are too ignorant to understand the Bill and its ruinous consequences to their country and those who have nothing to lose and think they have everything to gain, comprise the bulk of the agricultural supporters of this measure. If you go into any of the rural parts of Ireland you will find plenty of people ready to shout for Home Rule; but if you ask them what they are shouting for, all they can answer is "Home Rule." They do not know the provisions of the Bill, or anything about it in fact. They are absolutely ignorant about it. The third section are those who hope to use it to extort from England fresh concessions, and these, as far as I can make out, comprise the greater part of the educated Home Rulers. They are ready to accept this Bill, bad as they know it to be, simply as a stepping stone to something further.
Are the tenants who have purchased their farms clamouring for Home Rule Are the big traders, merchants, and business men pleading for it? Do the old-age pensioners desire it? I think not. Mr. Redmond has hinted, and other speakers have hinted, more than once lately that should this Bill not pass into law—or, to use some of the soul-stirring words that one hears, "should the cup of freedom be again dashed from the peoples' lips"—the consequences will be serious. We all know what that means. It means that Mr. Redmond and the other patriotic gentlemen associated with him will do their utmost to stir up agitation. Their efforts will doubtless meet with more or less success. Agitations are, unfortunately, still rather popular in Ireland. But whatever the agitation may be which will follow the failure of this Bill, it will be as nothing to the general upheaval that is bound to follow its passage into law. I do not wish to say a word against any of my fellow-country-
468
men, but I think it is only fair to say this—that in making a comparison between the two sections of the Irish people, surely it is not right simply to compare them on the basis of the numbers alone belonging to each section. I know that the proportion is about three to one if you compare these two sections. But if you take almost any other method of comparison besides numbers—such as education, surely the most important qualification for a people desiring self-government—the result will be different. If you take comparison by education, by progress, by industry, by loyalty to England and the Empire, you will find that in most cases it is the minority that will come out first and the majority that will come out second, and often a bad second at that. Is it right then, is it wise, is it expedient under those circumstances to try to force the minority to submit to the yoke of the majority? For if this Bill becomes law it will be a yoke and nothing but a yoke on the minority, and we of that minority are under no delusion as to what our position under this Bill will be. We for all practical purposes might just as well have no representation whatever in the proposed Irish Parliament as to be in it but without having a vestige of legislative power.
Then there is another point which I will ask noble Lords opposite who may be in favour of this measure to consider carefully before they give their vote. What is bound to be amongst the first results of the passage of this Bill? I think noble Lords are well aware of what is certain and bound to occur in Belfast and elsewhere in the North where the religious difference is very acute should this Bill become law. There will be attacks on Roman Catholics and counter attacks on Protestants, followed by wholesale and general rioting. Is it not likely that if this occurs—and it is bound to occur—the overwhelming but backward Roman Catholic population of the West and the South will be inclined, and not for the first time, to retaliate with interest on the Protestants who at present live peaceably and happily in their midst? I say this as a member of one of the small Protestant communities at present living in the West of Ireland. I live on the very best of terms with all my Roman Catholic neighbours. I have no personal reason to apprehend the passage of Home Rule, for I am in the fortunate position of being able to leave the country at any time should I

469
think it necessary to do so. Also I have sold most of my land. I have retained only some 200 acres of what we in Ireland call demesne lands, and which in my case consists mostly of rocks and rabbits, and is, therefore, not likely to excite the cupidity of enterprising Home Rulers in search of plunder.
I say that this is a very real danger, and I ask noble Lords not to dismiss it lightly. The benefits to be expected from this great measure are shrouded in obscurity, even if they exist at all. But I venture to think that the harm and misery that it is bound to cause must be obvious to any one who has eyes to see and ears to hear. If the demand for Home Rule came from a united Ireland, whatever my own personal opinions might be on the subject, whatever I might feel about it, I should be most, reluctant to speak against it; but I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the country at present is totally and entirely unfit for any such thing. The present ill-will, distrust, and bitterness which unfortunately exist between the two sections of the Irish people must first be allayed and forgotten. A short time ago this happy state of things seemed to be within measurable distance of fulfilment. The action of His present advisers has reopened the old wounds afresh and revived half-forgotten prejudices. Time, my Lords, will again heal these reopened wounds; time will repair the damage done, but only time and peace can do it. Should His Majesty's Government elect to try instead force, should they persevere with this Bill, then all I can say is that they will be deliberately letting hell loose in Ireland, and I venture to think that such action, among other things, is bound to bring on them their due reward.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I am going to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I myself cannot support the Amendment of the noble Duke, not because I think the Bill is a workable measure or because I think that it can lead to a satisfactory and therefore permanent settlement of the fish question, but simply because the Bill is conceived in recognition of the principle of devolution, a principle the adoption of which I believe to be essential for a great many reasons. I believe devolution to be necessary, not by any means only for the welfare of Ireland but for the welfare of the United Kingdom,
470
for the restoring of efficiency to Parliament, and for the permanency of representative institutions, and I do not believe that, without the adoption of the principle or devolution any scheme or any device ever will bring closer together the component parts of the Empire. It is for these reasons, my Lords, that I go so far as to, support the Second Reading of the Bill. I hope the House will do the same. I hope, at any rate, that your Lordships will not adopt an attitude of absolute sterile negation to the underlying principle on which the Bill is founded.
I was very glad to see that the noble Duke, in moving his Amendment, based it nearly altogether upon the demerits of the Bill, and did not take up an absolutely non possumus attitude towards the foundation principle of the Bill. My Lords, I would ask you in considering this question to consider the great change that has taken place since a Bill of this nature was last in your Lordships' House—a vast change for the better in Ireland and a great change for the worse over here. Thanks very largely to beneficient legislation mainly carried out by the Unionist Party in Ireland Ireland has become a new Ireland. Class animosities, due to agrarian disputes have died out. So have religious animosities arising from the same cause, though efforts to revive them have been lately made, and unfortunately with success. Ireland no longer seeks to gain her ends by violence, but employs peaceful and constitutional means. Land purchase and t he principle of conciliation have changed the whole face of the country in Ireland and the whole temper of the people. What is the change that has taken place here? To what a lamentable condition have our Parliamentary institutions become degraded. The House of Commons has ceased to be a legislative Assembly in any sense of the term. Those are the words used the other day by the Leader' of the Opposition in another place, and I do not think anybody can say they are exaggerated. The other House has ceased to be a representative Assembly in any sense of the term. This House has been mutilated out of all recognition. Party politics have degenerated into mere opportunism. One of the greatest historical Parties of the State has become a sort of patent log-rolling machine. The people's representatives in Parliament represent the Party Whips, and not the people.

471
The whole system has broken down, and the reason for the breakdown appears to me to be very obvious. In the first place, the system has broken clown because it is absolutely impossible for Parliament to deal with the multifarious mass of business that comes before it. Parliament has got to deal with the affairs of 45,000,000 of people in these islands almost clown to the minutest details. Parliament—the House of Commons—surely ought to have the opportunity, but never has the opportunity, to deal with such important matters, for instance, as the finances of India, where there are 315,000,000 of people for whom Parliament is ultimately responsible. In great matters, such as defence and protection, Parliament is the guardian of 19,000,000 of our fellow-subjects in the great oversea Dominions of the Crown. Altogether Parliament is more or less, to a greater or less degree, responsible for 414,000,000 of people, and I maintain that it is utterly impossible for this Parliament or for any one Parliament, to fulfil its duties to so great and varied an Empire as is ours.
Well, my Lords, one of two things must happen. Either Parliament must seek relief by delegation, devolution, to subordinate bodies and so raise itself to the real position of an Imperial Parliament, which it only nominally occupies now, or it must sink down to the position of an Assembly occupied with comparatively unimportant and minor affairs, whilst the expenditure of all our vast revenues and the conduct of every vital and important matter affecting the United Kingdom and the Empire will fall definitely into the hands of a small and irresponsible oligarchy, as unfortunately is the case now. The incompetence of Parliament, the natural and inevitable incompetence of Parliament, to deal with the mass of matters that comes before it is one of the causes of the breakdown; the other cause is discontent in Ireland. The Irish people are naturally a conservative people, a law-abiding people, respecting law and authority and constitutional methods. I do not mean "conservative" in the sense of belonging to this Party or any other or any section of any Party; I mean conservative in the broad sense of the term, a desire for progress and reform in preference to spasmodic attempts at revolution—I mean conservatism as a principle affecting the conduct of human affairs
472
under a democratic form of Parliament. That is the natural characteristic of Ireland. But all that is wasted and thrown away because of your refusal to deal with the natural discontent of the Irish people. Until this question of Home Rule is settled you never can have Ireland free to develop its own resources; you never will have Ireland free to take her natural and proper part in the politics of the United Kingdom; you never will have great questions affecting Great Britain and affecting the United Kingdom settled as, of course, they ought to be settled, purely on their own merits; you never will have Parliament raised to a condition in which it can give adequate and proper attention to the affairs of the Empire. Those are my reasons for voting for the Second Reading of this Bill.
The case for Home Rule seems to me to be so absolutely overwhelming that it would be almost a waste of time to argue in favour of it. It is absolutely overwhelming unless it can be proved that the grant of Home Rule would entail calamitous and fatal disasters to Great Britain, or that it would entail gross injustice. I have listened to speeches and I have read speeches—columns and columns of speeches in the newspapers—and I maintain that it cannot be proved that the grant of Home Rule would have any of those disastrous consequences. What are the usual objections raised against the principle of Home Rule? I think they are that it means the disintegration of the Empire and dismemberment of the United Kingdom; and that the Irish people are so essentially disloyal that they cannot possibly be trusted—and a curious double and self-destructive argument is used. It is said, in the first place, that the Irish people in Ireland do not want Home Rule at all; and, in the second place, that they not only want it but want it in the most extreme form. As to Home Rule meaning the dismemberment and the disintegration of the Empire, if I am anything at all in politics, which is doubtful, I am an Imperialist, and I think that the working out of that ideal to something definite has fallen to the lot of the Unionist Party. I think the Unionist Party know what Imperialism means. They see that in the Empire there is a great world power making for peace, progress, and civilisation; they want to co-ordinate the forces of the Empire, to focus the ideal, and to draw the Empire closer together; and if I understand the

473
argument, their position is that in order to do this you must have a centre, a solid nucleus, in the shape of a United Kingdom. Well, my Lords, I quite agree to that.
I think that a United Kingdom is essential as a centre of a united Empire. But when people go on to argue that the grant of Home Rule would have a disintegrating effect there, I think they are absolutely wrong. As a matter of fact, the legislative Act of Union did not produce unification. Ireland was more truly in unity with Great Britain before the Act of Union than she has ever been since. What sort of a union is it? After all, stripped of all its trappings, it is a union sanctioned by force. That is not a real union. It is a sham union, and a sham union is not a solid foundation on which to erect the fabric of Imperial unity. Now, my Lords, you ca a have a real union if you wish to have it; you can have a real union based on community of interests and on mutual respect if you undertake to allay the legitimate discontent, the political discontent, that exists in Ireland. The Imperial mission that has fallen to the lot of the Unionist Party is a great mission. But how can you possibly carry it out unless you first put your own house in order at home, and unless out of the Constitutional chaos that exists here now you produce order and stability? I shall be told in the course of the debate, I dare say, that I am talking nonsense in talking about a real union based on community of interests and affection. The argument generally is that such a union is impossible, because Ireland is disloyal to the core. My Lords, Ireland is not disloyal—discontented, certainly, but not disloyal. The argument generally is that if you grant Ireland a Parliament and an Executive subject to it, she will use that Parliament and that Executive to make her disloyalty more effective than it is now; that if we were unfortunately involved in a great war Ireland would sympathise with our enemies, and open her ports to succour them.
Ireland is not disloyal. She is discontented, but I will not quarrel about terms. Say she is disloyal; but disloyal to what—disloyal to a system of Government that was forced upon her against her will; disloyal to a legislative system under which it is impossible for her to have adequate attention given to her requirements; and disloyal to an administrative system which
474
is not suited to her and over which she has practically absolutely no control. But as to disloyalty in the sense that the charge is now made, I maintain that Ireland has never shown such disloyalty. Ireland has struggled for Ireland for the Irish, but she has never shown any desire for an invasion, and has never shown any sympathy with a foreign fleet. Strangely enough, the only exception is Belfast. Speaking of 1796 Lecky, who is a trustworthy historian, says—
"All the evidence we possess concurs in showing that the great body of the Catholics did not show the smallest wish to throw off the English rule It is a memorable fact that Cork, Galway, and Limerick, the great centres of Irish Catholicism, vied with one another in 1796 in proofs of loyalty when the French Fleet was on the coast, and it is not a less memorable fact with regard to the towns that the town which showed the worst spirit was undoubtedly Belfast."
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: That was before the Union.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Yes; and Lecky says that the then Lord Lieutenant, Lord Camden, described Belfast as the only town where a bad disposition had been shown. I make no deductions; I am only mentioning a curious fact.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I want to draw attention to the fact that that was before the Act of Union.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Certainly. Ireland was loyal to the Sovereign she deemed to be her rightful Sovereign and suffered for it. All will agree that Irish soldiers have ever been lavish of their lives, and have never been untrue to the trust that has been reposed in them. No, Ireland is not disloyal; she is discontented from causes which it is in your power to relieve. Really, is not this charge of active disloyalty based on an absolute negation in regard to the Irish people of the ordinary attributes of human beings? You say people are discontented, and you say, at the same time, If we removed the cause of the discontent they would remain just as discontented as they were before. You say they are disloyal to the system of Government, and that though the system of Government is amended according to their wishes they will remain disloyal. You say that they are a people who have a grievance, and if the grievance is remedied they will be just as discontented as before. Surely that is an argument that is contrary absolutely to all

475
human experience, and especially to the experience we have in the development of our own Empire.
Will your Lordships consider the history of Canada? The analogy between the circumstances in Ireland and the circumstances which at one time existed in Canada is extraordinarily close. The family compact, as it was called, in Upper Canada and the ascendency party in Ireland are almost identical in their views and objects. Lower Canada was discontented, and showed her discontent in precisely the same way as it has been shown in Ireland. Juries would not convict; there was jury-packing, cattle-driving, and intimidation of all kinds. The minority there claimed then, as do the minority now in Ireland, the sole title to loyalty. The majority were stigmatised then, as the majority are in Ireland now, as rebels and traitors. The minority declared then that if the Mother Country forgot them they would take care of themselves, and, if necessary, call in foreign assistance. It was said then, as it is said now, that "concessions would remove the only check to the tyrannical power of the dominant majority, a majority in numbers only, while in wealth, education, and enterprise they were greatly inferior to the minority." Those words used long ago in the House of Commons by Lord Stanley are, I think, almost identical with the words which we hear over and over again by Unionist speakers now. It was said then, as is said now, that concession would mean the persecution of the loyal minority, would break up the Empire, and reduce Great Britain to the condition of a second-rate Power. Just the same prophecies that were made then are made now. The same false idea that force is the only remedy, the same distrust of giving powers to the people to remedy grievances existed then as now.
And what happened? In Canada every one of those prophecies was, of course, proved to be false. The concessions were made and self-government was, after a time, given, and Canadians have become the most loyal subjects of His Majesty the King. My Lords, would not the same thing happen in Ireland? Why should it not happen in Ireland? The Irish people are a kindly people and a forgiving people. When you say that no relief from their grievances, no concessions of what
476
they want would turn disloyalty into loyalty you ascribe to them attributes which are absolutely unhuman. You have no right to do so. We have every right to assume that if legitimate grievances were remedied in Ireland the effect would be the same there as it has been in every other portion of the Empire. After all, supposing it is an experiment, is it not an experiment worthy trying? It would not fail. But if it did fail, what then? Would the consequences be so very awful? What do you think that an Irish Parliament without any military forces whatever could do? We are told it would pass resolutions. My Lords, do you really think that if a great Power was contemplating war with us it would attach any importance to a cartload of resolutions? No. If the worst came to the worst, if our Fleet lost the command of the seas, worse things might happen to us than a landinp, on the coast of Ireland.
Then there is the double argument that the Irish do not want Home Rule at all. My noble friend Lord Zetland used that argument to-night. He said they did not want it, and that the only way to ascertain really what they want is to interview them individually and in strict secrecy —a formidable undertaking seeing there are over four millions of people. Personally, I rely on the fact that for generation after generation the vast majority of the Irish people have sent their representatives to Parliament for the one sole purpose of obtaining Home Rule, and I believe they do want it. I have heard many speeches devoted to the idea that the Irish do not want Home Rule, and others devoted to the idea that Ireland wants complete separation. But you cannot have it both ways. If you say that Ireland wants complete independence, do not say that she is quite contented as she is; and if you say she is quite contented do not say that she insists upon the most extreme form of Home Rule that can possibly be devised. As a matter of fact, the explanation is very simple. There is no agitation in Ireland such as there used to be, and the reason is this, that agitation in Ireland came from two sources—one, agrarian discontent; the other, political discontent. By the agrarian legislation which has been carried out mainly by the Unionist Party you have dried up, or nearly dried up, one source of agitation, and, of course, the total volume of agitation

477
is by that much the less; but the other source—that is, political discontent—remains constant, and always will remain constant until you take measures t o remove their just complaints. At least be just to Ireland in this matter. Religious animosity has been fanned into an absolutely unnatural flame. To that iniquity do not add the iniquity of trying to excite the Irish people to unnatural agitation. If in your unwisdom you are obliged to deny them a small measure of autonomy, at any rate do not pretend that they do not want it simply because they ask it now in a peaceable and constitutional manner.
The last argument is the argument that the Catholic majority dominating a Parliament and an Executive in which they are a vast majority will proceed to gratify their desire to persecute the Protestant minority. The Catholic majority have no such desire. All the perfervid speeches that we read on the subject are mere rhetorical attempts to give some substance to pure imagination. I cannot go into history, but I am certain that any man who has studied the subject will agree with me that it is true all through the pages of Irish history that the Irish Catholics in matters of religion are the most tolerant people on the face of the earth. I will only point to two facts. One is that during the very short period of Catholic ascendancy when Ireland had a Parliament almost exclusively Catholic, the first thing that they did was to enact absolute liberty of conscience and liberty of worship all over Ireland. And I think f might call attention to a curious fact—namely, that this dread of persecution is felt only in that part of Ireland where the Protestants are so strong, and so numerous, and so concentrated, that they are perfectly well able to take care of themselves. That fear is not felt anywhere else. Does it not rather look as if this fear of persecution was simulated and assumed for political purposes? I do not so much blame the Protestants in the North in this matter. I blame much more the secret Catholic society, the Ancient Order of Hibernians. I do not blame the Protestant, the protagonists of anti-Home Rule; for, after all, they want to defeat Home Rule, and they know quite well that the best way to defeat it is by dividing Ireland. But this Ancient Order of Hibernians, a secret society exclusively Catholic, are, or are supposed to be, Home Rulers. They must know, for all history proves it, that in
478
striking a strong discordant note, as they have clone, they are doing their best to I divide Ireland into two camps, and are taking measures which have always been successful in preventing Ireland from getting her just dues.
Why on earth does any one suppose that the Catholic majority have any desire to persecute the Protestant minority? This idea, or this conception of the Protestants in Ulster being a sort of projection of England, or of Scotland, into Ireland is not an Irish idea. It is a purely British invention. It is a sort of British patent that is brought out every now and then for political purposes when it can be done successfully. It was brought out during the debates on the Disestablishment of the Church, and Mr. Disraeli confuted it. "I am not prepared to admit," he said, "that there are two nations in Ireland. I look upon the Irish nation as one people." Mr. Disraeli was perfectly right. This fiction, this idea of double nations, or two nations, was not true when the representatives of 143 corps of Protestant Yeomen met in the Church at Duncannon and passed a resolution that. "as men, as Irishmen, as Christians, and as Protestants" they rejoiced in the relaxation of the penal laws passed against their Catholic fellow-countrymen. Had Orangemen no sense of Irish nationality when they offered the stoutest resistance to the Union? I do not know what it may be in other countries, but in Ireland the cleavage of religions and the cleavage of political parties have never been identical. Religion has been mixed up with land; but with politics in Ireland, never.
I deprecate as strongly as I can these efforts that are made to create differences which-do not naturally exist, and I deprecate them all the more strongly when the differences are based on religion and on a vaunted superiority of race. Almost every time I read a newspaper, and in almost every speech that I hear delivered, I hear the same thing—that the community in the North-Eastern counties of Ireland have got a sort of monopoly of energy and enterprise, that t hey are a superior race, living amongst a people infinitely inferior to themselves. Unionists say that they do not want ascendancy; but, my Lords, every speech they make reeks with the spirit of ascendancy. Even the other day, speaking at

479
Edinburgh, Mr. Bonar Law described the minority as superior in character and in everything that constitutes the strength of a nation. It is not true. If it were true it would be a very unworthy boast to make. Are we entirely to forget that every trade and industry in Ireland was at one time stamped out deliberately except one—namely, the linen trade in the North of Ireland, in Belfast? Are not we to remember that the penal laws which crushed all vitality amongst the great hulk of the people and all energy and enterprise had no effect upon the Protestant population in the North? Belfast is enormously prosperous, and all Ireland rejoices at it. It is due largely to the enterprise of the population but to geographical position and other natural causes also. You cannot make these differences. As a matter of fact, the interests of the North of Ireland and the interests of the other parts of Ireland are identical. It has been said—Sir Edward Carson made a point of it the other day—that the people of Belfast would suffer under an Irish Parliament, where, of course, the agricultural interests would largely be dominant. I do not believe there is a shadow of foundation for any fear of that kind. Ireland is almost feverishly anxious to recreate her industries and to foster and increase those industries that she has. If an Irish Parliament were to institute a lower standard of factory legislation in Belfast the obvious effect would be that the artisan population in Belfast would leave Ireland. The very last thing that an Irish Parliament would wish to do would be that. You Unionists are so inconsistent. You say that Ireland wants complete independence; that she is perfectly contented as she is; that she is discontented but that if you remove the causes of discontent she would be more discontented than ever. In one breath you say that the Nationalist Party will not hear of contracting Ulster out of the Bill because they know perfectly well that the Irish Parliament could not exist for a week without the riches of Belfast.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Very well, then; but do not say at the same time that the very first thing that an Irish Parliament would do would be to destroy the riches and prosperity of Belfast.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Where would the revenue come from in Ireland if it did not come from Belfast?
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: All I say is that you cannot have it both ways.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: We want it one way.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: All these fears and differences, my Lords, exist only in the field of imagination. Nothing on earth would persuade me that if the legitimate objections that have been raised by the people of Ulster to this Bill were satisfied the people of Ulster would refuse to lend the weight of their authority and help to what would be the moderate constitutional party in an Irish Parliament, the party that with their help would be unquestionably the largest and strongest party in that Parliament. Nothing will ever persuade me that if agitators would leave them alone the Protestants of Ulster, if these legitimate objections were met, would maintain this absurd theory of two nations, which is only invented to make discord where accord would naturally be.
I have said what I can, and I hope not at inordinate length, on the general principle of Home Rule, and why I am so strongly in favour of it, and why I feel constrained to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. But when I contemplate the way in which principle is set out in the Bill I am afraid I have nothing favourable to say. What are the usual objections that have been raised by the Unionists of Ulster and elsewhere? That a Bill of this character ought not to be passed through a mutilated Parliament. With that I agree. Personally, I have the strongest objection to putting an Irish Parliament at the tender mercies of an absolutely unrestricted and probably very Socialistic House of Commons. Then the methods pursued by the guillotine, and so on, in the other place have been strongly commented upon, and it is said that a Bill of this kind and character ought not to be passed without its being submitted to the people, to the electorate. I see great substance and validity in all these objections, and with a great many of the criticisms of the Bill I entirely agree. I am not going into any details, details that would be material at the Committee stage; but I should like to give my two principal reasons why I am perfectly sure that this Bill would never lead to a satisfactory and permanent settlement of the question. In

481
in the first place, I do not think the Bill provides a sufficient check on administration. It ought not to be necessary, but it is necessary now. The Ancient Order of Hibernians to which I alluded just now is a very formidable body. It returned under the Insurance scheme as consisting of 130,000 members; it is a purely Catholic society, a secret society. I do not for a moment believe that it has any bloodcurdling oath. It is no menace, of course, to Great Britain, nor is it any menace to Protestantism as such; but it is a menace to good administration in. Ireland. It is not out for blood; it is out for plunder. It is a predatory association prowling about for jobs under the cloak of religion. It will die out in time because its policy and methods are contrary to all that is best and strongest in the Irish character. But it is well organised, powerful, and rich, and when Protestants and Unionists in the North see the way in which Catholics and Nationalists in the South have been treated by this Society, simply because they objected to the methods of the society and because they stood for good administration and fair play and for Ireland for all Irishmen—I can quite understand that the Protestants and Unionists in the North, when they see the way that. men like Mr. O'Brien have been treated, are uneasy, and I think they have got ground for uneasiness, and until by good administration confidence is secured in the Irish Parliament there ought to be some more efficient check than the Bill contains in the shape of a stronger Upper House or in some other shape. I think even the authors of the Bill themselves admit that this Bill is pretty hard to understand. It is rather complicated, and to an ordinary intellect like mine in some respects very obscure.
I do not know what the real intention of His Majesty's Government is in the Bill. What is your intention? Is the status of a Dominion Government your ideal for Ireland? If it is, why does not the Bill say so? Why do you not put it in the Bill? I gather from a speech of the Chief Secretary made the other day that fiscal autonomy is not your ideal. Well, according to the Chief Secretary fiscal autonomy is not your ideal but according to the Bill it is. If, it is not, what on earth does Clause 26 of the Bill mean? The Bill, at any rate, contemplates fiscal autonomy for the Irish Parliament after certain conditions have
482
been complied with. I quite admit the conditions are, in my opinion, absolutely impossible. They never can be complied with. But still you put this fiscal autonomy in as a bait in your Bill in order, I suppose, to attract the Irish people. Then what are your conditions? The conditions are that Ireland has, in the view of the Exchequer Board, to show a surplus over all the expenditure on Irish services, and to provide a proper contribution, whatever proper contribution means, to the common purse. How is the Exchequer Board constituted? There are two members of the Treasury, two members of the Irish Government., and one member appointed by the Crown.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Two members of the Irish Treasury—not Parliament.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Yes; and two of the British Treasury, and one appointed by the Crown.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The Chairman.
THE EARL or DUNRAVEN: He is, of course, appointed by the Prime Minister of the day. We know the Treasury pretty well in connection with Irish finance. It will not be a very easy thing for the Irish Treasury to show a surplus over expenditure. The Irish Treasury and the Prime Minister of the day will always have a casting vote on the Exchequer Board, and in any case it is certain that Ireland can never obtain this fiscal autonomy that is dangled before her unless it happens to meet the convenience of the Party in power at the time over here, How on earth do you imagine that Ireland is ever going to fulfil these conditions? You have entailed a certain standard of living in Ireland. By a system of bookkeeping which I venture to say would not be passed by any impartial and competent auditor, you make the Irish account show a deficit. You make no allowance whatever for having taken from Ireland in the past a great deal more than you ought to have taken in justice to Ireland. Nothing in the world is more difficult than for a nation to reduce the standard of living that it has been accustomed to. It may do so, but it will take a long time. You have quite properly safeguarded the interests of the Civil servants, and no economies and retrenchment can be made in that direction for a considerable time. You

483
give the Irish Parliament no freedom of range in the matter of taxation. A beggary £200,000 a year is all that Ireland will have after a few years for the development of her resources. How possibly can the financial provisions of this Bill, do you imagine, enable Ireland to fulfil the conditions imposed upon her? I cannot help thinking that His Majesty's Government know perfectly well that they never can do so.
I am forced to the conviction that this fiscal autonomy which is certainly contained in the Bill was never intended to come into operation, but is merely a matter of window-dressing. It is a fraud upon the Irish people. The Prime Minister, in the speech he made in introducing the Bill, evidently had a federal arrangement in his mind. While recognising to the full the priority of Irish claims, he has always presented this as a first step, and only a first step, in a larger and more comprehensive scheme of some kind. If it means federation I am entirely in agreement with the Prime Minister. I believe that a federal system is the only system that will reconcile objections and give satisfaction. But this Bill is not constructed on federal lines. You give over to Ireland the Post Office. I do not know why—I suppose because the Post Office makes a loss in Ireland. Of course you subsequently put in all sorts of restrictions. But still you do give her a separate postal service, and that is incompatible with federalism. You give her control over Customs; it is perfectly true that, having done so, you immediately take it all away again. But, still, you give a paper control over the Customs which necessitates a Customs cordon, and that, again, is absolutely incompatible with federalism.
I should like, if I could get it, a straight answer to a straight question. What really is the Government's objective? Is your objective the status of, say, a Dominion Parliament? If it is, I maintain that that status will never by any possibility be arrived at under this Bill. If it is not this, is it federalism? If it is, then all that you can say about fiscal autonomy is mere pretence, and the federalism is pretence too, because this Bill never can be made to fit into any federalism applicable to other parts of the United Kingdom. When von bring in what the Prime Minister calls his larger
484
scheme, then if this Bill has become law this Bill will have to be repealed because this Bill is an absolute bar to federalism. The Bill is a makeshift. It proceeds on no definite principle. It leaves such huge questions as fiscal autonomy, independence, repeal of the Union, or a federal union to be thrashed out by the two Parliaments. It makes for friction, not for a settlement. It is not fair to the Irish people. It does not give an Irish Parliament a hundred to one chance, strive as it may. Some day or other, and the sooner the better, this question has to be settled, and not only the Irish question, but much larger questions—the constitutional question and the Imperial question. They all hang together. This Irish question has got to be settled. Unquestionably the best way of settling it would be to bring about a settlement by consent. When summing up on the Third Reading of the Bill in the other place the Leader of the Opposition said that no man would be more pleased than he if this problem—he quite properly used the word "problem"—could be settled by consent.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: On the lines suggested by Mr. O'Brien.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: That is settlement by consent, pacific settlement.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Yes.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: The Postmaster-General and the Chief Secretary both spoke practically to the same effect. Well, my Lords, why not try to make a settlement by consent? Why not accept the bed-rock principle in this Billdevolution—and then in calm and dispassionate conference see if an agreement by consent cannot be arrived at. At any rate, I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, and I shall do so for the reason that the Bill is founded on a principle that must certainly be adopted sooner or later. I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill and proceed drastically to amend it. I venture to point out that not only can your Lordships amend the Bill, but you can make the date of the Bill coming into operation dependent upon anything you like. I would venture also to ask this House to consider the circumstances in which we are now placed. We can no longer absolutely reject the Bill. We can only delay it. Of course, it is possible that

485
delay may have the same practical effect as absolute rejection, but that is a chance, a gambling chance, and this is a matter far too important to gamble about. The question now before the House is whether this Bill is, or is not, to become law. It is a question whether the Bill, which we nearly all think a very bad Bill, ought to become law, or whether a better Bill, or, if you like it, a much less bad Bill, is to become law. I do think, while this House ought to do all in its power to have restored to it or to some differently constituted body the proper powers and functions of a Second Chamber, that situated as we are now the most patriotic part for this House to play, and that which is its duty, is to try and make this Bill a better Bill, or, if you prefer it, as little harmful a Bill as you possibly can.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion before your Lordships' House for the Second Reading of this Bill, Although I support that Motion I agree with my noble friend Lord Dunraven that there is a good deal in the Bill which needs amendment, and which, if, your Lordships allow it to pass into Committee, I shall do my best to have modified. But I think that the framework of the Bill is good and that it admits of Amendments being introduced, and in regard to finance of such suggestions being made to the House of Commons as will satisfy noble Lords who have not a rooted objection to the creation of a subordinate Parliament in Ireland. The speech of the noble Duke who moved the Amendment exhibited, if I may be permitted to say so, an admirable avoidance of those topics which in our Irish debates in this House usually produce irritation amongst Irish Members. I shall endeavour in the remarks which I shall address to your Lordships to follow the noble Duke's example, and only address to you such observations as will appeal to your reason and may be weighed in reason's balance.
In that spirit, my Lords, I submit for your acceptance this proposition—that urgent necessity exists for a substantial reform in the system of Irish government. I am sanguine enough to hope that that proposition, taken by itself, will receive support from all quarters in this House. But with your Lordships' permission I propose to support it by a few reasons
486
appealing on the one hand to authority, and on the other hand to the existing condition of government in Ireland. The appeal to authority consists in this, that ever since the rejection of Mr. Gladstone's first Home Rule Bill there has been an admission, more or less tacit but always an admission, that everything was not well with the state of government in Ireland. I have here an extract from a manifesto addressed by Mr. Chamberlain to his constituents immediately after the failure of Mr. Gladstone's first Home Rule Bill, in which he points out to his constituents what should be the objects that at the approaching election they should hold in view. He said—
"The objects to be kept in view are, first, to relieve the Imperial Government by devolution of Irish local business, and to set it free for other and more important work; secondly, to secure the free representation of Irish opinion in all matters of purely Irish concern and the introduction of a fair field for legitimate local ambition and patriotism, and to bring back the attention of the Irish people, now divided by a barren conflict in the Imperial Parliament, to a practical consideration of their own wants, and their own necessities; and, lastly, by removing all unnecessary interference with the Trish Government on the part of Great Britain to diminish the causes of irritation and the opportunity of collusion."
To ensure these objects Mr. Chamberlain said—
"It will be expedient to establish a complete system of popular local government alike in its main features for England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. But apart and beyond a purely municipal organisation of the kind, I believe that a larger arrangement will be found safe and desirable under which, subject to the concurrent and supreme authority of the Imperial Parliament, the various portions of the United Kingdom shall be enabled to exercise greater influence over administration and over legislation for their specific needs."
That was Mr. Chamberlain's attitude regarding Home Rule for Ireland in 1886, and in 1893 he defined it still further. In an article contributed to the Nineteenth Century in April, 1893, Mr. Chamberlain said—
"When English Home Rulers speak of giving to Ireland the management of its own affairs they ought to say they propose to give to Ireland the management of such of its affairs as can be handed over to an Irish Assembly without any risk or danger to the country, and I hope I may add without the loss of honour that would be involved if the property and the liberty of Her Majesty's subjects were not fully safeguarded. With an intention so expressed every Liberal-Unionist will readily agree."
Thus, my Lords, some twenty-five years ago you had Mr. Chamberlain, who certainly was amongst the protagonists of Liberal Unionism, putting before his

487
constituents a scheme of Devolution and of Home Rule which does not differ very materially from that which was indicated by the Prime Minister on the First Reading of this Bill. I think I am justified in saying that so far as Mr. Chamberlain and his followers went, the necessity for a substantial improvement of Irish Government was present to their minds at that time.
I Would also quote for your Lordships' information a piece of evidence which I take from a speech delivered in this House on February 17, 1905, by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition and whose absence from the House to-night we all sincerely regret. The debate was in connection with questions which arose over the scheme of Devolution which had been shortly before published under the auspices of my noble friend Lord Dunraven. In the course of the debate the noble Marquess, referring to the system of government in Ireland, made the following observations—
"Anyone who has studied that question"—[the question of Irish Government]—"is aware that there is room for considerable improvement in that old-fashioned and complicated organisation. I think I ought to explain that I say this to your Lordships with the knowledge and the concurrence of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland."
I may add that substantially the same thing was said by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons a few days later. My Lords, I draw from these statements the inference that seven years ago the Leaders of the Liberal Unionist Party in both Houses of Parliament were of opinion that substantial reforms were necessary in the system of Irish government. I shall deal presently with the character of the reforms which it was then thought might be most suitably introduced, but for the moment my object is to insist upon the fact that the Liberal Unionist Party in both Houses of Parliament some seven years ago were unanimously of opinion that substantial changes in the system of Irish government were necessary.
Now I come to the evidence tending in the same direction which arises from the facts of Irish government. Students of constitutional history will admit that in every properly organised Administration all the Departments of the State may be grouped under four divisions—the Legislative Division, the Judicial Division, the Financial Division, and the Administrative Division, including, of course, the
488
Executive. Now what is the condition of Ireland in regard to these four Divisions? We all know that Ireland has no Legislative Division of any kind—not even for legislation in regard to Private Bills, as Scotland has. Ireland's legislative work is done for her here in Parliament, and with what result? My noble friend Lord Dunraven has made allusion to it. We all know that Ireland's public legislation cannot be carried out as it is wanted, that it has to bide its time, and that when it finds time it only does so at the expense of the legislation of the sister countries. We know that Irish legislation is carried through in a skimped and hurried manner, and always in the dim light of half knowledge. And if that be true of Irish public legislation, still more true is it of Irish private legislation, which is conducted under onerous, inconvenient, costly, and dilatory circumstances, as every Irish interest having private legislation to carry through can sorrowfully testify. And, my Lords, if Ireland suffers in these respects, so does Great Britain in as great if not in a greater degree. In truth, as my noble friend Lord Dunraven has suggested, the incapacity of the Imperial Parliament to discharge the duties now falling upon it is notorious, and is becoming more notorious as years pass on. The work of a session is never finished within the session, and the resulting injury to the State and the losses to private enterprises are incalculable. We know that drastic measures taken to correct the evil have been only very partially successful. I hope I do not exceed my privilege of speech, but I venture to say that in the House of Commons liberty of speech is now restricted within narrow limits, while the rights of private Members have shrunk to small dimensions. It seems to me that we are within measurable distance of the time when if the public and necessary business of the State is to be done in Parliament, Ministers and the Departments they control must necessarily become Dictators, and popular government in Parliament a make-believe and a pretence.
From that lamentable condition of things no means of escape exist, so far as I can see, except that suggested by my noble friend and by many others outside Parliament—namely, the devolution of Parliamentary powers to subordinate Legislatures. By recognising the Irish claims for a subordinate Legislature your Lordships will be taking, in my

489
humble judgment, an effective step towards a reform most necessary and salutary in the interests of all pas of the Empire. Whether this Bill affects that reform in the most suitable manner, opinions may differ; but surely it is a matter which cannot be settled, and cannot be decided, without discussion, without examining the Bill in detail, and seeing how far it is suitable or unsuitable and how far it can be made suitable by amendment. At all events, the Bill is the product of careful thought in another place. It comes to you with the verdict of the overwhelming majority of the Commons House of Parliament, and I believe I am justified in saying that by as great a majority of Members from purely British constituencies as has carried some of the greatest measures upon the Statute Book. Therefore I say, with all possible respect and submission, that this Bill ought not to be rejected by your Lordships without at all events that careful examination which can only be done in Committee.
I pass over the Judicial Division of the Irish Government, for whatever complaints may be made against it on the ground of expensiveness or on the ground of improper distribution of minor patronage, it is, at all events, an efficient instrument of government, and therefore safe from any criticism on my part on this occasion. I may also pass over, equally briefly, the Finance Division of Irish Government, for the Irish Government has had no Finance Division since the Fiscal Union in 1817. The Irish Government merely receives money, expends it in accordance with the orders it receives, and accounts for it. Further than that it has no responsibility. Could any finance arrangement be more conducive to increasing the power of the bureaucracy or more destructive of the spirit of self-government and self-reliance than such an arrangement as that?
Lastly, I come to the Administrative Department of the Irish Government. This Division comprises some forty-six Boards and Offices over the greater portion of which the Irish Government has no effective control whatever. The control exercised in Ireland by the Lord Lieutenant over numerous Departments of the State is now far less than it was fifty years ago, when Ireland was said to be governed by "Larcom and the Police." it is less than it was twenty years ago,
490
because in the attempts made within the last twenty years to popularise Irish Government certain Departments have been cut off from such supervision as there was, and entrusted with a sort of quasi-independent Government agency.
Excluding the Police and the Judiciary, the most important boards in Ireland are the Local Government Board, the Department of Agriculture, the Board of National Education, and the Congested Districts Board. I think that there is no sphere of rural or urban life in Ireland which one or more of these boards within their jurisdiction does not touch. Over these Departments the Lord Lieutenant, in whom nominally is centred the administration and control ref the whole organisation, has absolutely no control whatever. The Chief Secretary, it is true, is president of one board and chairman of another, but I doubt whether he or any of his predecessors has ever presided at a meeting of any of these boards. If I were to go through the list I should find some boards constructed on the extraordinary principle of balancing Protestant against Catholic, and thus introducing into the administration that religious difference which has been the bane of Ireland throughout the centuries.
It was the opinion of Mr. Balfour, expressed in his speech in the House of Commons on February 22, 1905, that the proper way of reforming Dublin Castle was by increasing the power of the Chief Secretary and his Under-Secretary and thereby getting a stronger grip on the various Departments of the "complicated system," as he called it, which prevailed. It is not unnatural to think that if you have a strong Chief Secretary and an Under-Secretary working together in harmony with the Lord Lieutenant, they might soon introduce a proper system of co-ordination, and wheel these various Departments into line, enforce control, and instil them with the common policy. I thought so too. It was one of the illusions that I took with me to Ireland twenty years ago. But I am now a wiser man. I know now, and I now admit, that I overestimated the power and the strength of these boards in Ireland to resist any sort of subordination of that kind. The disintegrating power in Dublin Castle had gone too far, the process had already reduced the Lord Lieutenant to a dignified figurehead, and it had even made such headway in an insidious way in undermining the

491
influence of even the Chief Secretary as to deprive him of a large portion on of his control. Mr. Birrell himself admitted as much in his speech on the Third Reading of this Bill in another place. My observation of these boards had convinced me before I left Ireland that no scheme of administrative reform which depends on bureaucratic reorganisation for its success, or which has not behind it a popular backing has the least chance of success in an attempt to establish in Ireland a Government that is satisfactory to the Imperial Parliament or acceptable to the Irish people. But the attempt will, in my belief, be most successful if it has behind it a popular backing. Only allow Irishmen of all classes and of all creeds to come together, and give them important work to do in the interests of their country and of the Empire, and you will be surprised with the splendid work they will do, and do in a friendly and patriotic spirit.
These are the observations that I desire to address to your Lordships on the general aspect of the case. My object was to show that the necessity for change in the system of Irish Government had been recognised up to quite recent times by all Parties in the State; that the existing circumstances of Irish government do urgently call for substantial change not only in the interests of Ireland but of Great Britain; and that no change which aims alone at strengthening the Irish bureaucracy or which fails to introduce the representative element into the Irish Government has the least chance of success.
I come now to the question whether the changes proposed in this Bill are appropriate to the existing condition of things in Ireland, or whether they are so inappropriate that your Lordships would be justified in rejecting the Bill without a Second Reading. What are the main features of this Bill? They may, I think, be stated in ten propositions. With your Lordships' permission I will mention the main features of the Bill, to begin with, and then I shall take them one by one and express my opinion upon them. The first, is the maintenance of the supreme power and authority of the Imperial Parliament over all persons, matters, and things in Ireland. Second, the creation in Ireland of a subordinate Parliament consisting of two Houses, with an Executive responsible to it and with
492
power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, and restricted in its administrative and in its legislative functions to purely Irish affairs. Third, the reduction of the Irish representation in the Imperial House of Commons to forty-two members. Fourth, the delegation by His Majesty the King of the Executive power in Ireland to his Lord Lieutenant, who shall act in accord with the advice of the Irish Ministry unless His Majesty thinks otherwise, in which case the Lord Lieutenant shall act in accordance with His Majesty's instructions conveyed by His Majesty's Government. Fifth, the temporary division of the Irish Administration Department into two classes, one class to be called the transferred services and the other class to be called the reserved services—the transferred services to be handed over to the control of the Irish Parliament and the amount estimated for expenditure on each in the year the Bill passes; the reserved services to be retained under Imperial management until taken over by the Irish Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and while so retained to be financed as in the case of the transferred services. Sixth, the grant to the Irish Parliament of the power to impose taxes outside the scheme of Imperial taxation in Ireland, and to increase in certain respects the rate of Imperial taxation without varying the commodities taxed; all taxation, whether Imperial or imposed by the Irish Parliament to be collected by Imperial officers and paid into the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, from which the Irish Treasury is to be paid. The next feature of the scheme—the seventh—I gather partly from the Bill and partly from the Postmaster-General's exposition of its financial policy. It is that as the revenues derivable from Ireland are now estimated to be less by about £1,500,000 than the expenditure upon her, Ireland is held to be indebted to the Exchequer to the extent of that deficit, and in order to liquidate this deficit the normal increase in the Irish revenues are to be appropriated by the Imperial Exchequer to the Irish revenues and the expenditure balanced. When this equilibrium has been established a new financial arrangement is to be made with Ireland which will provide inter alga for the payment by Ireland of a contribution for the common purposes of the Empire but so long as that financial equilibrium is not established the Exchequer is to grant to Ireland an annual surplus of

493
£500,000, diminishing by £50,000, to make allowance for the fact that Ireland is to be relieved from any contribution to the Common Fund for common purposes. Eighth, a Joint Exchequer Board to be created for the purpose of defining the contribution of the Irish revenue, and determining questions concerning finance which may arise between Great Britain and Ireland and appeals from the Irish Exchequer Board to the Privy Council. Ninth, the Judicial system will remain as at present, except that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is to be substituted for the House of Lords as a final Court of Appeal for Ireland. The tenth and last feature is the provisions for safeguarding rights, and provisions with regard to the Irish Constabulary and the Metropolitan Police.
Those are, I think, the main features of the Bill. I do not trouble your Lordships with details; and I ask you to consider as to each of them whether it would be right or reasonable for your Lordships to deny the Bill a Second Reading. Consider, first, the question of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. Any and every scheme of reform that could be devised must preserve that condition, and your Lordships' objection to it can only be based on the supposition or on the belief that the provisions of the Bill are inadequate to effect the object in view. But, my Lords, that is disputed. I personally for one dispute it, and surely if it be disputed it is a matter for serious argument and consideration here. To say that your Lordships would be justified in rejecting it without any further consideration would be I, with great respect, urge an unreasonable proceeding.
Then take the next point, the creation of a Parliament in Ireland with an Executive subordinate to it. I have submitted reasons to your Lordships for thinking that no scheme of reform can possibly be introduced into Ireland with any hope of success which does not include the creation of a Statutory body of this kind. To that Statutory body, the Executive must be subordinate if all the difficulties to which Grattan's Parliament succumbed are not I again to be repeated. But whether or not the Statutory body is to exercise delegated authority, and whether or not it is, as in this Bill, to be a Parliament endowed with original functions but subject to
494
limitations and under the absolute control of the Imperial Parliament is a matter for consideration and discussion. Much can be said on both sides as to whether you should have a scheme of devolution, or whether you should have this scheme of a limited and restricted Parliament. But that some body of the kind, some statutory body, must be established in Ireland is, I submit to your Lordships, beyond the region of doubt. I myself am very much inclined to go further than the Bill does in giving representation to the minority. I think that the system of proportional representation which is accepted by the Bill for the Senate might with great advantage be extended to the House of Commons. But that is a matter also for discussion, for reasonable compromise, and surely it is not a matter that should be rejected without any further consideration by your Lordships' House.
The next head is the reduction of the Irish representation in the Imperial Parliament, and I presume that that will meet with acceptance in this House. As to the delegation of the King's powers to the Lord Lieutenant, practically the existing state of things is preserved with the exception that if the Crown raises no objection in individual cases the patronage will ordinarily be exercised on the advice of the Irish Ministry instead of, as at present, on the advice of the Prime Minister or of the Chief Secretary. Such a change as that, I submit respectfully, would not justify your Lordships in refusing a Second Reading to the Bill. Neither would the provisions of the Bill dealing with the Irish Departments afford any justification. As to the transferred and reserved services I myself think that in certain points the plan admits of amendment, but these are matters for discussion and for reasonable compromise.
The provisions regarding taxation essentially differ from the existing condition of things only, it seems to me, in two points—namely, the power given to the Irish Parliament to impose taxes outside the existing scheme of Imperial taxation and the power to increase the rates of Imperial taxation without varying the commodities on which the taxes are levied. My Lords, so long as the new taxes are not differential in their character or in their incidence, so long as they do not discriminate between classes and interests—

495
and these points are safeguarded in the Bill—I venture to think that there is no substantial reason why the liberty given to the Irish Parliament to impose taxation should not be allowed. While presiding in 1911 over a Committee of Inquiry into the constitutional differences and difficulties in the Isle of Man it came to my notice that this system of imposing taxation by the local legislative authority was in force. In the Isle of Man, as your Lordships know, there is a system of local autonomy, and power is vested in the legislative body to vary the rates of Imperial Customs duties levied in the island. Now, my Lords, if a system of that sort is already in force and in practice near your doors, is there in the nature of things any reason why you should not consider whether or not it might be safely extended to Ireland. Is it reasonable to reject it without discussion—discussion which does not bind you to accept it if on examination you do not like it?
In regard to financial matters generally, your Lordships have no longer the control over finance which you once claimed, but there is no reason why you should not consider the finance of this Bill, and if you are dissatisfied with it you could suggest to the House of Commons reasonable Amendments. I confess I am dissatisfied with the finance of the Bill. I think that it labours under a dominant mistake—namely, the mistake of assuming that Ireland is indebted to Great Britain. I should be very glad indeed to have the opportunity of stating my view of the case on behalf of Ireland before your Lordships, but that could not be done on such an occasion as this. It is essentially a matter for Committee.
There are a few other points that I should like to touch upon, but time presses; and I now content myself with thanking your Lordships for the patience with which you have heard me and with expressing the fervent hope that you will give this Bill a Second Reading. If you do not give this Bill a Second Reading and if it passes into law I greatly fear, my Lords, that before the tribunal of History your Lordships' House will not avoid responsibility for having helped, through your omission to act now, to impose upon Ireland an imperfect measure. If, on the other hand, you give it a Second Reading and consider in detail what its defects are and remedy
496
them as far as possible, you will not have curtailed your right when the Third Reading comes of rejecting the Bill if then it seems right to you to follow that course.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I cannot confess that the interesting speech which the noble Lord has just addressed to the House has convinced me that it is my duty to give a vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not propose to follow him in the many Committee points that he raised, but I should like to go straight for one moment to the speech made by the noble Marquess in introducing the Bill. The noble Marquess informed the House that Ireland had never been an integral part of the United Kingdom, and that because the Irish nationality had refused to die the Bill which is now under the consideration of this House had been introduced. If Ireland has never been an integral part of the United Kingdom I maintain that it should be our ambition and our effort to pass legislation through Parliament which would make it into an integral part of the United Kingdom.
There are two great opposing principles of local self-government which we have to consider. One is the principle of nationalism, and the other is the principle of federalism. A system of local self-government based on the principle of nationalism leads to separation, but based on the principle of federation leads to unity. The noble Marquess informed us that this Bill is based upon the principle of nationalism. I am opposed to this Bill because I am a convinced Federalist, and because I believe that this Bill, being based upon the foundation of nationalism, is one which this House ought not to accept. My noble friend Lord Dunraven made a speech which I confess interested me greatly, but I must say that I was surprised at his conclusions. He made a strong speech by way of criticism, not only of points of detail, but of points of principle against the Bill, and then he informed us that he was going to vote for it. He told us that the federal system was the only system that could give satisfaction to Ireland, and he also told us that this Bill was a bar against federalism, and that if we are ever to have a federal plan in the United. Kingdom this Bill must be repealed.
Lam opposed to this Bill because, as Lord Dunraven has pointed out, it is not suited

497
to the federation of the British Isles. I agree with him that it sets up a barrier which must be removed before the federal principle can be applied. It is because I am convinced that, so far from being conducive to harmony and peace, this Bill would promote discord and tend to Civil war that I shall vote against its Second Reading. I am aware, as my noble friend Lord MacDonnell has pointed out, that a great responsibility rests upon this House in deciding the character of the response it shall make to the request of the House of Commons that we should pass this Home Rule Bill. I take it for granted that we shall reject it; and I cannot help, if I may be permitted to do so, congratulating the noble Duke who moved the rejection of the Bill upon the admirable speech which he made—admirable in tone, admirable in matter, and without one word in it which could be regarded as offensive by any one of his opponents. But although I take it for granted that this Bill will be rejected, I think it would be a serious political misfortune if we were to allow the impression to be created out of doors that those of your Lordships who are opposed to this Bill have no alternative policy. While I hope that this House may decide that this Bill cannot be accepted as a satisfactory or final settlement of the long standing Irish question, I also hope that a clear and positive message may issue from the Unionist Leaders in this House which will convince the people of Ireland that the Unionist Party as a whole are prepared to assist in some other form of settlement which may be more safely relied on to promote the well-being of Ireland and to increase the security of the Empire as soon as this Bill is cleared away. This is the third time that the House of Commons has sent up to this House a Bill supported by an overwhelming majority of Irish representatives.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Twice; this is the second time.
EARL GREY: Quite right. I should not have forgotten that, because I had the honour to be the Whip for the Party in the House of Commons that threw out the Bill of 1886 in the other House. This is the second time that the House of Commons has sent up to this House a Bill supported by an overwhelming majority there; and, as Lord MacDonnell has pointed out, a refusal to meet a request so urgently and repeatedly made can only be justified by clear reasons
498
of high State policy. Well, both the first and the second Home Rule Bills were refused by the electorate by large majorities, after they had had abundant opportunity of being fully educated upon the subject; and I an confident, however necessary it may be, admittedly, to settle the Irish difficulty, that if the people are only allowed to have an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon this Bill this measure will be rejected by as equally emphatic a majority.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Hear, hear.
EARL GREY: When Mr. Gladstone introduced his first Home Rule Bill I had the honour of a seat in the House of Commons. I was one of his supporters, and I can claim the distinction of having been the first Liberal who sounded the note of revolt against his policy. His policy was opposed on two grounds mainly. The first ground was that the grant of an Irish Parliament of any sort at that time appeared to be, or would have proved to be, an immoral surrender to the forces of lawlessness and of agrarian spoliation. That was the moral reason for opposing the Bill. The second chief ground for the opposition to Mr. Gladstone's Bill was that it invested the Irish Parliament proposed to be created with a status more closely resembling the status of the Dominion Parliament of Canada than that of a province in a Federal Dominion. To grant Ireland such a status instead of only a provincial status was regarded as fatal to the safety and integrity of the United Kingdom and to the security of our Empire.
Since the Home Rule Bills of 1886 and 1893 were thrown out by overwhelming majorities of the people of the United Kingdom much has taken place. The policy of land purchase, to which my noble friend Lord Dunraven has referred, has created a new Ireland. A new respect for property has taken the place of the old agrarianism. When I was in Canada in October, 1910, Mr. T. P. O'Connor visited Ottawa and informed the people of the Dominion that the process of turning Ireland into a peasant proprietary had transformed it from a land of paupers and slaves into a land of prosperous freemen. The people heard with delight that a new day had dawned on Ireland; and Mr. T. P. O'Connor having declared that his mission was to secure Canada's approval for a Federal

499
Government of the United Kingdom for federal affairs, or, in other words, a duplication in the United Kingdom of the principles under which they were so contentedly living in Canada, the audience at the conclusion of his address passed subscription lists round with the result that the splendid sum of $11,000 was subscribed. Referring at the same meeting to the effect of the Land Purchase Act, on the 300,000 peasants, who under its provisions had become the owners of the land they occupied, Mr. T. P. O'Connor said a new Ireland would grow up on foundations based upon peasant proprietary, the surest and best foundation of national prosperity, national wealth, and national citizenship. Is it not a pity, my Lords, that His Majesty's Government have not been a little more industrious and zealous in promoting and finishing the work of land purchase of which Mr. O'Connor has given so great a description?
If we can accept, as I believe we can, this testimony of Mr. T. P. O'Connor, confirmed as it has been to-day by my noble friend the Earl of Dunraven, as to the quieting and transforming effect of Irish land purchase on the Irish character, we are, I think, justified in assuming that a wise and well considered measure of conferring upon Irishmen powers of managing their own local and domestic affairs, which would have been in 1886 nothing less than an agrarian outrage, has now become a safe and a moral policy. I would go further and say not only a desirable but a necessary policy. The result of a quarter of a century of active controversy has been to establish, I venture to say, a pretty general public opinion, a unanimous opinion almost, in favour of limiting such powers as may be granted to Ireland to powers similar to those delegated by the British North America Act to the Canadian Provinces. I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly, and I must apologise for trespassing on your Lordships' indulgence, but there is one remarkable fact in connection with Mr. Redmond in October, 1910, in America, reported in the Daily Express, which I desire to bring before the attention of this House. In this interview Mr. Redmond is stated to have declared—
"Our demand for Home Rule does not mean that we want to break with the British Empire. We are entirely and thoroughly loyal to the Empire as such, and we desire to strengthen the Imperial bonds through a federal system of Government."
500
He went on to say—
"We are willing to forego the right of making our own tariff and are prepared to abide by any fiscal system enacted by the British Parliament. Also we are prepared to bear our full burden with England, Scotland, and Wales in supporting such Imperial charges as the Army and Navy, which is not done by the Colonies."
Also he went on to say—
"We want Ireland to control for herself such local measures as do not in any way concern Great Britain. We are strongly in favour of a federal Empire, and once we receive Home Rule we shall demonstrate our Imperial loyalty beyond question."
One object in calling the special attention of the House to what Mr. Redmond said is to point out that he further stated that after Home Rule comes one object for which we shall work is a closer Anglo-American understanding, and he said we shall do our best to strengthen the Empire by bringing America and England closer together. I do not think that there is any one who will not say that that policy would be a beneficial and wise policy for the United Kingdom and for the Empire. But it may be asked, Is Mr. Redmond to stand by this declaration that I have quoted? That I cannot say. I am not in Mr. Redmond's confidence, but my impression is that whether he is prepared to stand by this declaration or not depends in a large measure upon the Unionist Leaders. If the Unionist Leaders desire, as I am sure they do, to settle the Irish difficulty the conditions to-day would appear to be favourable for the passing of a Federal Home Rule measure after the barrier set up by the present Bill which we are now discussing has been removed.
Having said so much, it is evident that I am in favour of such a measure of Home Rule as will give the Irish people the power to manage their own domestic affairs, but under conditions which will tend to increase the self-respect and the prosperity of the Irish people, to promote the unity of the United Kingdom, and to bring additional strength and security to the Empire. It is impossible for any one to have lived, as I have, for seven years in Canada without realising the advantages of the federal system. It is a system which combines local autonomy on domestic matters with unity of government in matters of common interest. It works admirably to the advantage of all concerned. If I should be asked to explain what I mean by the federal system, let

501
me quote the definition of the historian Freeman—
"A Federal Government in its perfect form is one which forms a single State of several nations."
Under the federal system as it exists in Canada, each Province has exclusive control over its domestic affairs which has been delegated to it by the Federal Dominion Parliament. A Legislature subordinate to the Dominion Parliament exists in each province for the administration of its delegated power. Provinces like Ontario and Quebec, as dissimilar from each other as North-East Ulster is from the South and West of Ireland, each manages their own domestic affairs, and each returns a representation to the Federal or Dominion Parliament in proportion to their population. This Federal Parliament is responsible for the general well-being of the whole Dominion. It fixes the tariff; it administers the postal services; it provides for defence; it safeguards trade; it assists agriculture, and it performs all those functions of government which have not, been specifically delegated by Act of Parliament to the subordinate Provincial Governments. Catholic Canadians of French descent live quietly next to Protestant Canadians of British descent, and each, secure in full enjoyment of their provincial autonomy with regard to their domestic affairs, are united as brothers in safeguarding and extending the national interests of Canada.
Apply this system to the United Kingdom and the day will come when, if I may again quote the graphic language of Mr. T. P. O'Connor, there will not be the Green above the Red or the Red above the Green, but the Green beside the Red and the Red beside the Green, with liberty and loyalty combined. Ireland might possibly consist of two Provinces under a federal system—the North-East of Ulster would form one Province, and the rest of Ireland another; and just as the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec stand in friendly relation one to the other and are joined together by the common interests they have in the Federal or Dominion Parliament at Ottawa, so the Provinces first of Ulster and secondly of the rest of Ireland would each have exclusive control over their own domestic affairs and be joined together by their common interests in making the Parliament of Westminster as efficient as possible for prompting the
502
prosperity of the whole of the United Kingdom. That would be a form of Home Rule to which I venture to contend no exception could be taken by the people of Ulster, whose approval of any new form of Government that may be invented for Ireland is just as important as that of the Nationalists of the South and West. It is quite possible, that the people of Ulster might desire after a few years' experience of this federal scheme to merge their Province in that of the rest of Ireland.
The financial clauses of the Bill, which I think constitute the most important clauses of this measure, were touched upon cursorily by Lord MacDonnell. I should like to point out that under the federal system in Canada the public mind is not harassed and irritated and annoyed by attempts to ascertain from what part of the Dominion the national revenue comes, or in what part of the Dominion it is spent. The statesmen of Canada are ever on the watch to promote the consolidation of the Dominion and to discourage any such attempts. As to localising the revenue and expenditure, it does not matter to those engaged in promoting the unity and well-being of the whole from what part of the Dominion the national revenue comes. Similarly if the federal system as practised in Canada were extended to the United Kingdom there need be no elaborate balance-sheets showing the indebtedness of the various parts of the United Kingdom. For instance, a man who smokes a pipe of Imperially taxed tobacco in Dublin contributes as much to the Imperial revenue as the man who smokes the same tobacco in Edinburgh or London, and the amount contributed to the Revenue by the Dublin smoker would not be credited to the account of Ireland in making up the balance sheet of the United Kingdom, or put down as a set off against Imperial money spent in Ireland. At least it would not if the same practice prevailed in Ireland as that under the federal system in Canada. Under the federal system of Canada a contribution is made by the Federal Government to the Provincial Government calculated on the basis of population at so much a head, and where the circumstances justify it—as they would in the South and West of Ireland—special assistance is given to a particular Province from federal funds. If a similar system were applied to Ireland a far more satisfactory financial

503
relationship would be created than that which would be established by the financial clauses of this Bill. I am aware that I am dealing with this subject very cursorily, but it is impossible to deal with it, particularly at this late hour, otherwise than cursorily. But I think I have said enough to convince the House that the federal plan has advantages which entitle it to be preferred to the plan of the present Bill.
Under the present Bill the Ulstermen will be coerced to come under an Administration in which they will be at best a hopeless and helpless minority. The proposal to force Ulstermen against their will under the rule of the Nationalists, who outnumber them in the proportion of four, or certainly three, to one, is a proposal which I am confident the Government will never be able to enforce. The difference between the Ulstermen of the North-East of Ireland and the Nationalists of the South and West is almost as great as that which exists between the French-speaking Canadians of Quebec and the English-speaking Canadians of Ontario. Let us assume for a moment that the French-speaking Canadians of Quebec were three to four times more numerous than the English-speaking Canadians of Ontario, and let us assume that the Dominion Parliament were to propose that the rights of local government now possessed by the men of Ontario should be transferred to a Legislature in which it is true they would be equally represented with the men of Quebec, but in which the men of Ontario could never hope to obtain more than a comparatively small and hopeless minority. What would His Majesty's Government think would be the result? Would such a proposal tend to harmony or to civil war? I have no doubt as to what would happen. I am as confident as I stand here that the men of Ontario would resist this invasion of their rights if necessary by force of arms, and I am also confident that every member of the English Liberal Party who is faithful to his old traditions would extend to them their sympathy and perhaps some of them their personal support.
I ask, Why apply to Ireland a method against which their sense of justice would revolt if it were applied to Ontario? I would then ask His Majesty's Government, if it is their desire to meet the long-standing
504
cry of the Irish people to manage their own affairs in the same way that the people of the various States of America and of the various self-governing Dominions manage theirs, why not proceed on the federal lines which are working so successfully in our self-governing Dominions? I have suggested that Ulster might be a separate Province. Well, Ulster has a larger population than seven out of the nine Provinces in Canada. Ulster is a larger Province than several of the States of the American Republic. Why not give the Ulstermen of the North-East the same rights of local self-government as are enjoyed by the men of Ontario; and the Nationalists of the South and West the same rights as are enjoyed by the men of Quebec. Follow this course and you will meet the Irish demand for self-government in a way which will satisfy the sentiment of the democracies of the United States and of the oversea self-governing Dominions, and will at the same time put an end to a century of misunderstanding and make the United Kingdom united not only in name but also in fact.
Let us look at the question for one moment from the standpoint, not of Ireland, but of Great Britain and of the Empire. Let me point out how the federal solution would affect Great Britain. I do not think your Lordships will dispute my assertion when I state that the present position is intolerable. The supreme sovereignty of the State is vested in a single Chamber, which is so congested that it is unable to find time to perform the constitutional function of even discussing adequately the legislative proposals submitted to it by the all-powerful Cabinet. Another result of the present position is that Parliament has no time at its disposal to give consideration to the many needs of the people as to which legislation is urgently desired. There is much to be said on this subject, but perhaps it will suffice if I say that one result of the federal solution would be to relieve Parliament of the congestion which is at once stifling to our liberties and unresponsive to our wants. The federal solution would help to make, not only Parliament master of its own time, but it would enable England to be mistress of her own house; her Church would not be disestablished, nor would her schools or her licensing laws be controlled against her will through the votes of outside people who should have

505
no interest in our local or domestic affairs. The fact that the people of Ireland under the federal system would have the same exclusive control over their local affairs as people in England have over theirs would entirely change, in my opinion, the attitude of the Nationalists of Ireland towards Imperial questions.
What is the greatest danger at the present moment to the strength and security of the Empire? The greatest danger, in my opinion, is the fact that we have in the House of Commons about eighty Members, counting 160 on a Division, who are ever ready to throw their influence against the best interests of the Empire. What would be the result under the federal system? The eighty most dangerous and powerful enemies of the Empire—namely, the Nationalist M.P.'s—would be transformed into forty enthusiastic friends. The Catholic Celt of the South and West of Ireland—I am sure the Irish Peers will confirm me in this—is by temperament, by religious instruction, and by interest the most conservative unit in the United Kingdom. He is opposed to Socialism, to secular education, to Land Taxes, to Free Trade. The fighting position taken up by the Leaders of the Unionist Party is to me absolutely incomprehensible, for it compels their natural allies to fire into the backs of their own troops. What can be more fatal? Federate the United Kingdom and this destructive fire which is at present annihilating your own forces will be directed from a position shoulder to shoulder with your own men against a common foe. To continue a day longer than is absolutely necessary in your present hopeless position appears to me, from a Party point of view, if I may venture to say so without being rude, to be crass stupidity.
But I do not approach the consideration of this question from the standpoint of Party. While I believe that the federal solution will help the Unionist Party; will help England; will help Ireland; my main reason for advocating the federation of the British Isles is because of the increased strength and security it would bring to the Empire. In the interests of the Empire I feel very strongly that it is imperative that the Irish question should be settled on lines which will satisfy the sentiment of the oversea democracies, both in our
506
self-governing Colonies and in the United States. Every one, I think, will agree that it is most important and in the highest interests of the Empire that there should be the friendliest, feelings of generous affection and goodwill, not only between the self-governing Dominions and the Motherland, but between America and England. I believe it is as much to the advantage of America as of England that there should not be the shadow of a cloud on the unity of purpose that binds together the English-speaking peoples of the world. I need not elaborate this point. We are all agreed upon it. A heavy shadow at present exists, and it arises from our treatment of Ireland. The endeavour of the Irish-Americans to force into the new President's Cabinet an Irish American who may use his influence in the Cabinet for preventing the realisation of the Arbitration Treaty with England and against a friendly attitude towards England generally, which was referred to in the cable of The Times Correspondent at Washington the other day, may be accepted as an illustration of the fact that between England and America stands Ireland. If this be so, is it not our duty to remove the obstacle that prevents that relationship with America from being that which we all desire?
I am glad to believe that an increasing number of your Lordships are visiting Canada and the other Dominions yearly, and when you go there you will find an almost universal sympathy with the Irish movement in favour of Home Rule. Practically every American, every Canadian, and every Australian is a Home Ruler. The young and the growing self-governing Dominions are practically unanimous in their desire that Ireland should have the same powers of local self-government as are, as I have already pointed out, possessed by the men, for instance, of Ontario and Quebec. Is it not desirable that we should range ourselves in line with the universal sentiment of the self-governing Dominions and of the United States if we can possibly do so, and by a generous and sympathetic recognition of the Nationalist demand for Home Rule attempt to win back to England the affection and goodwill of the Irish people all over the world? What a happiness it would be for Ireland, what a happiness it would be for England, what a happiness it would be for the whole of the English-speaking race, if this great and happy

507
reconciliation could be effected. I do not think it would be impossible to conceive any higher or more valuable ideal for the attainment of British statesmanship than that of bringing about a reconciliation, not only of Ireland, but of the Greater Ireland across the seas. To obtain such a reconciliation, it is worth while running some risk and paying a high price. I maintain, my Lords, that it is in our power to-day to obtain such a result on terms which, so far from involving us in any sacrifice, would bring great relief and an increase of new strength to the State, and which once accomplished would bring, not only to the United Kingdom, but to the whole English-speaking people advantages and blessings the value of which it would be difficult to compute.
In conclusion, may I briefly enumerate some of the reasons why the federal plan is entitled to preference over the plan embodied in this Bill? First, the federal plan follows established precedent. It is a plan which has been proved to work smoothly and well in our self-governing Dominions. Secondly, it gives Home Rule in a manner that ensures, not only the possession of liberty to the people, but the growth of loyalty to the State. Thirdly, it would give to the people of England the power, which is now denied them, of managing their own local and domestic affairs. Fourthly, it would also necessitate the immediate establishment of a Second Chamber which as a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature would restore to our Constitution the balance which has been removed. Lord Curzon the other day appealed for a settlement of the question of defence by general consent, on the ground that this was a subject which could never be solved by one Party alone but only by the combination and co-operation of patriotic men. The question of Ireland, the question of the House of Lords, still more the question of the House of Commons, which although it is now the sole depository of the supreme sovereignty of the Empire can no longer be regarded as a National Council or as a deliberative Assembly — all these are constitutional questions of the highest importance which the interests of the Empire and the safety of the Crown require should be settled in a way that will meet the general acceptance. If constitutional changes are to be accepted by the people as a satisfactory settlement, they must be the expression of a people's
508
convictions and not the hated symbol of a Party victory. Why cannot we follow the example of Canada, South Africa, and Australia? When the Constitutions of these self-governing Dominions were to be remodelled men of both Parties, selected because of their width of vision and of their high patriotism, met together and, sinking for the time being their Party differences, worked together in order to create a Constitution which might be trusted to secure the permanent well-being of the State. If ever there was a time when the necessity of the United Kingdom called for the co-operation and combination of patriotic men, that time would seem to be the present. It is a trite remark, my Lords, that Party government can only be tolerable if it effaces itself in the presence of national peril, and it is because we are confronted with danger both within and without that I would respectfully impress upon your Lordships that your first duty to the State is to reject this Bill of evil genesis and pregnant with disastrous consequences, and then, following the example of Canada, Australia, and South Africa, combine together with the object of securing such constitutional reforms as appear most likely to ensure the permanent well-being of the United Kingdom, of the Empire, and of the whole of the English-speaking people.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I am sure I shall be in sympathy with the general sense of the House if I say that I admire the speech which the noble Earl has just delivered. I am also sure that my noble friend will absolve me if I do not follow him into the federal system which he explained so clearly to us. It is not only that these things are too hard for me, but also, as one of the speakers on the other side said this evening, the present state of affairs with regard to the Irish question is not quite ready for the federal system which Lord Grey contemplated. Nor will I follow him into the statistical calculation of the psychology of the Irish M.P.'s which will be brought about by such a federal system. But I confess that I was somewhat surprised that, after telling us that in the Colonies and in America there was very great sympathy with Home Rule and urging us to give some message of reconciliation to the Colonies and America on this question of all-round Home Rule, in his concluding sentences he should urge that we should reject this Bill.

509
I remember very well the debate in 1893. In that debate Lord Rosebery told the House of Lords that it was not the Bill but the policy which was at stake. I think we have come back to that now. You have the two great Parties of the State disagreeing as to the best way of managing Ireland and arranging the longstanding difficulty of Ireland. We on this side submit one way of settlement and you on that side will have nothing to do with it. I am not going to take your Lordships much into history. But I would remind you that in 1801 Lord Clare, immediately after the Union, argued that the Union should be accompanied by a very considerable extension of local self-government. Nothing was done at that time, but between 1836 and 1893 twelve Bills dealing with local government extension for Ireland were submitted and rejected, and four Bills were dropped altogether. Had some of those Bills been successful and Lord Clare's advice been followed, it is quite clear that Ireland would have been much more prepared for the grant of an independent Legislature, the grant of a Parliament of its own, than it was either in 1886 or in 1893. But since 1893 a great deal has been done in that direction. You have had a considerable extension of local government, and, as has been alluded to to-night, since 1869 there has been a succession of Land Acts, one of which, whose author I do not see in His place, will redound for long years to come to the credit of Lord Ashbourne. That did a great deal. I think it was Lord John Russell who said that in Ireland the land was the life, and Mr. Froude in the early 'seventies spoke of its (Irelands) land system as the "secret splinter in the wound." Well, my Lords, it is common knowledge how much has been done with excellent economic effect in this all-important matter. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches made a quotation—I am not sure that he was not quoting Mr. Redmond—that a new Ireland had been created.
EARL GREY: The quotation was from Mr. T. P. O'Connor.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: Mr. T. P. O'Connor said that a new Ireland had been created. That, of course, may have been the colouring that Mr. T. P. O'Connor, as an accomplished author, infused into his discourse. But still, no doubt, as far
510
as Ireland goes the state of things is very different to-day from what it was; and it is not too much to say that the land question which in 1886 bewildered and baffled Mr. Gladstone may be said now no longer to exist. That, mainly, is my position to-night—that Home Rule has now become largely an administrative and fiscal question. I believe it is in that light that it presents itself to what I may call the average constituencies of England, Scotland, and Wales; that is, in the constituencies where there is not a very large or impressive Irish vote. Home Rule has become a comparatively sober affair. To quote Lord Rosebery again, the Cerberus of Irish discontent has become a comparatively mild-mannered creature. Then another statement was that the age of romance seems over in Ireland. I think that exists now only in the excellent school of young Irish poets. No greater contrast I think can be imagined than the contrast between such men as Swift and Flood and Grattan, O'Connell and Parnell, and the two Mr. Redmonds. The earlier men were cast in the heroic mould; the latter in the municipal. I do not say they are the worse for that; indeed, to that extent they are much better to deal with.
Now, my Lords, we on this side at all events have always tried to deal with and settle the Irish question by creating a legislative body to deal with Irish affairs. That, practically, is the Bill before you, and that is the Bill of which the noble Duke moved the rejection a few hours ago. Let me here compliment the noble Duke on the way he did his task. He had all sorts of hard things to say about the Bill, but he said them in a very admirable way. I do not know that he made good all his points. I shall have to speak about some in a minute, but I was rather surprised at his main point. He has himself made a great deal too much, or a great deal too little, of nationality and how far the voice of a people is to be considered. I should like to remind the noble Duke that in 1885 his distinguished predecessor, who was then Lord Hartington, avowed in connection with Scottish Disestablishment and Welsh Disestablishment that the voice of those who were affected was to be respected. I put it to the House that nobody here will challenge the fact that since the Liberal Party, rightly or wrongly, took up the question of an

511
independent Parliament for Ireland the voice of Ireland has neither faltered nor weakened.
I come back for a moment to the noble Duke. I will not follow him in what he said against the Bill and as to what had been done about South Africa and Australia. He seemed very much enamoured of the delays, the conferences, and the considerations which had led up to the arrangement made for South Africa and Australia, and he found fault with us for an enthusiastic impulsiveness in this case. But those were comparatively new questions. He seemed to forget that the Irish question is something like 100 years old. I do not think you can take it all ab ovo as to Ireland in the way in which it comes before us. But, after all, is this such a very bad Bill? Is it so self-defeating, so unsound, so teeming, as I think the noble Duke said it was the other day in Yorkshire, with distrust of the people it is intended to benefit, that is the Irish people? The noble Duke was very much upset about that to-night. He said, "This is too bad; you have not trusted them, you have not given them anything." I wonder what he would have said if more had been given. After all, the main point is not what the noble Duke thinks about that, but what the Irish people are prepared to accept. Therefore I think that particular point of the noble Duke's we may put upon one side—at least I can.
Now I will go back to the true policy of what is being proposed. I shall stick to that, and I shall remember that this is a Second Reading debate, which spares me going into details which have been very well gone into by other people and which I know will be adequately handled by both Lord St. Aldwyn and the Lord Chancellor to-morrow night. I am reminded that Lord Thring in 1883, on this same point, said that in twenty-five years of his own experience of Parliamentary debates he never remembered a Bill of first-class importance which was not described by the Opposition for the time being as crude and crazy. We know well enough that these sorts of representation are the savour of the salt of Party politics. I do not object to it at all, but, to keep to the metaphor of salt, I take those sort of views as to craziness, unsoundness, and rottenness, and all the rest of it, cum grano salis. Another point which the
512
noble Duke made, and which no doubt we shall hear repeated constantly, is that this Bill was insufficiently discussed. After all, it was discussed for fifty-two days, and the amount of discussion which is to be given to anything is a matter of opinion, and I even say largely a matter of temperament. Some people going to visit their solicitor, or their physician, even their bailiff or their head-keeper would spend an extraordinary time over it, and some people who might discuss briefly and simply a given thing will go over and over it again and again before they make up their mind about it. But if you really look at what the discussion was on the Bill you will see that most of the clauses were pretty well discussed. Another point is that people like discussing at great length any subject which can be treated by means of the well-worn platitudes of that particular subject. Being familiar it lends itself to more or less original or more or less varied metaphors, or perhaps it encourages a few little jokes. When you come to really difficult matters there is not so much stomach for discussion. I have a little paragraph here from the Morning Post which complains, in the same way as the noble Duke did, that no discussion had taken place on several complex things. The noble Duke cited some; but I am convinced that unless they were brought up as actuaries most people would shrink from discussing them.
I turn to another charge made by the noble Duke, which no doubt we shall hear repeated in all sorts of forms during the remaining evenings of the debate. The noble Duke said there was no mandate. I do not like the word "mandate," and I suppose if noble Lords opposite think that the actual Bill in its final form, after having passed both Houses of Parliament, must be presented to every elector of the United Kingdom and Ireland at a General Election the contention might be technically upheld, but I really do not think the constituencies would take that view. Ever since Mr. Gladstone broke up the Liberal Party in 1886 the official Liberal Party has had what I suppose constitutes a mandate for Home Rule, and it has been everybody's opinion that sooner or later Home Rule was bound to be a cardinal feature of their policy. It was perfectly well understood by the electorate at large. In 1887 Lord Salisbury himself said that the one word "Ireland" summarised politics;

513
and this is what Mr. Chamberlain had to say about it in 1893—
"We are face to face with the great fact that the great majority of the Liberal Party are pledged to the principle of Home Rule, and have been strenuously endeavouring during the last seven years to make it a cardinal feature of Liberal policy."
In face of that I do not think it is much use saying that nobody knew anything about what was going to take place.
Speaking now as a mere Englishman I should like to turn for one moment to the question of Ulster. I cannot speak with the special information which, no doubt, could be given by Lord Willoughby de Broke or Mr. F. E. Smith, who went over the other day to advise them on their military tactics. But it is common knowledge, suppose, that the North-East counties of Ulster—that is, four out of nine, I think—hold very different notions from the other parts of Ulster where the Unionist vote is not so pronounced, and from the rest of Ireland. That being so, as I understand, if the desire of the majority, constitutionally expressed and given effect to by this Bill, were to prevail, we are to have civil war. In the words of Lord Ashbourne in the debate of 1893, the Bill is the "torch of civil war," and I am sorry to see for a good many weeks past that "Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right" is the cliché upon which, or the thesis upon which, leading articles have been written and advice has been given and speeches composed. Now, will Ulster be right? I do not know what the noble Duke thinks about it, but he knows something of a part of the country where we both live, and I do not think that noble Lords opposite will find that that is the view which will be taken in the quiet villages and boroughs or in the busy market towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire and Westmoreland.
I do not know that I heard the noble Duke or any speaker on that side say so, but I suppose we shall hear what was said in the House of Commons—namely, that the safeguards which the Government, recognising to the full the difficulty of the Irish question, have seen fit to introduce into the Bill are not adequate. Mr. Balfour to this extent did admit that some safeguards had been put in. He did not like them. As usual, they were of a different
514
character from those that he in the same circumstances would have put in. But what he said was that he did not want, or nobody wanted in Ireland, to live in fortresses or behind palisades—in effect I suppose the same thing is meant by Mr. F. E. Smith and Sir Edward Carson, for, as you see, the metaphor is military. But, still, with that caveat against a sort of Masterman Ready existence behind a stockade Mr. Balfour admitted there were safeguards. But Sir Edward Carson, as I understand—and I shall be interested to hear what noble Lords opposite understand—took the view pure and simple that, "We do not care what safeguards you put in; what we won't have is the Bill." That is a very legitimate and proper attitude, and I assume it is the attitude of most of the noble Lords opposite; but if that be so, if this Bill cannot satisfy Ulster, I am inclined to think that in the long run Ulster will have to be satisfied with the Bill, it seems to me, out of sympathy as I am with the drillings and the counter-marches, and the taking of salutes, and all the rest of it. I do appreciate the Ulster difficulty and the sincerity of its disapproval, and if I thought that the effect of the passage of this Bill would be to prejudice irretrievably later on a settlement by consent of the Ulster question, I do not say I should vote against the Bill—I should not—but I should consider whether I should vote at all. I do not myself see, if this Bill went through and you got the financial system of the new order of things into proper working order, though it must be to some extent a time of experiment and difficulty at first, why some settlement by consent of this Ulster difficulty should not be arrived at.
I suppose it is an axiom, or perhaps a copybook formula of political science, that those who would estimate the political and material conditions of a people should not fix their attention too much on the form of the governing body but upon the general welfare and the consent of the governed. Judged by the material standard; by the great increase of prosperity which the last twenty-five years have seen; by the better agricultural conditions of which I have been a witness, for the Yorkshire market I happen to own is the first big one that taps the Irish supply; by the co-operation of all parties for agriculture and for public works; by the

515
comparative success of local government—by, in short, all the material signs of a better state in Ireland, I quite agree that one might very justly say that all that being so "Leave us as we are; why touch us?" ["Hear, hear."] I like that cheer. But it is when you come to the other side and pass away from the material conditions of the country and examine the moral and political conditions that you are brought face to face with the steady, unresting, uninfluenceable, unmitigated-by-this-prosperity demand for self-government. I confess, having watched what has been done in Ireland, having watched the operation of land purchase, having realised that these Acts must have ranged on the side of a settled order of things hundreds of men now doing well with their holdings and in settled homes, that one might have thought they would have preferred to be left under existing conditions rather than be plunged into somewhat uncertain conditions, and that in these circumstances the Irish vote would have been changed. But not a bit of it. All this time, accompanied by this increase of material prosperity, you have, as I
516
say, this unresting, this unflinching, uninfluenceable demand for self-government. But you will throw out the Bill, of course. Your protestations, your speeches, your attitude since 1886, as it seems to me, leave you no other course. The stone of Sisyphus will again rebound down hill. Perorations are not in my line, but in looking through the Second Reading debate in the House of Commons in 1893 I came across the speech of a splendid Irishman, the late Lord Russell of Killowen. He said—
"The claim of Ireland for self-government has survived many and great calamities; it has survived emigration; it has survived famine; it has survived the hateful moods and tenses of coercion; it has survived the errors of its friends."
My Lords, I believe it will survive your action when you throw out this Bill, and it is in that confidence that I shall give an unqualified support to the Bill and to His Majesty's Government.
The further debate adjourned till to-morrow.
House adjourned at five minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m. till a quarter past Ten o'clock a.m.