Sitting of 28 January 1913

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

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions against the passing of the Established Church (Wales) Bill were presented by—
Mr. Evelyn Cecil, from the Penrith Division of Cumberland, the Eskdale Division of Cumberland, and East Birmingham (48 petitions), containing 8,599 signatures; and
Sir Hildred Carlile, from the Biggleswade Division of Bedfordshire (48 petitions), containing 7,784 signatures; and from the Luiton Division (28 petitions), containing 10,542 signatures.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE), UNIVERSITY COURT ORDINANCE No. 39 (GLASGOW, No. 12) (AFFILIATION OF THE ROYAL TECHNICAL COLLEGE, GLASGOW).
Petition from Glasgow, for approval; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to the sums payable in respect of Deposit Contributors towards the expenses incurred by Insurance Committees in the Administration of Benefits [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 471.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 27th January, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health
1148
Insurance (Collection of Contributions) Regulations (Wales), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 472.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 25th January, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Irish Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions) Regulations (Ireland), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 473.]

IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Copy presented of Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure of Universities and Colleges, Ireland (including the Fee Fund Grant), for the year ended 31st March, 1912, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 474.]
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS).
Appropriation Accounts presented for the year ending 31st March, 1912, together with the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon, and certain Reports upon Store Accounts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 475.]
TREASURY CHEST.
Account presented for the year 1911 –12, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 476.]
DEVELOPMENT FUND.
Copy presented of Abstract Account of the Receipts into and Issues out of the Development Fund in the period ended 31st March, 1912, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 477.]
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS, ETC.) (UNITED KINGDOM).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 27th January; Mr. Ellis Griffith']; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 478.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the county borough of Bournemouth, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 4 of the Shops Act, 1912, to certain classes of Shops within the county borough, and fixing the day on which the Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the urban district of Walthamstow, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 4 of the Act to certain classes of Shops within the urban district, and fixing the day on which the Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 15th January, 1913, in terms of Section 4 of the Act, affecting certain classes of Shops in the burgh of Leven [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

TREATY SERIES (No. 2, 1913).
Copy presented of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Siam respecting the rendition of Fugitive Criminals between certain States in the Malay Peninsula and Siam. Signed at Bangkok, 20th November, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow (Wednesday), and to be printed. [Bill 355.]
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Thomas Henry Parry, esquire, for Flint Boroughs.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow (Wednesday), and to be printed. [Bill 356.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  War in Balkans.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the letter addressed to the Foreign Office by the London Committee of All India Moslem League regarding the treatment which it is stated the Mussulmans of Macedonia have been subjected to at the hands of the Balkan allied forces; whether the Consular reports received by him, which have been brought to the notice of the Governments that now control the territories in which these outrages are said to have occurred, have been productive of any result; and whether he has any information to show that outrages on the unarmed peasantry, either by one side or the other, have now been put a stop to?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and I am informing the league of the steps taken by His Majesty's Government in this matter as stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds on 16th January, and of the further information contained in my reply to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to-day.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the following alleged facts in connection with the occupation of Dedeagatch by the Bulgarians have been brought to his notice, that over 50 Turkish houses with their inhabitants and a mosque containing 300 refugees were dynamited, that 3,000 men, women, and children were massacred during 13 days, that in the neighbouring village of Ferejik over 500 Moslems were murdered; whether he will call for a report from, the British Vice-consul at Dedeagatch; and, if these statements prove well founded, will he make urgent representations to the Bulgarian Government to put an end to such atrocities?
  Sir E. GREY: As was indicated in my reply to the question of the hon. Member for Hull on 9th January, the reports which have reached me respecting the treatment of the Moslem inhabitants of territory in Servian and Bulgarian occupation, cannot be considered as authentic in detail. In view, however, of subsequent information tending to indicate that these reports were not without some foundation, I took the action of which the hon. Member was informed in my reply to his question of 16th January. To that reply, and the answer which I also made to his question of 21st January. I have at present nothing to add, except that the Bulgarian Prime Minister has stated that no outrages have been committed by Bulgarian Regular troops, and that any actions of Bulgarian bands have been quite irregular and directly opposed to the orders issued from headquarters.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Consular reports may not have been accurate in detain?
  Sir E. GREY: The Consuls have not got first-hand information of these things. They report such things as they hear and such things as they think may have some foundation. They have not been eye-witnesses.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: May I ask whether it is impossible to investigate them, and whether we are to understand that British Consuls in these towns are practically prisoners, as we are told by General Baumann has been the case with the French and German Consuls in spite of their protests?
  Sir E. GREY: In the state of things which prevails when a country is at war you cannot expect the British Consuls to be in a position to investigate and supervise all the things that happen. They send such reports as they can. With regard to reports from British Consuls, during the last few months I have dealt with them in the same way as the reports with regard to things which happened under Turkish administration before the war began in the last four years.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: May I ask whether reports have not been received from both sides, and whether there is not a distinction to be drawn between atroci-
  1152
  ties by irregulars and those committed by troops under regular officers?
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: May I ask whether the only way to get rid of atrocities committed by irregulars not under control is to publish the whole information and induce the Regular troops to put a stop to them in response to European opinion?
  Sir E. GREY: Ever since 1908 I have been asked to publish the reports about things which went on in Macedonia. I declined to publish the reports which I was asked to publish regarding outrages that happened, or were alleged to have happened, under Turkish administration in Macedonia when there was a state of war existing between Italy and Turkey. At that time I was the subject of some reproach because I was supposed to be sheltering the Turks in not publishing the reports. I am pursuing precisely the same course in regard to the reports I have received since.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: Would it not be the best course so as to avoid all suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman is not acting with absolute and strict impartiality, and that he is sheltering the Turks, to publish all the reports since the last Blue Book was published in 1908, which would satisfy the Turks and everybody else?
  Sir E. GREY: I think the probable result would be to dissatisfy practically everybody. The reports contain matters, some of which appear to have good foundation and some of which are rumours. They are inextricably mixed up together. What I thought was the best course was to put such information as appeared to have some foundation before the Governments which might be in a position, directly or indirectly, to control events and prevent things of this kind happening. That is what I have done. To go beyond that would not, I think, be in the public interest at the present moment, and would be going far beyond what any other Government has done.
  Mr. W. GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to prevent a repetition of the atrocities which have been committed by the allied forces on the Moslem population of Macedonia, he will make urgent representations to the Bulgarian Government, and take immediate steps to ensure the presence of Consuls or other

  1153
  impartial witnesses if and when the town of Adrianople capitulates?
  Sir E. GREY: In reply to the first part of this question, I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given to the hon. Member on this subject. In regard to the second part, the Consular representatives of the Powers are, so far as I am aware, still at their posts in Adrianople.
  Mr. W. GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that General Baumann, Inspector-General of the Turkish Gendarmerie, has stated that when the Greeks and Bulgarians entered Cavalla all the Moslems that could be found were massacred, including a large number in the mosque, where he saw twenty-five corpses in the doorway alone; that the Bulgarian General Gueneff compelled the Greek metropolitan to surrender the Turkish women to whom he was affording refuge, and gave them to the troops; that the Bulgarian soldiers mutilated women in a manner which it is impossible to describe in words; that these atrocities only ceased with the arrival of a French cruiser; and will he call for a Report from the British Vice-Consul, and, if General Baumann's charges are substantiated, bring pressure to bear on the Greek and Bulgarian Governments to punish those responsible?
  Sir E. GREY: I have seen a copy of a notice circulated by the Porte, which is stated to have been received through the intermediary of General Baumann. The statements contained therein are not made by General Baumann himself, nor is the identity of their author revealed. It is therefore difficult to judge as to the degree of authenticity attaching to such allegations. The same difficulty occurs in the case of other and similar reports which have reached me and which do not rest on first-hand knowledge or proof. The hon. Member is already aware of the action taken in regard to these reports. I may add that in the only case where the information which has reached me has been sufficiently detailed to give the names of certain irregulars stated to have been the authors of outrages, a further communication is being made to the Government concerned, and His Majesty's Minister has been instructed to express the hope of His Majesty's Government that those who can be proved to have been responsible for excesses will be dealt with as justice demands.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his saying that the reports are not transmitted to General Baumann, whether his attention has been drawn to a French pamphlet saying that these particular allegations have been made to General Baumann himself and transmitted by him, and containing the statements in extenso in inverted commas?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot go into all the pamphlets published in this country, and still less into those published in France.

  Colombia (Charge against Mr. Hughes).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the exact charge on which Mr. Hughes has been imprisoned by the Colombian Government; when he was first imprisoned; for what length of time he was in prison; how long on bail; and whether a date for his trial has been fixed?
  Sir E. GREY: The charge against Mr. Hughes is one of "maltratamiento," or serious bodily injury, punishable by a long term of imprisonment. He was first arrested on 21st February, was released however and rearrested and imprisoned later, being kept in prison about a month. He has been on bail during the remainder of the time since the incident, which occurred on 20th February last year. The Colombian Government state that the case cannot be decided before March. I have not heard that a definite date has been fixed for the trial.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman press for the promise of a hearing at least in March?
  Sir E. GREY: I have told the hon. Gentleman that the last representation I made was that proceedings should be brought, not that they should be proceeded with at all.

  Boxer Indemnity (British Share).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked if the Government can see their way to forego the balance of the Boxer indemnity due to this country over and above what is necessary to pay proven claims for indemnity arising out of the Boxer disturbances, so as to avoid any accusation of making a profit out of China on the plea of indemnity?
  Sir E. GREY: The British share of the Boxer indemnity was assessed as far as

  1155
  possible only on the basis of actual expenditure. Should it eventually be found when fully liquidated that there is any surplus, it will be returned to the Chinese Government, and its disposal would be left to their discretion. There will, therefore, be no question of making any profit out of it.
  Mr. D. HALLasked if pressure has been brought to bear upon the Chinese Government to pay further instalments of the Boxer indemnity; and if any promise or inducement has been held out to the Chinese Government that, in the event of that Government complying with the main terms suggested by the Powers who would provide what is known as the six-Power loan, the demand for the immediate payment of further instalments of the indemnity would not be persisted in?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. LYNCH: Has any pressure been brought by this Government to bear on the Chinese Government to accept the six-Power loan on conditions which would fetter its free development?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not see that that has anything to do with the question as to the Boxer troubles. It is not at all relevant.

  Police, Ganjam (India).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state in what language the police records are kept in the Balliguda, Gumsur, and Chatrapur divisions of the district of Ganjam, and what is the language spoken by the majority of the population in those parts; and whether he is aware that, although these records are not open to inspection by the general public, they are exhibited in the course of the trial by courts, and the parties to the action are entitled to public copies of them?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The Secretary of State has no information as to the first part of the hon. Member's question, except that police vernacular records are kept in Telegu in Ganjam in all circles but one. As regards the second part, under certain conditions the parties are allowed, at the instance of the Court, to call for police diaries and to inspect them. The conditions are prescribed in
  1156
  the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these records are kept in Telegu in the Uriya-speaking districts, whereas the Uriyas are appointed to a district which is not Uriya speaking?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am not aware. I should have to obtain the information from my hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in the district of Ganjam, out of 545 police officers 291 are Uriyas; whether, practically, the whole of these Uriya officers are stationed in the Balliguda division, which consists largely of malarious unhealthy tracts inhabited by non-Uriya-speaking hill tribes; whether he can state for what reason Uriya officers are not appointed to any proportional extent to the Uriya-speaking parts of Ganjam, namely, the Gumsur and Chatrapur divisions?
  Mr. ACLAND: The figures cited by the hon. Member are correct, but the Secretary of State has no information as to the distribution of individual constables in Ganjam.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RANGK-FINDEUS.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken, by the issue of further orders, to equip the Army with the 316 one-man range-finders by which it is still deficient, according to the rate laid down for each battalion?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Further orders are being and will be issued as funds are available.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in view that the price will be very much reduced if they are ordered in large bulk rather than in small batches?
    Colonel SEELY: Yes, I am aware of that consideration, which the hon. Gentleman has brought to my notice several times.

    OFFICEKS' PAY.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to appoint a Commission or Committee to examine the question of the rates of pay to officers in the Army; how far these rates affect recruitment; and

    1157
    whether they are adequate to attract the most suitable candidates, having regard to the remuneration in other professions and to the change of conditions since any substantial addition has been made to the long-prevailing rates?
    Colonel SEELY: As I have already informed the House, the rates of pay of officers in the Army have been and are now receiving my earnest consideration, and I do not think that at present the proposed Commission or Committee would materially facilitate progress in the direction mentioned.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Would not the appointment of such a Commission or Committee bring home to the mind of this House the facts of the case, and call attention to a very great grievance?
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the pay of the soldiers be taken into consideration at the same time whenever the pay of the officers is taken into consideration?
    Sir H. CRAIK: It has been increased over and over again.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the matter in introducing the Army Estimates in the coming 'Session?
    Colonel SEELY: At the present time I do not think such a Commission as is referred to is opportune. With regard to my hon. Friend's question, I would say we will certainly bear in mind the desirability of making it possible for the poor man to rise from the ranks in considering this question. In reply to the last question, I do not think I shall be able to make any full statement on the Army Estimates.

    TIDWOKTII AND BULFORD CAMPS.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the difference between the price in the contract for German made cable for the Army camps at Tidworth and Bulford, accepted by the War Office, and the prices quoted by the three lowest English contractors for best quality English cable?
    Colonel SEELY: The tenders were for the complete installation and do not indicate separately the cost of the cable. The three lowest tenders which included cable believed to be of British manufacture, were from 27 per cent, to 37 per cent, above the accepted tender.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the War Office Department have issued
    1158
    specifications for extra work at Tidworth and Bulford camps; were the War Office electrical staff able to prepare these without the assistance of Messrs. Kennedy and Jenkin; and do the specifications again allow for the use of German cable, or must it be of British manufacture by members of the Cable Makers' Association?
    Colonel SEELY: Specifications for the internal wiring of some houses at Tidworth have been issued; these were prepared by the Department of the Director of Barrack Construction and not by the electric light staff of the War Office. The conductors are to be association grade Cable Makers' Association make.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there is a different requirement in the specification from the one in the previous specification?
    Colonel SEELY: I must have notice of any further question on these very technical matters.

    FLOODING.
    Mr. KINGasked at what date flogging was abolished as a method of disciplinary correction in the Army; whether any demands have since been received from officers or others asking for its reintroduction; and whether, since the abolition of flogging, there has been any deterioration or improvement in the morale and discipline of the Army?
    Colonel SEELY: Flogging was restricted by the Mutiny Act of 1868 to active service and to certain offences committed while under sentence in military prisons. Under the Army Discipline and Regulation Act, 1881, it was further restricted to military prisons and in 1906 corporal punishment in military prisons was abolished. No demands have been put forward by officers or others for the reintroduction of flogging. The general improvement of conduct in the Army during the last few years has been remarkable, but it is not possible to say whether that improvement is due to the abolition of flogging.
    Mr. J. WARD: Of course it is.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE: (CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT)
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked whether the Grant which is given to county associations for the provision of clothing and equipment for Infantry Territorial battalions is calculated on the basis of packs being included in the equipment; and, if

    1159
    not, from what source should county associations draw the money if they decide to adopt packs?
    Colonel SEELY: The initial equipment Grant is calculated on the cost of the 1903 pattern bandolier equipment and not on the web pattern, which includes packs. If county associations desire to adopt packs the cost must be met out of surplus funds.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: The right hon. Gentleman has given them too much, so they will have surplus funds?
    Colonel SEELY: I have not given too much, but they have got the surplus funds in many cases, I am glad to say.

    SPECIAL RESERVE.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether the twenty-seven fourth battalions of the Special Reserve will be available for foreign service just as much as any others; and whether they might have to go abroad and into the fighting formation?
    Colonel SEELY: These battalions would be available for service abroad at the commencement of war either in relief of Regular battalions oversea who were required to proceed to the seat of war or for the lines of communication.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ex-Secretary of State for War said that men trained for less than six months would be no use against Continental troops?
    Colonel SEELY: Nothing which my Noble Friend has said is at all in opposition to the statement which I have just made.
    Mr. HUNT: Did not the ex-Secretary of State for War say that troops trained for less than six months would be of no use against Continental troops, and is not that a direct negative of what has just been said?
    Colonel SEELY: Mr. Speaker has ruled that I cannot be expected to remember all Lord Haldane's speeches.

    Licensed Houses (Assessment).
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the loss inflicted upon the licensed trade in the county of London under the Finance Act, 1909, by reason of the higher assessment of licensed houses
    1160
    under the Metropolitan Quinquennial Valuation Act as compared with the rest of the country; and whether he is prepared to deal with this state of affairs in the Finance Bill of this year?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The principle of assessment is the same throughout the whole country, namely, the full annual value at which the licensed premises are worth to be let by the year, and on this principle no inequality, so far as is known, exists in the assessments in the Metropolis as compared with the rest of the country.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that assessments are screwed up much higher in the Metropolitan area than outside, and that, therefore, a real injustice is inflicted in this way?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that the assessments are screwed up much higher. The rents are much higher, and to that extent they have got to pay more in their taxes.

    Excise and Customs (Amalgamation).
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the hours of attendance without extra re muneration of the London Customs surveyors prior to the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Departments were fixed by Treasury Minute not exceeding eight hours per day between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. for landing and shipping, and between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. for other duties; whether under G.O. 54/1912 their hours have been extended to a normal day between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. for all duties; whether he will state if surveyors are required or expected to give a less number of hours' attendance per normal day under the present conditions than hitherto; and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second and third parts of the question, it is not expected that, as a general rule, the attendance which surveyors will be required to give between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. in future will exceed the attendance which they have given between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. in the past.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Chairman of the Board of

    1161
    Customs and Excise stated in his evidence before the Committee on the Amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Departments that, with regard to the second and third-class surveyors of Customs, the present prospects of the second-class men are to succeed by selection to the first-class scale of £490 to £550 and the prospects of the third-class men are to succeed to the second-class scale of £430 to £480, and that some special arrangement seems required to reserve these prospects to them, otherwise they would be prejudiced; whether an increased maximum of £50 was given to meet this loss of prospects and to compensate for loss of overtime emoluments; what were the average overtime earnings of surveyors and principal clerks, respectively, for the year ended 31st December, 1911; and if he will say upon what basis the sum of £50 compensation was arrived at and applied to both surveyors and principal clerks, having regard to the disparity in the average overtime emoluments of the two grades?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The average overtime earnings of members of the old surveyor and principal clerk classes for 1911 are estimated at about £43 and £l, respectively. The increase of £50 in the maximum of these classes was granted by reference to the effect of amalgamation looked at as a whole, the different classes being, of course, affected in different ways.

    Thames Embankment (South Side).
    Captain MURRAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the scheme for providing an embankment on the south side of the Thames from the new County Hall to the projected St. Paul's Bridge, and to the suggestion that the London County Council and the various local authorities concerned should be asked to contribute £500,000 towards the cost of the scheme, while the balance of approximately the same amount should be provided by the Road Board; and whether the funds at the disposal of the Road Board can properly be applied to schemes of this description?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No application has been made to the Road Board in connection with the scheme referred to, and I am, therefore, unable to reply to the last part of the question.

    Increment Duty.
    Colonel BURNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, owing to the decision in the case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Lumsden that a vendor who sells house property for more than its valuation under the Finance Act, 1909, and as Increment Duty is payable, although the site value has not increased, he will introduce legislation to amend the Act so that a vendor can deduct from any Increment Duty arising from the sale the legal expenses he is put to in buying and selling property before any Increment Duty is assessed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In view of the provisions of Section 3 (5) of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, I do not consider amending legislation of the nature indicated by the hon. Member to be necessary.
    Colonel BURN: Why will not the right hon. Gentleman allow legal expenses which have been incurred in selling before the amount of Increment Duty is assessed, since he allows deductions to be made for any improvement by the landlord before Increment Duty is assessed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is perfectly obvious that we cannot interpret a Clause in an Act of Parliament by question and answer. It has been discussed over and over again in Committee on the Finance Bill, and I have no doubt will be discussed again.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    AMENDMENT.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked when it is proposed to introduce the legislation to amend the anomalies of the National Insurance Act which was promised on behalf of the Government at the time of the Edinburgh election?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As the main benefits of the National Insurance Act have only been in operation for barely a fortnight, it would be obviously premature to make any such statement as that asked for by the hon. Member. The actual words I used were, "where experience proves that the Act needs Amendment, either to meet special cases or otherwise, it will be amended."
    Mr. F. HALL: Has it not already been proved beyond any question of doubt that the Act requires much alteration with

    1163
    regard to many of those who are particularly desirous of having their own doctor, as was promised by the right hon. Gentleman in his tabernacle speech?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should not raise a series of contentious matters at Question Time which he cannot pursue. It is only a waste of time.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, on the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's estimate that the number of insured persons and their dependants will probably include more than four-fifths of the total number of persons suffering from tuberculosis in the country, he realises that in Gloucestershire during the first six months of sanatorium benefit 53 per cent, of such cases will be amongst insured persons, and 27 per cent, amongst dependants; whether, seeing that on the basis of the Astor Report one sanatorium bed and one hospital bed will be required for every 5,000 of the population, sixty-six sanatorium beds and sixty-six hospital beds will be required for this purpose in Gloucestershire, fifty-two of each for insured persons and their dependants, and thirty-five of each for insured persons only, and that allowing for the provision in addition of nine dispensaries only the estimated annual expenditure will be £7,366, whereas the 8d. available for institutional treatment of insured persons is estimated to produce £3,433 only, leaving £3,933 to be found from other sources for insured persons alone, or including dependants £6,679, or including the whole community £8,738; and whether, in view of the unwillingness of the already over-burdened ratepayers and their representatives to provide out of the rates the sum of £4,369, a moiety of the above amount, he will be willing, in order that the work may not be carried out piecemeal, but that this problem may be attacked as a whole, to provide a larger proportion than hitherto promised of the above deficit by way of an increased Exchequer Grant?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope to see a deputation of the County Councils Association at an early date with regard to schemes for the treatment of tuberculosis throughout the country. In the meantime I do not think that I can undertake, within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, an argument as to the detailed financial proposals of one county.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the insurance committee for the county of Gloucester originally decided to provide for their tuberculous population nineteen dispensaries at an average distance of ten miles, so that such institutions might be reasonably accessible to all requiring advice and simple treatment, but that, when 6d. per head was deducted from the original Is. 3d. as representing domiciliary treatment under the arrangements for medical benefit, the number of dispensaries was reduced to nine only, the average area of such dispensary district being now 137 square miles; and whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer can state what is the area which each such dispensary ought to be made to serve?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The provision of dispensaries is a matter for the county council and not for the insurance committee. I am not aware that such a scheme as that referred to has been put forward, but even the number of dispensaries stated in the question to be now contemplated would seem to bear a very high proportion to the population as compared with the recommendations of the Astor Report.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are counties where there are large rural areas, and that as consequently there are greater distances for the population to travel, dispensaries must be more numerous?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree. I am only pointing out that they are considerably more numerous than the recommendation in the Astor Report-would warrant us in proposing.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked in the ease of a young man whose home is in Chatham and whose occupation is in Gravesend, where he lives in rooms for the greater part of each week, from which place would he secure his medical aid if taken ill; or would he have the right to claim medical attendance in both Chatham and Gravesend, and secure a doctor from the panel in either place?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The insured person in question could choose a doctor from the Kent panel either in the neighbourhood of Gravesend or in that of Chatham. He could not be assigned to two panel doctors at the same time. If, after choosing a doctor in one of the

    1165
    districts, he could no longer obtain his services, he could notify the committee, whose duty it would then be to make arrangements for his attendance by another doctor.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Prime Minister whether the proposed Supplementary Estimates will contain a provision for carrying out the recommendations in the recent Report of the Highlands and Islands Committee as to medical service?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am afriad I can add nothing to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on this subject on the 20th and 23rd instant. The various Supplementary Estimates will be published as soon as possible.
    Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOS-CAWENasked whether domestic servants who are employed in two separate residences by the same employer at different times of the year are entitled to free medical attendance in each area under the National Insurance Act; and whether they are entitled to select a doctor from two separate panels?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly, Sir. A domestic servant who at different times of the year resides in different areas, by giving notice on changing her residence to the insurance committee of the area to which she is going, will be able to select a doctor on the panel in the second area.

    VOLUXTARY CONTIBUTORS.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can now state the number of voluntary contributors under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, Sir, accurate information is not yet available. I believe about 10,000 voluntary contributors' cards have already been received from societies and about 200,000 cards for the third quarter have been applied for by societies in England for distribution either to their branches or to members direct. The number will, therefore, be something between these figures.

    SUBSIDIARY EMPLOYMENTS.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that there are a number of bank agents in the country whose work as such does not exceed one or, in some cases, two hours a
    1166
    day once or twice in the week while the agencies are open; that their remuneration for such work would be at a lower rate than £160 per annum if they were employed in whole-time service, but that their income from their concurrent and regular businesses and professions is often considerable, sometimes exceeding £l,000 a year; and whether, under these circumstances, he will include such agents among those obtaining a certificate of exemption under the National Health (Subsidiary Employments) Order, 1912 (No. 1)?
    Mr MASTERMAN: No cases of the kind referred to have been brought to my notice, and no application for exception has been received.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: If any such cases are brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice, will he exempt them from the operation of the Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will certainly bring them before the notice of the Commissioners with a view to possible action.

    SUPPLY OF DRUGS (WEST BROMWICH).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the West Bromwich list of firms from whom drugs and medical appliances can be obtained by insured persons under the terms of the National Insurance Act includes the name of a woman whose sole qualification is that of being a registered (not trained) midwife; and, seeing that it is a breach of medical etiquette for a practitioner to be associated in any professional respect with any person holding the position referred to, will he state what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I presume that the person referred to is a person whose name appears on the West Bromwich list as willing to supply drugs (other than scheduled poisons and medicines which require to be dispensed) and appliances. I do not know whether this person is a registered midwife; but, if she is, this would not disqualify her under the Act, nor, so far as I am aware, under any rule of medical etiquette, from supplying such articles to insured persons.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Is the lady in question qualified to dispense drugs?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Not unless she is qualified under the Pharmacy Act?
    Mr. NEWMAN: Has she an assistant to dispense drugs for her?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know anything about that. If she is not qualified under the Pharmacy Act, she is certainly not qualified to dispense drugs.

    INSURANCE COMMISSIONS (APPOINTMENTS).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the number of relatives and connections of officials and prominent members of large friendly societies who have been appointed to positions under the National Health Insurance Commissions; and how many of them were appointed as the result of open competition?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to Cd. 6095, 6231, 6540 and 6582 as to the methods of selecting persons for the different posts under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, and the names of the persons actually appointed with their qualifications. I do not propose to ask the Commissioners to make individual inquiries of each member of their staffs as to whether or not any of his relatives is an official or prominent member of a large friendly society.
    Mr. F. HALL: Were not candidates informed that a knowledge of the Insurance Act and of the rules of friendly societies and a Civil Service examination were necessary? Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question whether any applicants have obtained positions as a result of such an examination?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is not the question at all. The hon. Gentleman asked me if I would state the number of relatives and connections of officials and prominent members of large friendly societies who have been appointed to positions under the National Health Insurance Commissions. I do not know who their relatives are, and I do not propose to inquire.
    Mr. F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part, as to the number appointed as the result of examination?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have referred the hon. Gentleman to three Command Papers, where he will find lull information.

    Calton Prison, Edinburgh.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will say who were the owners of the site of the Calton Prison at the time the prison was built; whether
    1168
    the owners at that time were granted a charter of the land; whether a price was ever paid for the land; whether the estate vested in the Prison Commissioners by the Prisons Act of 1877 was vested subject to all liabilities affecting the land at that date; and whether the Prison Commissioners are bound to discharge those liabilities before transferring the land to any other Department?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am not in a position to make an authoritative statement on the points raised by my hon. Friend so far as they relate to a period anterior to the date at which the site was by Act of Parliament vested in the Prison Commissioners. As regards the position under the Act of 1877, I can only refer him to the terms of that Statute.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the commissioners of small holdings in Scotland are all whole-time servants of the Crown, or whether they have other outside duties and emoluments?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is only one commissioner for small holdings in Scotland; he is assisted by three sub-commissioners. The commissioner and the sub-commissioners are all whole-time servants of the Crown, and have no other outside duties or emoluments.
    Mr. WATT: Have they got anything in the nature of a directorship of a railway company, or industrial concern outside?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No paid office, I understand, at all.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked whether a number of applications for small holdings under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, from Hart-hill and the surrounding district were lodged with the secretary to the Scottish Board of Agriculture about May, 1912; if the right hon. Gentleman can state what steps have been taken to consider and deal with these applications; and whether the Commissioner for Small Holdings has yet visited the Harthill district or reported upon these applications?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; one of the sub-Commissioners to the Commissioner for Small Holdings has made inquiries in the Harthill district,

    1169
    but it has not been possible to discover any land available for the purpose of meeting the special demand of the applicants, most of whom are miners. I am informed that several of these applications are not of the ordinary kind for the purpose of cultivating the land.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that David Meredith applied to the Radnorshire small holdings committee for a small holding in March, 1908; that his application was in due course approved; that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; and will he explain why no land whatever has been offered him during the whole of this period of four years ten months?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Mr. Meredith applied to the Brecon County Council for a particular farm, but the council considered that in consequence of the heavy cost of making the necessary adaptations and repairs, the rent which they would have to charge would be too high. The owner offered another farm to the council for the purpose of satisfying Mr. Meredith's requirements, but he refused it.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether James Edward Critchard applied to the Devonshire small holdings committee for a small holding in February, 1908; that his application was in due course approved; that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; and will the right hon. Gentleman explain why no land what ever has been offered him during the whole of this period of four years, eleven months?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Mr. Critchard applied for a particular piece of land, which the county council were of opinion could not be taken without injustice. I am informed that he has received and refused several offers of land, and that the council have received no communication from him for over two years.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether Samson C. Crocker applied to the Devon shire Small Holdings Committee for a small holding in 1909; that his application was in due course approved; that he has since repeatedly asked the Small Holdings Committee to satisfy his approved require-
    1170
    ments; and will the right hon. Gentleman explain why no land whatever has been offered him during the whole of this period of nearly four years?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Mr. Crocker applied for twenty acres, and, through the' intervention of the county council, he has been provided with about twelve acres. It was understood that this land satisfied his requirements, but he has recently applied for more, and I am informed that his, application is under consideration.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Thomas Titterton applied to the Derbyshire Small Holdings Committee for a small holding in February, 1908; that his application was in due course approved; that he has since repeatedly asked the Small Holdings Committee to satisfy his approved requirements; and will he explain why no land whatever has been offered him during the whole of this period of four years and eleven months?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Mr. Titterton applied for a particular piece of land, which could not be obtained for him without hardship to the existing tenant. He has recently been offered a holding of twelve acres in another part of the county, which he has refused. I am informed that, if any suitable land in his neighbourhood becomes available, the council will endeavour to meet his requirements.

    Glasgow (Court of Session).
    Mr. WATTasked whether Glasgow has recently, under an Act of Parliament, extended her municipal boundaries, and has now about 1,100,000 inhabitants; and, if so, whether the right hon. Gentleman will make representations, in view of these facts, to the authorities to have a branch of the Court of Session set up in that city, from which half of the legal business of Scotland emanates?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am, of course, aware of the recent extension, but I am not prepared to give any pledge.
    Mr. WATT: As this matter has been agitated for forty years, can the right hon. Gentleman not raise to himself a monument by bringing it into operation?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will consider the question of the monument.

    Conviction for Begging (Glasgow).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the Secretary for Scotland's attention has been called to the conviction of a child of eight years in the Northern Police Court, Glasgow, for begging on Christmas Day; whether he is aware that the police gave evidence that the father was a decent hardworking man, earning 22s. a week, on which he had to support a wife and eight children, and that the school board officer gave evidence that the child had made very good attendances at school, but the master's report was that lie seemed ill-nourished and sleepy in class; whether he is aware that the magistrate sentenced the child to be sent for eight years to an industrial school; whether he has communicated with the magistrate as to his reasons for imposing such a sentence; and whether he will institute inquiries as to the conditions under which this and other families with incomes of less than 22s. a week are living in Glasgow?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Perhaps the House will allow me to answer the question rather fully, as there has been considerable misapprehension about this case, which has been represented as one of a brutal sentence passed upon a mere child for a trivial offence. This is not a case of punishment at all. The magistrate acted under Section 58 of the Children Act, an Act which was passed, not for the punishment of little children, but to save them from the consequences of neglect. As the result of his inquiry, he came to the conclusion that it would be to the interest of the child that he should be fed, clothed, educated and taught a trade in an industrial school. I understand that my hon. Friend does not dissent from the magistrate's decision. The order of the magistrate places the child, who is nine and a half years of age, in a school until he is sixteen, but under Section 67 of the Children Act there is power by licence to permit the child "to live with any trustworthy and respectable person named in the licence willing to receive and take charge of him." From the information supplied to me by the assessor and clerk of Court, on behalf of the magistrate, I am satisfied that this was a proper case for applying the benefits of this Act. It was proved that the child was neglected, poorly clad, ill fed, was allowed habitually to wander through the streets late at night begging, and was in danger of growing up a mere street arab. It appears
    1172
    to me that he is just the type of child for whose benefit and reclamation industrial schools are maintained. As to the concluding part of the question, I fear I cannot in my reply deal with the vast subject raised. I hope that valuable results may ensue from the inquiries of the Royal Commission on Housing now sitting, but I fear a new inquiry would not be of much assistance. The facts of the problem of low wages are only too familiar.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that my concern is with the fate of the family of nine persons who are left behind, living on an income of 22s. a week and not having the benefit of the beneficent provisions of this Statute? If I address a question to the Prime Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman submit the facts to him in order that the Prime Minister may see whether he can appoint a Commission to inquire into the conditions under which families with small incomes live?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly, I will be pleased to do so, but of course under the Children Act this child was taken up not for begging, though begging was the occasion of the order of the magistrate.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the other children have to go on the street to get the benefit of the Act?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I hope my hon. Friend will not put it like that.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police officer gave a report to the effect that this child's attendance at school had been fairly satisfactory, and that the house and family were quite respectable; and are we to understand that owing to the poverty of families in Scotland parents are liable to have their children taken away from them by process of law for a period of eight years merely because they are poor?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir, that is not the reason. It is not merely because the child is poor, but because the child is neglected and is in peril of growing up as a danger to society. With regard to the question of the child's school attendance, it was very good, but the master reported that the child was very ill-educated, was very backward, and that he came to school sleepy and tired, which was to be expected from the way in which he spent his nights in the streets. I would request my hon.

    1173
    Friends not to ask me to discuss the facts about the parents.
    Sir W. BYLES: As a much more favourable colour has been put upon this case by the long answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given, may I ask whether the parents or the father were consulted and acquiesced in the course taken?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not able to answer that, nor is that necessary; but I would say that the essential point that I have given at greater length today was stated with perfect clearness in my answer yesterday.
    Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a child can be taken away from its parents without any sort of consent from them?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In certain circumstances it can.
    Sir H. CRAIK: What is the object of the party behind the right hon. Gentleman passing the Children Act and then objecting when it is put in force?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot understand it.

    Board of Agriculture (Secretaryship).
    Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what experience Sir Sydney Olivier has had of British and Irish Agriculture?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have nothing to add to the answers which I have already given to many similar questions addressed to me on this subject on 9th and 14th February.
    Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir Sydney Olivier ever had any experience at all of English or Irish agriculture?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I answered that question quite fully on 9th and 14th.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CHATHAM DOCKYARD (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Prime Minister (1) who were persons constituting the Treasury when the claims of H. C. Lunn, then of 22, Cornwall Road, Gillingham, Kent; W. Scudds, then of 55, Baden Road, Gillingham; and G. Clark, of 26, Fair Row, Chatham, for compensation under the Government's scheme for com pensation (No. 116) in case of injury to workmen in Government establishments, were made; and which of those persons
    1174
    heard and determined their claims; (2) whether he is aware that H. C. Lunn, boilermaker in His Majesty's dockyard, Chatham, received a blow on the head, in October, 1908, causing injury to his brain; that in the month of May, 1911, the Treasury, after long dispute, admitted liability, but only awarded him eighteen-sixtieths of his wages; that Lunn then was, and has ever since been, wholly incapable of work as the result of the accident, and as the result thereof is now confined in the County Lunatic Asylum, Fareham, Hampshire; and whether, as the head of the Treasury, he will direct that the full sum to which Lunn is entitled under the scheme, namely, twenty-four-sixtieths, shall be paid to his wife and children, with arrears from the date of his discharge from the Naval Hospital, Chatham, or appoint a time and place when the Treasury will sit to hear and decide his case in accordance with the compensation scheme; (3) whether he is aware that George Clark, general labourer in His Majesty's dock-yard, Chatham, in October, 1911, lost the use of the top joint of the forefinger of his left hand as the result of an accident arising out of, and in the course of, his employment; that he has been refused compensation, though his medical man certifies that, in his opinion, the injury to a certain extent prevents the man following his usual employment, and is a disability and a cause of loss of power in the hand; and whether, as the head of the Treasury, he will direct that the man be paid compensation, or appoint a time and place when the Treasury will sit to hear and determine Clark's case in accordance with the compensation scheme; and (4) whether he is aware that W. Scudds, skilled labourer in His Majesty's dockyard, Chatham, in October, 1905, was caught in a drilling machine and had his arm broken in six places; that as the result of the accident the man, who had theretofore enjoyed good health, completely broke down, and was ultimately discharged from His Majesty's dockyard, Chatham, on the 30th May, 1912, his discharge stating that the reason was extended illness; that his doctor certified in July, 1912, that he had been treating Scudds for the last five years for neurasthenia which, in his opinion, was due to the above accident; that, notwithstanding these facts, compensation has been refused; and whether he, as head of the Treasury, will direct that compensation be paid this man or appoint a time and place

    1175
    when the Treasury will sit to hear and determine Scudds' case in accordance with the compensation scheme?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply. The hon. and learned Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that any hearing is permissible under the Government scheme for compensation. The claims referred to were decided by the Treasury in the ordinary course of Departmental business. In the case of H. C. Lunn, the injury in October, 1908, was a slight scalp wound only, and it was considered doubtful by the Medical Referee (then Sir Dyce Duckworth (15278/10), to whom the Treasury referred the matter, whether Lunn's breakdown from nervous debility eighteen months later could be attributed to it. The Treasury, however, gave him the benefit of the doubt, and he was treated in hospital, receiving half-pay at the same time, till May, 1911, when, as attacks of headache and occasional dizziness persisted, he was discharged with compensation at the materially impaired rate in accordance with the medical certificates under the scheme which he had accepted. I am informed that Lunn was admitted into Fareham Asylum on 24th December, from which date the allowance has been increased to the maximum rate. As regards George Clark, the injury has left nothing more than a slight limitation of the movement of the terminal joint of the left index finger, and it is not considered that his capacity as a labourer is in any way affected. He continued to serve until discharged until the age limit. In the case of Walter Scudds, the Referee (Dr. Sharkey (23830/12) advises that the attack of melancholia which occurred in September, 1911, cannot be connected with the fracture of his right arm six years previously, from which he made a good recovery, No medical certificate to the effect stated in the question has been received. Scudds has now recovered, and was offered re-employment in the dockyard, but it is understood that he has gone to Canada.
    Mr. CROOKS: With reference to the second question, surely the Government do not propose to save money because of the accident, and prevent the man's wife and child having the benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If my hon. Friend will read the particulars which I am circulating, he will then see how the situation is.

    Purchases of Silver (India).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for all the correspondence, minutes of interview, and other papers and memoranda relating to the arrangements made with the firm of Samuel Montagu and Company to be collected in one volume and issued for the information of Members?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A Parliamentary Paper of 153 pages has already been issued on the subject, containing all the correspondence; and the recommendations of the Finance Committee and the resolutions of the Council of India have been given in reply to a question. If the bon. Member is of opinion that there are any further particular documents "which should be published, I should be glad if he would address a specific request to this effect to the representative of the India Office.

    Women Suffrage Movement.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the number of cases in which persons were convicted and sentenced during 1912 for serious offences in connection with the Women Suffrage movement, ranging from attempted arson and murder to stone throwing; and in how many the sentence was remitted or reduced?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot give the figures as to convictions, but in 1912 there were 240 cases in which persons were received into prison under sentences for offences in connection with this agitation, and in eight-four of these cases the sentences were remitted or reduced.

    Churches (Scotland) Act, 1905.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the beginning of the present year there were in the Free Church of Scotland a total of ninety-eight vacancies out of a total of 174 churches or preaching stations; and whether he will consider, in these circumstances, the desirability of the Commission under the Churches (Scotland) Act, 1905, being again empowered to make a new allocation of property between the Free and the United Free Church of Scotland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I recently informed my hon. Friend, the statements of fact alleged by him are disputed by the authorities of the Free Church. In

    1177
    these circumstances I do not at present see my way to reopen the question.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the Prime Minister aware that out of twelve presbyteries of this Church in no fewer than eleven there are 50 per cent, or over of vacancies according to the official figures supplied, and in view of the facts of which I have given private information, will he not appoint a Committee to investigate?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is disputed in point of fact by the authorities of the Free Church.
    Mr. HOGGE: If I can give the Prime Minister accurate information that at the present moment one of the halls belonging to the Free Church and taken from the United Free Church is being used by a dancing master for dancing classes, and that the key is in the hands of a man who has been both in the Ecclesiastical and Criminal Courts, will he make inquiry?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, that would be a very pertinent fact.

    Ordnance Survey Maps.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture the conditions, if any, subject to which copies of or tracings from Ordnance Survey maps may be made for use by surveyors, land agents, and other persons engaged in private business; whether any payment is demanded for the privilege of making such plans or tracings; and, if so, what is the reason for such payment in view of the fact that such survey is carried out at the expense of the public?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Ordnance Survey maps are copyright. They may be inspected at the Board's office at 3, St. James's Square, and I shall be pleased to send to the hon. Member a copy of the regulations for such inspection. The Board are always prepared to consider applications for permission to make tracings for some public object, or to reproduce parts of the maps for special purposes.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Has any payment to be made for such tracing?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will send the hon. Gentleman full particulars of the regulations. Of course the copyright cannot be copied without the leave of the State.

    Agricultural Credit Societies.
    Mr. HAMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the joint stock banks which are willing to render assistance to rural credit societies will charge the societies for such assistance; whether it is contemplated in the arrangement made that the banks will make the bank profits on the loans they make to the rural credit societies as they arrange for in their ordinary business; and whether, in the arrangements made with the said banks, any maximum rate of interest that they may charge the rural credit societies has been fixed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The banks have agreed to make no charge for advice given to the societies. With regard to the remaining parts of the question, no maximum rate of interest has been fixed, but the banks have undertaken to make advances on favourable terms.

    Cattle Trade Regulations.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that butchers before slaughtering animals invariably keep them fasting for twenty-four hours and consider it necessary to do so, and that practical expert men are of opinion that cattle fed and watered in Ireland at the port of embarkation would only be in the proper condition for slaughter in this country twenty-four to thirty-six hours after being fed at the port of shipment; and whether, having regard to the fact that if lie insists on the compulsory feeding of fat animals which are landed within a moderate distance from the place of intended slaughter it will necessitate the owner postponing the killing of the animals for at least twenty hours from the time of feeding on this side, and that this might inflict under some circumstances more cruelty than feeding would obviate, he will consider the advisability of modifying the regulations in such cases?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The requirement in the new Order that the animals shall receive a proper and sufficient supply of food and water has for many years been applied to foreign animals landed for slaughter, and I am not aware that it has caused any such difficulty as is suggested in the hon. Member's question. If difficulties arise in practice I am always ready to reconsider the matter.

    Sierra Leone (Messrs. Lever Brothers).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why special palm oil ordinances are required in Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast Colony to enable the grant of monopolies to Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, while similar legislation is not necessary to the grant of similar privileges to that firm in Southern Nigeria?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The statement in the letter from the Colonial Office to Messrs. Lever Brothers of 10th December, 1912, printed in the published correspondence, is that it is not proposed to introduce legislation in Southern Nigeria unless it is shown to be absolutely necessary, which is not at present the case. I may explain that the late Governor was of opinion that any necessary arrangements could be made by means of local agreements with the native chiefs of the districts concerned; and, if this should prove to be the case, it will obviate the necessity for legislative action.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a great difference in the laws relating to the granting of monopolies in different Crown Colonies, and will he try to get a common policy for each Crown Colony?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I think it is very desirable to attain gradual uniformity in the regulations.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman afford any protection to the native chiefs in connection with the agreements they enter into?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The agreements made with the chiefs have to be validated by the Courts of the Colonies.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he complied with the request of Mr. James Jamieson Thorburn, Governor of the Gold Coast Colony, for copies of laws of a similar nature to the proposed Palm Oil Ordinance for the Gold Coast to enable preferential treatment to be granted to Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, described by the Governor as, in effect, enabling the Government to grant a monopoly; or if no similar ordinance existed in British Colonies prior to 19121?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The hon. Member will see from the correspondence published in Cd. 6561 that the Governor asked either
    1180
    for copies of similar laws in other Colonies or for a draft of the proposed ordinance. I sent him a draft prepared by the Colonial Office.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the latter part of the question, whether there is any similar ordinance in any British Colony, or whether any similar ordinance has existed in any British Colony prior to last year?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, there could not be, as similar circumstances did not exist anywhere.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Would it not have been a good thing if there had been similar ordinances in British Crown Colonies, rather than selling the land to speculators?
    Earl WINTERTON: Is it not the fact that this is the largest monopoly ever granted to any one person in the Crown Colonies?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No. I think if the Noble Lord will refer to my right hon. predecessor who sits on the Front Bench opposite, he will find that is not so.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the right hon. Gentleman why, having informed Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, on 24th February, 1911, that, as the facilities they desired were so unusual in character and would affect so large a proportion of the palm-bearing area, he was unable to meet their wishes in respect of a larger area in Southern Nigeria than one of five miles radius, he subsequently intimated on 19th February, 1912, that he would offer no objection to an extension of the area within which the rights were granted from one of five to one of ten miles in radius?
    Mr. HARCOURT: As will be seen from the correspondence laid before Parliament, Messrs. Lever's original request was for rights over an area of twenty miles radius, which was reduced to five in the offer of the Colonial Office. Ten was eventually agreed to after considering further the representations of the firm that that area was necessary to the effective enjoyment of the rights granted.
    Mr. TOUCHE: May I ask whether, in justification of their request for an increase from five to ten, they submitted figures of their experience, or whether any figures were asked for by the Colonial Office, as would be the case in an ordinary commercial transaction?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I could not answer that without notice, but I will gladly answer it with notice.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked if the application of Messrs. W. B. MacIver and Company, Limited, with whom Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, are associated, for rights for the development of the palm oil industry is restricted to the Gold Coast Colony; and if it has been granted, or any indication given that it will be granted, in respect of approximately 311 square miles?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I would refer the hon. Member to the letter from the Colonial Office to Messrs. Lever of 17th December lest, which is printed at page 44 of the recent Blue Book, Cd. 6561. Nothing has passed since that communication.

    Children Act.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the case of Sidney Smith, aged five years, who was charged at a London Court for wandering; if his father is a policeman in a Northern town, paying 2s. 6d. a week under a bastardy order; whether the boy will be placed in an industrial school, or if the suggestion will be considered of boarding out; and, if so, will the 2s. 6d. be devoted towards the cost of his maintenance?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I find on inquiry that this case is now on remand with a view to a place in an industrial school being found for the boy. The payments made by the reputed father are under an agreement and not under a bastardy order. Under Section 53 of the Children Act the managers of an industrial school have power to board out children sent to the school under the age of eight, and under Sections 75 and 125 the Court has power to order the putative father to contribute towards the child's maintenance.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to the cases of K. D. and J. D., of Brixton, aged six and seven years, who have been taken charge of by the officers of the Children Act for residing in a house used by prostitutes; whether the police have taken any action in the matter; if both girls are suffering from contagious skin disease; and if he is aware where the children now are?
    Mr. McKENNA: My attention had not been called to these cases, but I have ascertained on inquiry that the initial action was taken by the police. The children have been certified by the London County Council medical officer to be healthy, and free from any complaint, and are in an industrial school.

    Disorderly Houses (Metropolis).
    Mr. BOOTHasked what is the latest period for which police statistics are avail- able; and whether the number of disorderly houses known to the police includes those known to the individual policeman on the beat or only those known to the officials at Scotland House?
    Mr. McKENNA: The latest available-statistics are those included in the Annual Report for 1911 of the Commissioner of Police. These show the number of proceedings taken against keepers of supposed disorderly houses. Should the constable on the beat have reason to believe that a particular house is being kept in a disorderly manner, it would be his duty to report the fact, and the information would be recorded.
    Mr. BOOTH: In view of the very small number of houses so reported, may we take it that the individual policemen on the beat do not recognise it as their duty to report them?
    Mr. McKENNA: No. I do not think that that would be a proper inference to draw.

    Juvenile Depravity.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to a recent case in which black men and white women were concerned and children of tender years were called by the police as witnesses; and whether the Home Office takes any steps in such cases to protect these children from sinking into a life of depravity?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not heard of any case which answers to the description given in my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the case was reported fully in some of the Sunday newspapers in London—Conservative newspapers—and that the judge in the case spoke very strongly about the position of the little girl, twelve years of age, who has been left in these surroundings?
    Mr. McKENNA: No. I have looked further into the matter, but I have not been able to trace the case so far. I regret to say that I do not read the newspapers referred to.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if he will constitute a special inquiry into the causes and possible prevention of juvenile depravity, particularly in the Metropolis?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think that a special inquiry such as my hon. Friend suggests could give any real assistance in dealing with this question.
    Mr. BOOTH: In view of the Home Office doing nothing, will they not consider it their duty at any rate to get acquainted with the facts, which are deplorable.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend must not assume, because we do not propose to have a special inquiry that we are doing nothing.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the recent case of a boy who was transferred from the Penton-ville place of detention to a hospital suffering from venereal disease; and will he say if the boy is under twelve years of age, and what action the police have taken, if any, in this case?
    Mr. McKENNA: I find on inquiry that this is a case in which proceedings were instituted by an officer of the London County Council, and not by the police. The boy is, I believe, under twelve years of age, but the police have not any further particulars of the case.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if an application was recently made before Mr. Horace Smith for the arrest of a, boy, J. S., of Putney; whether an officer under the Children Act has since charged the boy for wandering; whether his mother has been reported to the authorities as an habitual prostitute, and if his stepfather lives with her and has no visible means of subsistence; whether the boy is being trained for a life of vice and now uses filthy language in ordinary conversation; and if he will inquire with a view to recommending the police to take action?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am informed that this case is still before the Court, and that so far as the police are aware there is no ground for the suggestion that the boy's mother is a prostitute, or that he is being trained for a life of vice.
    Mr. BOOTH: Was not the application for the arrest of the boy made by his own stepfather, who is a member of the legal profession?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire into the case if my hon. Friend wishes. I am not aware of the fact which he states.

    Coal Mines Act, 1911 (Draft Regulations).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked when the draft regulations under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, will be adjusted and issued in their final shape?
    Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend is referring to the regulations as to hours of winding enginemen, the statutory inquiry with regard to these is now proceeding, and will, I expect, be concluded shortly. If he is referring to the main body of the general regulations to be made under the Act, these were issued in draft on the 9th of this month, and a period of fifty days has been allowed for the submission of objections by the owners or by the men. It is impossible to say at present when these will be issued in their final shape.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked whether the inspectors of pit ponies under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, have yet been appointed; how many appointments have been made; and how many inspections of each coal mine will be made in the course of a year?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, the appointments have now been made. The number is six, as I have already stated. The last part of the question is, I am afraid, impossible to answer at present.

    Teachers' Deferred Annuity Fund.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the President of the Board of Education what is the number of contributors to the Teachers' Deferred Annuity Fund, under the Superannuation Act of 1898, who, according to the official ledgers, on 3lst March, 1912, have not claimed the annuity to which they were entitled on the expiration of their certificate, after having attained the age of sixty-five years, and of whose de cease the Board have not been advised; and what is the total amount of the contributions which they have paid?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The answer to the first part of the question is thirty, and to the second part £78 4s. 4d.

    Bread (Prices).
    Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the average price of the 4-lb. loaf in this country and in Germany for each of the years 1906 to 1911, inclusive?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): No official price of wheaten bread in loaves is computed in Berlin. A statement showing the mean retail price of 4 lbs. of wheaten bread of household quality in London, and the official average retail price of 4 lbs. of household rye bread in Berlin in the years named will be circulated with the votes.—[See Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. HUNT: Is not the rye-bread loaf made of wheat and rye mixed?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I believe there is a mixture of wheat in it, but it is commonly spoken of as rye bread—the household bread of Berlin.
    Mr. KING: Is there not a very little wheat and a great deal of rye?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I believe that that is so.

    Imports and Exports.
    Sir JOHN BARRANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the total amount of imports into and exports from the German Empire in the last completed financial year, including both sea-borne and land-borne goods, and what proportion of the totals are sea-borne goods; and if he will give the corresponding figures for the same period for Great Britain?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The value of the imports into Germany for consumption in 1911 was £477,200,000, and the value of the exports of domestic produce £398,600,000. No official information is available with regard to the relative amounts imported by sea and land respectively, but about 79 per cent, of the imports and 64 per cent, of the exports were received from or sent to countries with which trade is said to be carried on wholly or mainly by sea. In the same year the net imports into the United Kingdom (deducting re-exports) were of a declared value of £577,400,000, and the exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom of a declared value of £454,100,000.

    St. David's Gold Mines, Limited.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the fact that, although the St. David's Gold Mines, Limited, has from time to time paid considerable dividends and thereby attracted fresh capital, no profits appear at any time to have been made; and if it is proposed to take action against the company, which is now practically without assets?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have no information to the effect stated in the question. The matter is not one in which the Board of Trade have any jurisdiction.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Has not the Board of Trade any jurisdiction in similar cases? Is the chairman of this company Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, of Marconi fame; and is that the reason why no action has been taken?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have stated that the Board has no jurisdiction.

    Established Church (Wales) Bill.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the right hon. Member for Morpeth, as Chair man of the Public Petitions Committee, if he can state the number of petitions presented for and against the Established Church (Wales) Bill, and also the number of signatures; and whether, in the case of petitioners which have infringed the rule that the prayer must appear on each separate sheet, the names so infringing the rule have not been counted?
    Mr. BURT: Up till and including Monday (27th instant) 8,662 petitions, containing 2,108,631 signatures, have been presented against the Established Church (Wales) Bill, exclusive of those which infringed the rule that the prayer must appear on each separate sheet attached to the petition. Two petitions containing two signatures have been presented in favour of the Bill.
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many of these petitions were signed in churches?
    Mr. BURT: No, Sir.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Post master-General when he will introduce the system of charging telephone users by zone, which he is now considering?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): This question is being considered in connection with the general revision of rates for telephone service which is now receiving my attention.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us no idea as to when this will be decided: it is important?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, I am afraid I cannot at present fix the date. The matter is an extremely complicated and a very important one. I should not like to give a hurried decision.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Post master-General if he will explain why, in the scale of trunk telephone charges, the rising scale of 3d. for each twenty-five miles changes after 100 miles and is then increased, so that after 100 miles one pays at the rate of 3d. per twenty miles, and in addition one can only advance by forty miles at a time instead of by twenty-five miles?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The difference in the proportionate rates of charge for distances exceeding one hundred miles, as compared with the charges for shorter distances, was based on the relatively high cost of construction of long trunk lines, and on the great risk of interruptions, which increase the cost of maintenance and impair the traffic and earning capacities of the lines.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: Will that be done away with, may I ask, when the zone system is established?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The whole of the facts will be taken into consideration. I cannot definitely say that it will or will not be done away with. But the technical considerations that I have mentioned in my answer will still apply.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Post master-General whether he will take action with regard to the delay that has occurred in the installation of telephones in private residences in Enfield and New Southgate; and whether he is aware that, on 7th October, 1911, a resident in Beacons-field Road, New Southgate, signed an agreement on the request of a traveller employed by the Post Office authorities, and that since that date, in spite of repeated applications, the authorities have failed to instal the telephone, though a communication has been sent to house holders in the district pointing out how
    1188
    desirable it is that telephones should be installed in their houses?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The delay in installing telephones in the Enfield district has been due to want of accommodation at the local exchange when taken over from the National Telephone Company. An extension, however, is nearly completed and will be available in the course of the next month. I am unable to trace among the applications for telephone service from residents in Beaconsfield Road, New Southgate, one made on the 7th October, 1911. Some general delay has occurred at New Southgate owing to the difficulty in obtaining the concurrence of the Middlesex Councils Association in a general arrangement as to the conditions on which telephone lines should be carried along roads controlled by Middlesex councils. Unfortunately, the association has not accepted the scheme, and each case has now to be settled separately.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    POST OFFICE.
    Mr. PIRIEasked whether the pro visions respecting the Post Office in the Government of Ireland Bill were submitted to the Committee of Imperial Defence?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received any com plaints from postal Civil servants in Ireland respecting the Civil Service pro visions of the Government of Ireland Bill?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certain representations were made to me, which were duly considered at the time.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has not received any representations since the Bill passed this House?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; I do not think any representations have been received since.

    Technical Schools (Building Grant).
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary if his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the county Clare committee of agriculture and technical instruction calling attention to the necessity for a building Grant

    1189
    for technical schools; and whether he will take the matter into careful consideration?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): Yes, Sir; the Department has received this and similar resolutions from a great many bodies in various Irish counties. I regret that it has not been possible to arrange for such a Grant as is referred to in the question of the hon. Member.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to endeavour to make progress in this matter?
    Mr. RUSSELL: We have made many applications, but never with any success.

    Crown Jewels (Ireland).
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if any Crown jewels have been received either by gift or purchase in place of those stolen from Dublin Castle in 1907?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No, Sir.
    Earl WINTERTON: Are we to understand that at the present time, officially speaking, there are no Crown Jewels?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No Crown Jewels that have been stolen have been replaced.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Chief Secretary whether Mr. Kane, at that time inspector in the Criminal Investigation Department of Scotland Yard, who was sent to confer with the Dublin Castle authorities at the time of the theft of the Crown Jewels in 1907, specified to those authorities any person or persons who in his opinion were likely to be concerned in the stealing or receiving of those Crown Jewels; and, if so, have steps been taken to watch the subsequent careers of those persons?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. As I have already stated Inspector Kane did not indicate to the authorities any person likely to be concerned in the stealing or receiving of the Crown Jewels, and as stated by him in his evidence before the Committee of Inquiry, he has always been in entire agreement with the Dublin Police that the theft was the work of some person or persons with intimate knowledge of the Office of Arms. No evidence on which a criminal charge could be based against any individual has ever been forthcoming.
    Earl WINTERTON: Was Inspector Kane's report withheld from the Committee of Investigation?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know how that could be. I can assure the Noble Lord that the answer I have given is exactly in accordance with the facts.
    Earl WINTERTON: Was the whole of the Inspector's report given to the Committee of Inquiry?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. The Inspector was there himself to answer all questions asked, and to give a full account of the circumstances.

    Ancient Order of Hibernians.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Fenagh, county Leitrim, branch of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, approving of the action of the United Irish League regarding certain land grabbers, and calling on the branches of the order at Mohill and Carrick-on-Shannon to see that traders in their towns should cease supplying any such people with goods; and whether he will state how many people in this part of county Leitrim are subject to boycott owing to the action of the Ancient Order of Hibernians?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen a newspaper report of the resolution referred to. The police inform me that one person in the district has been partially boycotted for some time, and that the passing of the resolution in question does not materially alter the circumstances. The police are watching the matter carefully.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Colonel WILLIAMS: I beg to put a question to the Prime Minister, of which I have given private notice, if, under the altered conditions which have set free some days of Parliamentary time, he will give facilities for the discussion of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee —as it is one of the few occasions which the House possesses of effective criticism of the way in which the National income is expended.
The PRIME MINISTER: I doubt whether it will be possible to afford the opportunity that the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks for, but I will consider it.
Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every Session since 1906 he has promised a day, and will he not consider, in view of the earlier expected close of the Session, whether a day cannot be given?
The PRIME MINISTER: That suggests we have not had a day; we have.
Earl WINTERTON: Only one in three years.
Mr. WATT: May we take it that the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill has been abandoned by the Government?
The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to have notice of that question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  Further considered in Committee.
  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
    SIXTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.— [Progress, S2nd January.]
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    FIRST SCHEDULE.

      Part I.—PHOI'EBTY VESTED IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS WHICH IS TO BE DEEMED WELSII ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY.
      (1) Property which does not belong to and is not appropriated to the use of any ecclesistical office or cathedral corporation, but which is, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from, property which became vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners before the passing of this Act, and which immediately before becoming so vested belonged to or was appropriated to the use of an ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, or the holder of any such office as such.
      For the purpose of determining what property is property within the meaning of the above provision any property situate in, or issuing out of property situate in, Wales or Monmouthshire which has been purchased by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall be deemed to have been purchased with the proceeds of sale of and so derived from property which immediately before being vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners belonged to an ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales.
      (2) Property which belongs to, or is appropriated to the use of, any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, or the holder of any such office as such, and which is or has been derived from sources other than grants made by the Ecclesiastical Com missioners.

      Part II.—ADJUSTMENTS.
      (1) The Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall exchange such property comprised in paragraph (1) of Part I. of this Schedule as is property situate elsewhere than in Wales or Monmouthshire, or is property issuing out of property so situate, for all property vested in them which is situate in, or issues out of property situate in,
      1206
      Wales or Monmouthshire, and which became vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners before the passing of this Act, and which immediately before becoming so vested belonged to or was appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation other than an ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, or the holder of any such office as such, and shall deduct from the property comprised in paragraph (1) of Part I. of this Schedule such sum of money as the Commissioners may ascertain and by order declare to be due by way of equality of exchange.
      (2) There shall be charged on the property mentioned in paragraph (1) of Part I. of this Schedule so far as it is able to bear them, and so long as they continue payable, the sums before the date of Disestablishment payable by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners out of their common fund for ecclesiastical purposes in the Church in Wales other than the augmentation or Endowment of parochial benefices or towards the stipends of assistant clergy, and the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall be exonerated from the liability to make such payments except so far as such property as aforesaid is not able to bear them.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words: "Provided that, where any such property has been sold and the proceeds of sale have been united with other funds so as to become indistinguishable or has otherwise been applied so as not to be capable of exact identification, it shall not be deemed to be Welsh ecclesiastical property."
      I shall make my ground clear if I call the attention of the Committee to the importance of this Schedule and what it proposes to do. By Clause. 4 of the Bill it is provided:—
      (1) As from the date of Disestablishment, there shall, save as by this Section provided, vest in the Welsh Commissioners hereinafter mentioned—
      (a) All property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty, which is ascertained as hereinafter mentioned to be Welsh ecclesiastical property.
      Then for the purpose of the ascertainment of that property we have to turn to the First Schedule, and we find that the First Schedule is a little difficult, and I hope the

      1207
      right hon. Gentleman will deal with the numerous points which arise upon it when he comes to speak. We find in Clause 4 that the property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is Welsh ecclesiastical property, and for that purpose the First Schedule provides—
      "Property which does not belong to and is not appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation, but which is, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from property which became vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners before the passing of this Act, and which immediately before becoming so vested, belonged to or was appropriated to, the use of an ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales or the holder of any such office as such."
      In passing, perhaps I may give my respectful compliments to the draftsman and call attention to the use of several curious words which he uses for dealing with his meaning. If you look at Clause 4, Subsection (a), you find how you are to ascertain the meaning of property, and you find in your First Schedule it is not a question of "ascertainment," but that certain property is "to be deemed," and in the second portion it is "to be determined to be." You have to follow certain rules. The draftsman, for his own purposes, has used the words "ascertainment," then "deemed" and then "determined." Whether these are the same or different operations it is not easy to see, and when we turn to the First Schedule, it is a question, not whether property is "ascertained," but it is "deemed to be." What is the property that is to be so dealt with? It is property which belongs to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and is purchased or has been derived or property which became vested in the Commissioners before the passing of the Act, and also which immediately before so becoming invested was deemed to be the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or people in the Church in Wales. You take all the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which has been appropriated for the purpose and use of ecclesiastical offices or the people in the Church in Wales. I propose to add to this definition these words:—
      "Provided that where any such property has been sold and the proceeds of sale have been united with other funds so as to become indistinguishable, or
      1208
      has otherwise been applied so as not to be capable of exact identification, it shall not be deemed to be Welsh ecclesiastical property."
      The meaning of my Amendment is plain, but I dare say I shall be told by the right hon. Gentleman that he intended to meet the point I am dealing with in the second portion of the Schedule, namely:—
      "For the purpose of determining what property is property within the meaning of the above provision, any property situate in, or issuing out of property situate in, Wales or Monmouthshire which has been purchased by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall be deemed to have been purchased with the proceeds of sale of and so derived from property which immediately before vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners belonged to an ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales."
      These words are not very clear, but I understand them to mean that if there is any property which is situated in Wales or Monmouthshire and it has been purchased by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether they purchased it with money which originally came from property which belonged to cathedral corporations or was used for ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales or not, it is to be deemed to be Welsh ecclesiastical property. I may be wrong in my interpretation, that you are to look in this special Clause to the geographical position in judging where the property lies, and not to the source by which it is obtained and is in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. You are merely to look at the geographical situation, and, if it lies in Wales, then, whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners bought it with what I may call English money or money belonging to the Welsh Ecclesiastical Corporations, by reason of its geographical situation it is to be deemed to be Welsh property. I confess I do not understand the justice or the equity of that, and until the right hon Gentleman tells me that is what his purpose is, I shall assume that the Clause as it stands is somewhat imperfect, and that at any rate the draftsman has failed to grasp the meaning of the authors of this Bill. I propose to deal with this question in a simpler way.
      4.0 P.M.
      It is quite obvious you have two or three different kinds of property. You may have property situated geographically in Wales or Monmouthshire, and

      1209
      for all time—that is a comprehensive phrase—devoted to cathedral corporations or ecclesiastical offices in Wales; and therefore no particular difficulty arises from the origin from which that land has been derived or the purposes for which it is being used. Then you may have and you do have, in the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, a certain amount of accumulation of property which is to be invested. I think under the Statute from time to time when they effect sales, the Statute provides that the proceeds shall be put to what is called the sales account; and from time to time, as opportunity offers, they use the money that stands in the sales account for the purpose of purchasing other investments. So no doubt it happens very frequently that they have made purchases of land not limiting themselves to geographical areas, but also making purchases both of freehold rights and freehold land. Now is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to take what I may call, the investments of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which happen to be situated in Wales? I cannot believe that. By reason of the fact that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from time to time make sales, all the produce of these sales go to their sales account, and it may well be that from time to time a cheque is drawn and used for the purpose of making any investment in Wales, not only including money which arises from the sale of land or other freehold investments in Wales but also money derived from some sales effected in England. Thus you get in certain eases mixed moneys used for the purpose of being invested. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman means to take all the Endowments in Wales dealt with by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which could have been derived and paid for by moneys derived from sales in England or in Wales; but if the Clause stands as it is the explanatory Clause which is supposed to elucidate what is meant by Welsh ecclesiastical property would provide that all these sorts of investments would pass and would be deemed to be Welsh ecclesiastical property because the only standard by which you have to determine and the only canon by which you are to decide what is to be deemed Welsh ecclesiastical property is the geographical situation of the property. I want to have a complete explanation of the purpose of the
      1210
      right hon. Gentleman. I suggest that some words such as I have proposed in my Amendment are necessary to avoid what would otherwise be an injustice. My Amendment is brought forward for the purpose of preventing cases of investments where the funds have been united with Welsh funds, and have become indistinguishable, being taken. In those cases although it may be Welsh property I provide that it shall not be deemed to be Welsh ecclesiastical property. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain this point because I feel certain that the Clause as it stands goes far and beyond the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
      I feel quite sure that it cannot really be intended that an inquiry should be set on foot into the books of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners over a considerable period of time to see what Church investments have been made, and ascertain the time when a particular purchase was made, whether they have recently and within the past five or ten years made sales of land in England or Wales, and so by a system of appropriation see whether or not this money used for the particular investment could be said to be derived from Welsh ecclesiastical property. That would be a process so inconvenient, prolonged and difficult, and so unsatisfactory to all concerned that I cannot think that that is the right hon. Gentleman's intention. The words I have put down would have the effect of eliminating all cases where there is doubt as to what was the source of the provision which was being used for the purposes of this particular investment; and unless we have some sort of words such as those which I have suggested, a long inquiry will be necessary, not leading to any useful result, but introducing perplexity into a problem which ought to be simple, and the purpose of which is to determine what has always been Welsh ecclesiastical property without going into a long inquiry in regard to property which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may happen to hold in Wales, and which I hope the right hon. Gentleman has no desire to touch and certainly no desire to make Welsh ecclesiastical property for the purpose of this Bill.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The hon. and learned Gentleman raises a point of considerable interest, but I think he will agree with me that it arises upon the second paragraph of the first part of

      1211
      the Schedule, rather than at the particular point where he has moved his Amendment. I think I can make the point clear, and I will explain quite briefly what the First Schedule means. The first part is divided into two sections. The first paragraph of the first Section describes the property of which we have constantly spoken under the total amount of £26,700 a year. That is to say, it is property derived from ancient episcopal estates now in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The second paragraph of the first part of the Schedule does not of itself determine what the property is, and the sole purpose for which the second paragraph is inserted is to determine what property is property within the meaning of the first part of the Schedule. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have got a certain amount of land in Wales, and what we propose under this paragraph is to enable them to pay the Welsh Commissioners as part of the capital sum, which amounts to £26,700 a year, the land which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners now hold in Wales, and those Commissioners have got to hand over to the Welsh Commissioners property, including land, to the extent of £26,700 a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "IS that tithe?"] It is tithe, land, stocks, and it includes a variety of investments. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners may hold a certain amount of stocks, but under the second paragraph we say that they shall be enabled to pay the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with the land which they now hold in Wales in order to make up the total of £21,700 a year.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In lieu of other property.
      Mr. McKENNA: Yes, that is the intention. We mean that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, having to pay over £26,700 a year, they shall be enabled to exchange part of that property for land and property in Wales and Monmouthshire. The amount of this land in Wales and Monmouthshire is very small, and therefore the effect of this paragraph would not be very large. Its sole purpose is to give a specific form in which the transfer of this sum shall be made, and include in that form all the land in Wales and Monmouthshire.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I have an Amendment later on to leave out that Sub-section, but I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has observed it.
      Mr. McKENNA: I will show that the hon. and learned Member's Amendment would not accomplish what he intends, although I see his object. I am not satisfied that the words in the second paragraph are sufficiently limited. The hon. and learned Member has raised a doubt in my mind as to whether they are sufficiently limited, and whether they might not have a wider interpretation than is intended. As a matter of fact, they could not have that wider meaning in the case of the words themselves, but if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners happened to hold a very large quantity of Welsh land, exceeding the total of £26,700, then I think the words of the second paragraph would be too wide. I will consult with my advisers as to whether the limiting words ought not to be introduced into the second paragraph. It might be convenient if I were to explain the purport of the second Sub-section of the first part. Sub-section (2) is necessitated by Clause 5 Sub-section (3) of the Bill, which provides that on the passing of the Act certain property is to be transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to disentangle. This Schedule relates to the date when the Act comes into operation, so that certain property will be invested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from the date of the passing to the date that this first Schedule will begin to operate. Subsection (2) of the first part refers to private benefactions of the balance of property under Clause 5, Sub-clause (3), and the proceeds of the sale of certain ecclesiastical property. A part of this property will be ultimately alienated from the Church, but this Sub-section is necessary as a consequence of the disentangling process which is to be undertaken by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners under Clause 5, Sub-section (3). As regards the Amendment, I think the hon. and learned Member will see that if these words are inserted at the end of the first Sub-section of the Schedule, the effect would be to remove from the category of Welsh ecclesiastical property, property which, in truth, ought to be so regarded because its origin was the same as the origin of all other Welsh ecclesiastical property. The mere fact that it has been sold ought not to alter its title, because ancient tithe and glebe have frequently been sold, and the proceeds invested in stocks, and those stocks ought to be treated as Welsh ecclesiastical property, just the same as the remaining ancient tithes and glebes. It will be seen that only Welsh ecclesiastical

      1213
      property can be alienated at all, and not all Welsh ecclesiastical property, because some of it now enjoyed by the Welsh Church is not to be treated as ecclesiastical property at all, but is to be handed straight back to the Welsh Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It is only the class treated as Welsh ecclesiastical property that may be alienated. If it is not to be so treated at all, then the question whether it ought or ought not to be alienated need not be considered.
      Mr. POLLOCK: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the words of my Amendment are "United with other funds, so as to become indistinguishable or has otherwise been applied so as not to be capable of exact identification." That is a limiting phrase.
      Mr. McKENNA: Although the property cannot be distinguished, the amount of money received as the proceeds of the sale is known, and it stands to the credit of Welsh ecclesiastical property in the books of the Commissioners, and there will be no difficulty in re-transferring the amount of money, although the particular properties on which the money came cannot be separately distinguished. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman means that property, merely because it has been sold and converted into money, should no longer be treated as Welsh ecclesiastical property. I think I have said enough to justify me in saying if I satisfy him in regard to the second paragraph that our intention is solely payment by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the form of Welsh land I have really covered his purpose Perhaps, however, as the Debate proceeds we shall be able to see if there is some point of agreement between us.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The question is no doubt rather complicated. I am bound to say with regard to the second paragraph that I think some words are certainly needed, because otherwise, taking the words as they stand, it appears to me some of this money would be counted twice over. It looks to me as if under the words in the second paragraph the property now situated in Wales and in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is an addition to what is ascertained in the first paragraph, and, unless some deduction is made, you will count twice over property which has been derived from the old capitular estates situated in Wales and Monmouthshire and now in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I think
      1214
      the Home Secretary will probably agree there is no intention to count that property twice over. My hon. Friend wants to ascertain the meaning of the words in the first paragraph, "or is the produce of or has been derived from." We must imagine the Ecclesiastical Commissioners owned a piece of land, say a farm, in Wales and sold it. The proceeds are apparently to be dealt with under this Section. What is it that is to be dealt with? Is it the original sale price or is the money to be followed through the whole of its history, so to speak? The money, for instance, may have appreciated in value. Are you going to take its present appreciated value or the original sale price? Again, it may have depreciated. Are you going to take the original sale price or its present depreciated value? These sales may have taken place a good many years ago, and the matter becomes exceedingly difficult when the proceeds of this particular Welsh property have been mixed up in the common fund of the Commissioners with the proceeds of sales of English property and the whole has been reinvested in perhaps one large property. If you do not take the original sale price, you have to ascertain what is the portion of the increment or decrement which can rightly be attributed to this particular property.
      What do you mean by these words, "or is the produce of or has been derived from"? What do they stand for? Do they stand for the original sale price or the present value? If they stand for the present value, I want to know how in such cases as my hon. and learned Friend mentioned, where the property is practically indistinguishable at the present time from other property, English property, with which it has been mixed, you are going to find out what is really the present value? There is the question of interest on the property sold and reinvested. What are you going to do with regard to that? Will the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have to account for every penny of the income? Supposing, in the case of some property, they did not give back all the interest straight away to the Church, but allowed it to accumulate, are you going to take that accumulation, which has probably been added to the original amount realised? That accumulation in strict equity ought to have gone to the Church before. It does not appear fair that you should now take it away from the Church. These are questions we want answered. We really do not know

      1215
      what the words mean, and I hope the Home Secretary will be able to explain them. They are very obscure at the present time, and I certainly think the Schedule requires some Amendment in order to make the position quite clear.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I am sure nobody on this side of the House will complain of the hon. and learned Gentleman having moved this Amendment and having asked for some explanation of this Schedule. Anyone reading it over without full possession of the facts relating to the property with which it is concerned must be puzzled. I rise for the purpose of doing my best to supplement what I thought was the very clear statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am sure, as he said, he would be better able to deal with any drafting, or it may be substantial, points that may arise in the course of the discussion, he will not mind my giving my view, for what it is worth, about it. I had the advantage that I was a member of the Royal Commission which dealt with the property of the Church, and the first thing I did when I began to study the Schedule was to look at the Report of the Commission in order to see what the property described in the Schedule was, and I found exactly what the Home Secretary has said to be the ease, namely, that) it is what we call the £26,000 odd. It is property derived for what we may for convenience of debate call the capitular revenues of the Church in "Wales. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will turn to the Report of the Commissioners, he will find it clearly sets forth what properties come within the meaning of "property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which is to be deemed Welsh ecclesiastical property." I find it comes under these heads:—
      "First, Estates of Prebendaries and separate estates of Deans, Canons, and other Cathedral dignitaries and officers, which may have been vested in the Commissioners by virtue of the 3rd and 4th Victoria, chapter 113."
      That was one of the earlier Acts dealing with the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The second head of property vested in the Commissioners is—
      "Estates of Bishops transferred to the Commissioners in exchange for annual payments Out of the Common Fund by virtue of the 23rd and 24th Victoria, chapter 124."
      That is another Statute dealing with the bishops only. The third head is—
      "Estates of Deans and Chapters and minor Cathedral Corporations."
      1216
      That is to say, the corporate estates of deans and chapters as distinguished from property coming under head 1—
      "replaced either by other estates provided by the Ecclesiastical Corporations or by annual payments out of the Common Fund."
      That is done under another Statute, the 31st and 32nd Vic., chap. 114. Now we come to the fourth head, which, as I think, gives rise to the complexity to which reference has been made:—
      "Estates or investments representing the proceeds of sales of parts of the above-mentioned estates."
      The Ecclesiastical Commissioners appear to have had, and to have exercised, the power of sale and of reinvestment of the various properties which came into their hands. One would have thought the operations would not either have been extensive or very difficult, but the moment you come to investigate what the actual proceedings of the Commissioners were you find considerable complexity introduced. I do not say that by way of criticism of what was done by the Commissioners, but in order to explain the difficulty in finding out what exactly is Welsh ecclesiastical property even for the purpose of the Report of the Royal Commission. It becomes still more difficult when dealing with it by this Bill. Sir Lewis Dibdin, who gave valuable evidence, explained to us what took place when the Ecclesiastical Commission was first established and began its operations. The details of the operations extending over the whole of England and Wales, were necessarily numerous, and it is very difficult even for a skilled lawyer like Sir Lewis Dibdin to generalise in a few words the character of the proceedings. He said:—
      "Roughly, I think I am right in saying it is this: The Bishopric Estates were all transferred by a rather complicated process. They were first of all transferred to the Commission, and the Bishops paid salaries, but that was subject to new estates being allotted to the different Bishops instead of those salaries, and in certain cases they were so allotted; but that was a subject of a further condition, that, if the Bishops liked, they could transfer back again a second time their estates for management at the Commission, receiving from them the income which they were calculated to produce when they were originally granted to the Bishops: and all the Bishops that had new estates allotted to them have done so; so that at this moment all the old episcopal estates either belong to the Commission as it were, for their own, or are under their management, which practically comes to the same thing. Then, with regard to the Deans and Chapters, there was a similar commutation made with regard to them; they were transferred at different dates and under different Acts."
      Therefore, what appears to have taken place in regard to the estates of the Bishopric of St. David's, for example, is that, first of all, the bishop transferred the estates to the Commission and they paid

      1217
      his salary. The Commission gave him back the estates, and then a second time the bishop came to the Commission and transferred all his then estates back to the Commission in lieu of a perpetual annuity of, I think, £4,200 a year. I mention these facts, and I call attention to Sir Lewis Dibdin's evidence in order that the Committee may understand the difficulty in carrying out what is, after all, the very simply object of the Bill. There is no desire on our part to take any property other than property which was of Welsh origin, and the whole object of Clause 4 is to see that that object is carried out. These being the facts, let us see what is the definition in the Schedule. The Schedule is really a definition or description of the national property coming under the operation of Clause 4, Sub-section (1) (a). The Committee has determined that the Welsh ecclesiastical property is to be vested in the Commissioners, and the marks of this property are these:—
      "(1) Property which does not belong to and is not appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation, but which is, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from property which became vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners before the passing of this Act, and which immediately before becoming so vested belonged to or was appropriated to the use of an ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, or the holder of any such office as such."
      The property to which that description applies is the property of cathedral corporations and the property of the Deans and Chapters of the Welsh dioceses. The moment you take into account what the actual facts are as to the operations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the moment, you take into consideration the terms of Clause 4, you will find that some such definition as is contained in the Schedule is absolutely necessary from a business point of view, in order to carry out the object of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Dudley has referred to the words "or has been derived from." He wants to know what is the meaning of those words. He also wants to know what is the meaning of the words "or is the produce of." I think the answer is plain. If you take out the words the meaning of which he is asking about, the Schedule would read—
      "Property which does not belong to and is not appropriated to the use of any
      1218
      ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation, but which is property which became vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners before the passing of this Act,"
      and so on. There is no doubt as to what property is there referred to. I think the hon. and gallant Member will find an answer to his question as to what is meant by "is the produce of" or "is or has been derived from," in the fourth category of property, the existence of which is indicated—that is, estates representing the proceeds of sales as so derived from property which immediately before being vested in Ecclesiastical Commissioners belonged to an ecclesiastical office in the Church of Wales. These include the estates of prebendaries and the separate estates of the deans and chapters. That is clear. That is one class of property now vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which is to be transferred to the Commission in exchange for a permanent annuity. The whole thing is a matter of account. Sir Lewis Dibdin told us of the methods of the Commissioners. The third category includes the estates of deans and chapters and minor deans and corporations, and the fourth category is one which you could not have a better form of words to describe it, "estates representing the proceeds of sales of part of the above-mentioned property."
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: At their present value?
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I am now dealing with the categories of property and with the method of determining what is Welsh ecclesiastical property under Clause 4. It would have been a very simple process if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had never interfered in these matters. But no doubt, by taking these estates from bishops, deans, and chapters, they have made it a matter of account, and the difficulty of making out what is Welsh ecclesiastical property comes under that fourth category. It is that fact which has made it difficult for us to get a better form of words than that contained in the Schedule.
      Mr. POLLOCK: What we want to know is from what, date these estates, representing investments, will count, and at what price?
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: Let me just show how difficult the matter is. It has not been relevant to our Debates, so far,

      1219
      for us to explain the details relating to these transactions with the Welsh bishoprics and the deans and chapters. As a matter of fact, there is quite an interesting history connected with these very corporations we are now dealing with. I do not think it would be in order for me to go into that history, but, as strictly relevant to this Schedule, there is one Statute I must refer to, and that is 6 and 7 Victoria, cap. 77, which is an Act for Regulating the Cathedral Churches of Wales. There it will be found what the existing arrangements are, and if the hon. Member cares to read the details and go back and inquire into the history of these things in the various dioceses he will find it a very interesting matter, and he will quite understand the difficulties which face the Ecclesiastical Commission in carrying out the distinctions they had to draw in regard to Welsh property. I quite agree that the Schedule is worded in a way which makes it very difficult to understand, but I really do not see how it can be improved. I am quite agreeable that, if any possible injustice is embodied in the words, and if the second paragraph in this Schedule is too extensive, that it should be remedied. That is the view of all hon. Members on this side. We have not the slightest desire to take advantage of obscurity of phrasing in order to obtain one single penny which we ought not to obtain under this Bill.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for calling attention to undoubtedly complicated Statutes. But what we really want at the present time is to understand what the Schedule really means as it is drafted. I understood the Home Secretary to say that the first part of it deals with what we know in the White Paper as the £26,700. I do not think there is any difficulty in identifying that sum, because it includes really everything held in the nature of Endowments, either by the bishop or the capitular bodies in Wales. It would leave them practically without a farthing. They are only to get the additional £3,000 voluntarily granted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and which those Commissioners may, in the future, continue if they think well to do so. But as far as Endowments are concerned the £26,700 includes everything. This is obviously a matter of drafting. The Home Secretary used the words "ecclesiastical offices or cathedral corporations." "Ecclesiastical offices" would, of course, include all the benefices
      1220
      within the definition of the Act, and it would include incumbencies. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that the words "ecclesiastical offices" shall include all that is derived from the various incumbencies. This is, of course, a technical point. I had to read the words over many times before I could understand what they really meant, and I had come to the conclusion that it was a capitular sum. I think the words "ecclesiastical offices" are much too wide. The definition is the same as in the Act of 1840, and it was there drawn in the widest form possible. But it goes much beyond the extinct prebendaries. As I understand the phrase, "ecclesiastical offices" would include every incumbency, and I want to ask the Home Secretary what he really does mean by it.
      Then I want to raise my second point, which is a very important one. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the second paragraph of Sub-section (2) of Schedule 1, and seemed to think that it simply gave facilities for exchanging any property in Wales for any other property. Surely there he must be wrong. I think he must have been dealing with the wrong subhead, because everything which he said as regards exchange was that property in Wales might be exchanged against property in England, and that is what would come under the head of "Adjustments" in Part II. of Schedule 1. This sub-paragraph has really nothing to do with it at all, and it was in reference to this point that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington raised his Amendment. The sub-paragraph deals with a totally different thing, and it would be wholly inconsistent with any construction that has been put forward by the Home Secretary. It says that:—
      "For the purpose of determining what property is property within the meaning of the above provision, any property situate in or issuing out of property situate in Wales or Monmouthshire which has been purchased by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall be deemed to have been purchased with the proceeds of sale of and so derived from property which immediately before being invested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners belonged to an ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales."
      It says that wherever the property is situated it is to be assumed it is property which belongs to the Church in Wales. The Home Secretary did not deal with this

      1221
      point in his explanation. It is not a question of exchange, for that is dealt with in another part of the Bill. The point is, Are you going to assume that property which is geographically situated in Wales or Monmouthshire is property which has been derived, before it came into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, from Welsh sources, and is, therefore, to be despoiled so far as the Church is concerned. That is the point which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pollock). What is the answer to it? I do not want to raise difficulties, but I have read this very carefully several times in order to understand it, and it appears to me, according to the view put forward by the Home Secretary, that the second paragraph ought to be omitted. That is the real answer to what he says. It is not wanted for adjustment purposes or for exchange. If it is not wanted for exchange, you are going to assume it is Welsh property because it is in Wales or Monmouthshire, although it might have been derived from English income, or have been part of old Endowments for English dioceses, although situated in Wales or Monmouthshire. That is quite wrong.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: If paragraph 2 stands, it will be subject to adjustment. It is really only a matter of account.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. You take account, of course, of property situated in Wales, and of the property situated in England, but it is an entirely different thing to say that because property is situated in Wales it is to be taken for the purposes of this Bill as Welsh property, and is to be taken away from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as an ecclesiastical body and vested in the Welsh Commissioners for secular purposes. The paragraph reads:
      "For the purpose of determining what property is property within the meaning of the above provision any property situate in, or issuing out of property situate in, Wales or Monmouthshire which has been purchased by the Ecclestiastical Commissioners shall be deemed…"
      and so forth. That is wrong. I am sure the Home Secretary does not mean that.
      Mr. McKENNA: I did not say that.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: The Schedule says it in terms. Really this part of the Schedule
      1222
      has nothing to do with adjustment or exchange. I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate what I am saying. I can see no explanation whatever for this Schedule except a direction that certain property which otherwise would stay with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners because it was derived from Endowments, not in connection with Wales or Monmouthshire, but with other dioceses in England—it is a direction that although that property would naturally be English property, yet, if it is geographically situated in Wales or Monmouthshire, it is to be taken out of the control of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and vested, for secular purposes, in the Welsh Commissioners. I say quite frankly to my hon. and learned Friend that what we really want, even more than his Amendment, is the deletion of this second paragraph. It is a matter of importance that we should know what other purpose it can serve than that I have indicated. I do not want to be put off with anything except a direct answer to my question. If it stands as it is without Amendment, surely the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is well justified, because it would mean that you get property which you could not distinguish as regards its object, because it is so inextricably mixed up. In that case the assumption ought not to apply.
      There is one other point the Home Secretary did not answer. That is with regard to the question of the date and price, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), both of them very important points. If you are going to have adjustments as between properties and exchanges between properties, how are you going to adjust them without reference to the date at which they were purchased and the price at which they were bought? On any other basis you might get the most unfair conditions possible; you might get one property which was well purchased and which has appreciated in value, and another property which, for various reasons, has depreciated, and you might have those two properties set one against the other. We are considering this matter for the first time. It is a very important point, and I ask whoever replies for the Government to tell us whether this middle paragraph, when it is read through carefully, can have any other meaning, and I think it is a wrong meaning, than to divert property from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners into the hands of the Welsh

      1223
      Commissioners, whatever its origin may be, if it happens to be geographically situated in Wales or Monmouthshire.
      Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. and learned Member will be so good as to read the second paragraph and compare it with Part II. of the Schedule, which deals with adjustments, he will really discover that his criticism is without point. The second paragraph deals with property in Wales or Monmouthshire which has been "purchased." That is the governing word of the second paragraph, and the word to which he must direct his attention. That word does not occur in Part II. of the Schedule dealing with adjustments. The property now situate in Wales or Monmouthshire having been purchased presumably out of the purchase account, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for whose benefit alone this paragraph is inserted, desired that that property shall be deemed to have been bought out of the Welsh money which has been paid into that account. You have got a Welsh property, a piece of land in Wales which has been bought by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners out of the fund, part of which has been contributed to by Welsh money and part of which has been contributed to by English money. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for the sake of simplicity, desire that this property shall be deemed to have been bought with Welsh money. To the extent that English money for this purpose is assumed to have been Welsh money, to a like extent the total of £26,700 a year will be diminished, and the balance transferred to the English account.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That does not appear in the first or the second paragraphs of the Schedule. So far as I can make out the money will be otherwise accounted for.
      Mr. McKENNA: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point. I am, I think, dealing with the first point put by the hon. and learned Member, and I think I have satisfied him that it is not a case of adjustment.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman's reasons do not satisfy me. He has shown, up to this point, that although property has been purchased with English money, it is to be deemed, if it is in Wales or Monmouthshire, to have been purchased with Welsh money.
      Mr. McKENNA: I am coming to that. The hon. and learned Member's first assertion was that I had been reading from the wrong note, and had been referring to Part II. dealing with adjustments instead of the first part. I think I have satisfied him on that point. Now I will come to the meaning of the actual words, not to the intention of this paragraph, which is the intention put before me by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves, but how far we carry out that intention by these words. In order to make that point quite clear, I propose to move to leave out the words—
      "For the purpose of determining what property is property within the meaning of the above provision. …"
      I propose later on to accept the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare), to insert the words—
      "and a sum equal to the amount applied by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in such purchases shall be deducted from the produce of the property coming within the preceding paragraph of this Schedule accordingly."
      I will not undertake to accept that Amendment in the form of those words, because I must first consult my advisers, but I do undertake to insert, at the end of this paragraph, an Amendment which will carry out the purpose contained in those words and strictly limit the second paragraph to that meaning. I hope I have satisfied the hon and learned Member on both those points. There remains only the point of the interpretation of the words—
      "or is the produce of."
      The point raised by the hon. Member for Dudley was that he desired to know what date and what price would be taken. Date and price and the meaning of the words—
      "is the produce of,"
      will be the date, and the price and the interpretation which have been taken by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners when they made up their account and gave as a result of that account the sum which they now hold on account of the English Church in Wales, namely, £26,700 a year. All that we have done in this Bill; all that we have done so far and what we propose

      1225
      to do unless we are pressed to do the contrary, is to take the accounts furnished independently by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the year 1906 and accept those accounts as accurate. What we have done in this paragraph is to put into language the figures £26,700 a year. We propose to go upon the figures furnished by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If the Commissioners tell us, which they have not, that these words are inaccurate in describing the amount they have given to us as the true amount, of course we should have to alter the words, but we should still adhere to the figure £26,700 a year. We are quite satisfied that the first paragraph does, in somewhat difficult, although I will not say obscure, language accurately describe that sum of money. It is upon that basis we are proceeding, and upon that basis we propose to proceed throughout in the construction of the Financial Clauses of this Bill. We have taken the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' figures, and we do not propose to depart from them.
      5.0 P.M.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not wish to say anything about the first two points with which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt, because I do not think that either of them really arises, strictly speaking, upon this Amendment. The point which I think does arise is the third one. I must admit that I am not satisfied with the words ho has chosen. I am quite satisfied with his intention, as he has expressed it here. This is a very technical matter and a difficult one to discuss in Committee of the Whole House, but this is the argument I desire to present to the right hon. Gentleman. The words are—
      "property which…is, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from property. …"
      which came from ancient Endowments. Those words seem to me to mean this, and can only mean this: That you are to take whatever now represents the original Welsh ecclesiastical property, that is to say, supposing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners some time back sold land in Wales and invested the proceeds in urban property, you are to take the full value at the present moment of that urban property. It may be very much more valuable than the property they originally sold, but you are to follow that because that, would be the produce of or derived from the original property. It seems to me, although I am not familiar with Chancery practice, the kind of words which accurately describe a
      1226
      proceeding known as following trust funds. You have got to pursue the original property, find out what now represents it, and take that property as Welsh ecclesiastical property. I do not understand from the Home Secretary that that is what he intends, but it shows the complexity of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) also understood these words in the same sense as I understand them, because he thought they were covered by the words he read out, "investments representing the sale of parts of the above property," that is to say, in whatever form you now find the proceeds of these sales you are to take that. That is quite a different proposition, and you will entirely upset your £26,700, or any other sum, because you cannot tell what it may be until you have made calculations and found exactly what now represents the proceeds of ancient property. That is a very important matter.
      I am not quite satisfied that the words of the Amendment meet the difficulty, yet they meet this part of it at any rate, that you are not to take property which has been partly bought with what I will call Welsh money and partly with English money, and then, since you cannot make any accurate division as to which part of the new investment represents Welsh money and which represents English money, take the whole of it for Welsh property. That is the danger my hon. and learned Friend aims at, and it is a serious danger which ought to be guarded against. These words seem to me much too wide, and likely to lead to very serious difficulty, and the matter is made much more difficult by the existence of the second paragraph. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his account of the second paragraph, but it really says that where the Ecclesiastical Commissioners find themselves in possession of Welsh real property that is to be deemed to have been derived from Welsh ecclesiastical property; that is to say, that you are in that case to take the existing Welsh real property as the produce of the ancient Endowments which by hypothesis have been sold. You are directed in the second paragraph to follow to that extent, and you are given an artificial method by which you are to follow in that particular case the proceeds of the ancient Welsh property. There may be some excellent technical answer to the argument I have presented, but if there is not, I am sure the Government

      1227
      must see that that is a point which ought to be guarded against. The Home Secretary and I both agree to accept these words as carrying out our intentions. I do not wish on this occasion to impugn the good faith of the Home Secretary or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I accept that as an accurate statement of what really are the facts of the case. But that is not really a complete answer, because it may not be the present Home Secretary and the present Ecclesiastical Commissioners who will have to decide it, and it may have to come before a Court of Law. Therefore, I ask that the Government will take this part of the Clause very carefully into consideration, and if, on consideration, they or their advisers think these words are not satisfactory for carrying out our wishes, they will bring up other words on Report. I admit it is not easy to suggest words on the spur of the moment which will meet the difficulty.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: When this discussion started I thought I understood what the Schedule was about and I thought I understood the Amendment, but after hearing the discussion I am very doubtful whether I understand either the Schedule or the Amendment. Let me say what I thought was the meaning of the Schedule. There are certain episcopal and capitular estates which were handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners after the Act of 1836, and those of them which are still in the possession of the Commissioners are to be deemed to be ancient property. So far there is no difficulty at all. But there is a portion—how much one cannot say—of those estates which have been sold. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Guest) asked, last May, what the net revenue of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the year ending March, 1911, was in Wales and Monmouthshire originally belonging to the Welsh bishoprics, chapter, and other ecclesiastical offices, and the answer was that the total was £23,504. Then the Ecclesiastical Commissioners went on to say that the Commissioners had not got separate accounts, and it was not therefore possible, without investigation of transactions of that nature and the application of the proceeds thereof during the last sixty years to state what part of the income of the Commissioners is derived from the proceeds of the sale of such estates. Therefore the position last May, as I take it, was that the Commissioners knew that the
      1228
      revenue of the old episcopal and capitular estates still in their possession amounted to £23,504, but there was some more income derived from Welsh ecclesiastical property originally which had been sold. Another question was put a few days ago and the answer agreed precisely with the figure given in the White Paper which was distributed by the Home Secretary some two months ago. That is the figure which the Home Secretary has given us to-day. He says that the total income of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from these episcopal and capitular estates, including the income from the proceeds of the sales, amount to £26,700. If that be so, and if the answer in May last be correct, the revenues derived from the proceeds of the sales are the difference between £23,500 and £26,700.
      Mr. McKENNAmade an observation which was not heard in the Gallery.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I do not know the whole facts. At all events it seems to me that there is a sum of £3,000 or £4,000 a year derived, in part at all events, from the proceeds of these sales, and the only caveat I wish to enter is that the Home Secretary should not assume too readily that the £26,700 represents the total revenue derived by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from existing ecclesiastical revenue or from sales or the proceeds of the sale of those ecclesiastical revenues during the last sixty years.
      Mr. McKENNAmade an observation which was inaudible.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I am in the dark in the matter, and my right hon. Friend is well informed, but I should like him to tell us exactly how we stand. The effect of the Amendment would be this. To take a concrete case, suppose that certain ecclesiastical property in Wales had been sold by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for £1,000, which had been added to another £1,000 derived from English sources and that £2,000 worth of stock had been bought. In that case the Welsh £1,000 would become indistinguishable from the English £1,000, therefore no part of the property could ever any more be looked upon as Welsh property. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that that is hardly fair to Wales. If the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have dealt properly, as I have no doubt they have, with these funds, and have used these two

      1229
      funds as one, and it is impossible to ascertain how much was derived from Welsh and how much from English sources, I do not see why there should be a presumption in favour of England any more than a presumption in favour of Wales, and I appeal for once to the generosity of hon. Members opposite, if there is any doubt, to let the Ecclesiastical Commissioners discharge the onus and show that the property which became indistinguishable in this way is English property and not require the Welsh Commissioners to prove the contrary.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: In view of the statement of the Home Secretary that if the words of the first paragraph of the Schedule are not considered by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be satisfactory he will consider an Amendment, I ought to say we quite accept what I understand is the doctrine underlying these words, that the figure of £26,700 a year should be taken as the sum representing what is, or has been derived from, or is the proceeds of the sale of these old estates. But I am informed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that they are not satisfied that these words will necessarily carry that interpretation. Their view is that they may or they may not, and that other interpretations are possible. Clause 5, Sub-section (4), says that any order made under this Schedule has to be made with the concurrence of the Welsh Commissioners. The Welsh Commissioners may be a very hostile body. We do not know. At all events, they may take a totally different view from that taken by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and in view of that the sum of £26,700 may not, in their view, be the proper sum. If it is the intention of the Government, as I understand it is, to take that sum, we may rightly claim that words should be introduced which will satisfy the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that that intention will be carried out. Therefore I want to ask the Home Secretary if he would be willing, on Report, if pressed to do so by the representatives of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to insert other words which will make it perfectly clear that the £26,000 and nothing else would be taken as the amount to be handed over under the first paragraph of the Schedule?
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: An hon. Member opposite raised the question as to what will become of the accumulation of income in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I should like to know from
      1230
      the Home Secretary what is the sum, if any, in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which represents the accumulated income of the capitular estates in Wales? I go further than that. We are not to assume that the figures supplied by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners so far are correct. On one occasion in Committee I had very considerable difficulty in extracting any information as to the real position of affairs. I asked, for instance, what property was represented by the £26,700 of net income. On a later occasion I put down a question to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir Charles Nicholson), who represents the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in this House. In reply he said:—
      "The sum of £26,700 is the net annual income of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from property or the proceeds of property, or the proceeds of sales of property, or interests in property formerly belonging to bishoprics, chapters and cathedral dignitaries of the Church in Wales, or bought with the proceeds of sales of other property, excluding income from property in Wales and Monmouthshire derived from English Church preferments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1912 col. 1734.]
      Under these circumstances I do not quite understand whence arises the difficulty suggested by the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member. Surely, if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners know what is the precise income received from this property, they must have full knowledge of what these funds are. I pointed out that the real income is not £26,700, but £28,700. I think it is rather material to point out that from the sum of £28,700 which is received from these estates in Wales there is going to be deducted a sum of £l,500 for the college at Lampeter and £450 towards, the maintenance of Welsh Church, services in London. That brings the sum to £26,750. On this point I understood, and I think others understood, that the amount coming to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was going to be a matter of inquiry, not alone by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but also by the Welsh Commissioners, and that, failing agreement on that point, there was to be an appeal, if necessary, to the Privy Council. I would appeal to the Home Secretary to say again that that is the object of the Government, and that it is the provision in the Bill. The answers given by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners so far have been neither full nor, in my opinion, fair. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] I say they have been neither fair nor full. I say so because my hon. Friend the Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. W. G. Gladstone) quoted

      1231
      a statement by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the effect that they could give no information as to the amount realised for the various sales of property, while six months later they gave definite information as to the nature of the property which is now vested in them. I say to the Home Secretary that it should be distinctly understood that inquiry is to be made as to the amount and value of the property, not alone by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but also by the Welsh Commissioners.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: In dealing with a matter of drafting I hope we shall not be led away by the speech of the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Ellis Davies) as to what he calls the unfairness of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I thought if there was a fair body in this country it was the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: What I said was that their answers have been neither full nor fair.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: I think that is a reflection which ought not to be made on that body, or the representative in this House. I am not going to follow it. What I was going to point out was this: I am dealing with the White Paper. The Home Secretary told us in regard to this complicated Schedule that the £29,700 is the figure taken in 1906. That was the basis of the White Paper. On this side we all accept entirely what he has said. Might I suggest to him as a matter of drafting that, taking this figure as the basis, a far more simple form of Schedule could obviously have been produced than we have here. I would ask him to look into the matter of drafting in order to carry out as early as possible what his view is. I should think that would be a satisfactory termination. I do not think we should carry it further at the present time. Once you get the figure you want, I do not think the drafting ought to be difficult.
      Mr. McKENNA: I am very unwilling that there should be any misunderstanding on this matter. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1906 arrived at the amount, namely, £26,700 a year, as the result of certain calculations. We propose in this Bill to go through the same calculations. I do not say that the figure is now necessarily £26,700. In 1911 it might be £l,000 or £2,000 more or less, but whatever the method adopted by them
      1232
      in 1906 I propose that in this Bill we shall adopt the same method. I would say to my hon. Friend (Mr. Ellis Davies) that really there is no course open to him, unless he wishes to embark on litigation which could have no ending, except to accept the figures of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. They have been the trustees of this property for upwards of eighty years, and they alone have, or can have, the necessary information. I would submit that they have conducted their work admirably. Their statements have been made in public, and they are implicitly to be trusted. In 1006 the calculations were made for entirely independent purposes, and the Commissioners have reported certain statements of accounts. I think we may fairly accept these statements, particularly as we have no alternative. I think there can be no objection to accepting them publicly now.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I understand you to mean the new calculations which are to be made?
      Mr. McKENNA: In drafting a Bill we have to provide for all contingencies. I am not without hope that in regard to many of the controversial points, such as the sums to be paid under the Commutation Clause, the particular application of the Schedules, the accounts which are to be taken as final between parties as estimating the total of the proposals, in the final stage of this Bill we may come to an agreement upon a figure which will be satisfactory to both sides, so that we may get rid of these very difficult problems, which are almost impossible to settle except by agreement. No accountant could go through the books of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and give any independent report unless he was assisted by the Commissioners, and consequently in all matters of this sort in the last stages of the Bill I hope we will come to agreed figures which have been publicly applied for.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, but before it is withdrawn I would like to say a word or two. I confess that if the Bill is to go through, I think the hope expressed by the Home Secretary is one which will be welcomed on both sides, provided that the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Ellis Davies) does not make any more speeches such as that he has made this afternoon. It was the only unfortunate speech which has been made to-day. He has made a

      1233
      sort of speech which almost prevents one withdrawing the Amendment or doing anything reasonable. We have a return presented, not only by the Welsh Commissioners, who are far too important a body to take any notice of the observations of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, but presented also by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, and at least in this House we may trust him not to put his name to and take the responsibility for figures he disbelieves, or which were obtained from any but a trustworthy source. It is a return showing in detail the amount of endowed revenue of the Church of England in Wales, and its proposed allocation under the Established Church (Wales) Bill. The hon. Member will find that at page 5, the figure £26,700 does appear, and that the Home Secretary is right in giving it to the House as the figure which it is proposed shall be dealt with and allocated under this Bill. I hope we may not only accept the figure of the Home Secretary, but the statement of the Under-Secretary, that this is the sum he proposes to deal with in the Clause. I hope the Home Secretary may be able to make the Clause clearer on the Report stage. I would make a suggestion to him. Part I. deals with the property to be vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and deemed to be Welsh ecclesiastical property. It really would be very simple to add a little to that title. I understand from his last answer that he would be prepared to accept some words like these: "Such sums being the annual value of £26,700." I think that was the ascertained figure as shown in the White Paper.
      Mr. McKENNA: In 1906.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I agree. The Home Secretary knows what this sum is. It can be rendered certain by the process which he knows will be followed. Therefore, it would really not be very dim cult to add a word or two to the name or title of this property dealt with in Part I. I hope the right hon. Gentleman or the draftsman may think of a phrase which would identify the sum of £26,700 with the property to be dealt with. Having elicited that reply from the Home Secretary, who has fairly met us and explained what the Clause means, and inasmuch as he is prepared to move an Amendment on Part I., and to accept the Amendment which stands in the names of my hon. Friends the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) and the
      1234
      Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: In a Debate, of this kind dealing with funds of such magnitude, I wish to know whether it is the suggestion of the, hon. Member that nobody on this side of the House is to be permitted to say if they will accept the-accounts of this public body as supplied by themselves.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I did not say that.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: The hon. and learned Gentleman certainly, I thought, was a little severe on my hon. Friend, but if we do look a little critically upon the answers given by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they have themselves alone to blame. When Sir Lewis Dibdin, in answer to the request of the Royal Commission on the Welsh Church came before us to give evidence, we felt greatly obliged to him for the trouble which he and those working with him had taken about the matter. But I ventured to ask him—
      Mr. POLLOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman in order, on a question asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, in going into what was said at the Commission?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): Yes, quite in order. The effect is that the Amendment cannot be by leave withdrawn.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I am only explaining why we are not going to receive every answer given by the Ecclesiastical Commission as necessarily true. I asked, on the Welsh Commission, whether they would give particulars of the estates transferred by the four Welsh bishops to the Ecclesiastical Commission, and the answer that Sir Lewis Dibdin gave was—
      "If you mean farm by farm, the answer I have already given is the answer I give again, that the Commissioners never give particulars of that, kind."
      Then I went on—
      "But yon have got the information?—Yes.
      "Then it follows that, it does not matter in what form the Order in Council was. …An account of these parcels of the estates must be kept somewhere? —Yes.
      "And you know what the estates consist in?—Yes, certainly.
      "Is there any objection to the Commission being furnished with particulars of parcels of the episcopal estates of the four bishoprics?—Yes? think there is a general objection against the Ecclesiastical Commission giving-information of the kind except, of course, under some statutory authority where they are bound to do so."

      1235
      We had no authority to compel him to say any more, and the matter stopped there. I mention this to explain why we should not be inclined to accept as a matter of course anything that comes from the Commission. I believe that they are doing their best, but I do object to any remarks being made in regard to my hon. Friends who think on an occasion of this kind that it is perfectly relevant to ask questions as to whether the answers-of the Commission are or are not correct. Having made this explanation, I have no objection to the withdrawal of this Amendment.
      Sir C. NICHOLSON: Perhaps it would be well if I just read the exact figures, so far as it is possible for them to be obtained. The net income of the episcopal estates naturally varies from time to time, but so far as it can be ascertained if is approximately £36,150 a year. From that has to be deducted £1,950, which has been alluded to by the hon. Member, consisting of £1,550, a charge for Lampeter College, and £400 for the benefit of certain Welsh Churches in London. That leaves £34,200. From that has to be deducted -a sum of £7,500 a year, which is put down -as the value of English preferments in Wales. This leaves £26,700, which was the actual sum I gave in answer to a question in the House some time ago.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: There is no mention of the sum of £2,000, which is deducted. One might really gather from the White Paper that the £26,700 is the total income. The net income which is going to be banded over now, is the sum after the deduction of £2,000, £l,500 going to Lampeter College and £500 to the Welsh Church extra for the maintenance of the Welsh Church.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. HOARE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "such" ["or the holder of any such office as such"], to insert the words
      "subject to a deduction from the produce of such property of the value of any property which has been annexed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by way of grant in specie to an ecclesiastical office or corporation of the Church in Wales or the holder of any such office as such, and which immediately before becoming vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners belonged to or was
      1236
      appropriated to the use of an ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation of the Church of England in England or the holder of any such office, as such."
      This Amendment raises a point which is somewhat less complicated than that which we have been discussing, but is none the less an important point. It deals with a sum of gross revenue of £3,373 a year, which I hope to show that the Church in Wales is entitled to keep, under the principle which underlies the Bill. The Committee will remember that there are two kinds of English property in Wales. First, there is property which belongs to English sees and English chapters. It amounts in gross value to £9,152 of corn-mutated tithe rent-charge, and brings in a net income of between £2,000 and £3,000 a year. Against that there is a small sum, property which belongs to the Welsh chapter and bishoprics which is situated in England. In the second portion of this Schedule a readjustment is to be made between these two sums. The one is to be set against the other, and any balance or deficit there may be is to be made up. My Amendment does not touch that kind of property. It touches the second kind of English property in Wales which I hope to show was just as much English property as the property which still actually remains in the names of the English corporations, and is situated in Wales; and that on that account it should be retained by the Church. I refer to certain property which until quite recently belonged to various English chapters and English bishoprics.
      I take two examples—a certain amount of property which belonged to the chapter of Gloucester, and also some property which belonged to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. The property, as a whole, amounts to about £3,373 a year. What has happened to this property is this: Under the arrangement made at the time the property was transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commission in 1836 and subsequent years, but since then it has been annexed to various benefices and other ecclesiastical purposes in Wales. The point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee is that this property technically and by all reasons of justice should still be regarded as English property. No one maintains that it is Welsh in its origin. Until quite recently it was the property of the Dean and Chapter of Gloucester and of Westminster, and other English corporations, and under every I canon by which you have tested this Bill,

      1237
      that property should now be retained to the Church in Wales and not secularised, as it would be under this Schedule in its present form. There is this further point. It would have been quite possible for the Ecclesiastical Commission not to have annexed this English property to Welsh benefices at all, but to have left it on their books and to have paid the proceeds year by year to various purposes in Wales. If the Ecclesiastical Commission had adopted that system of making the grants, the property could not under this Schedule be secularised at all.
      In other words, it conies to this, that you are penalising the Ecclesiastical Commission because it has annexed certain property to Welsh churches instead of leaving it on its books in another way which it might equally have done. Surely it is very unfair to take a technical point of that kind and, because the Ecclesiastical Commission has made its grant from English funds to Welsh purposes in a particular way say that the property should on that account be confiscated. That is altogether in contravention to the principle which has been adopted under this Bill in dealing with the other Ecclesiastical Commission grants and Queen Anne's Bounty. The Committee will remember the distinction which has been drawn between money which comes from English sources and money which comes from Welsh sources, and because a sum of £50,000 a year comes from English proceeds on that account the Welsh Church is to retain it. Certainly I cannot see any reason that would justify the taking of this £3,000 a year, which until thirty or forty years ago was English property appropriated to English chapters and bishoprics, and secularising it. I cannot help thinking that here, again, it must be a ease of careless drafting of the Schedule and that the Government could not intend to deprive the Welsh Church of this small sum, which by every test should be regarded as coming from English sources, and, therefore, should not be secularised, but should be left for the enjoyment of the Welsh Church.
      The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY (Mr. Hobhouse): The hon. and learned Gentleman who has moved this Amendment has truly said that there are in question two kinds of property, that which particularly belongs to English dioceses being situated in Wales, and that which is situated in England and belongs to Welsh dioceses, and there is to be a set-off be-
      1238
      tween these two kinds of property. The hon. Member has told us that the sum to which his Amendment particularly refers is one of about £2,000 a year net, or between £3,000 or £4,000 a year gross. In regard to the origin of this property, it might be said to be derived from English benefices, and, more particularly, the property of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. This matter was only brought to our notice within the last three or four days—in fact, the communication is dated the 27th of this month. So far as this particular sum, is concerned, I think there should be no difficulty about a set-off of one against the other, though the matter has come as something of a novelty and surprise. But if you are going to examine what has been assessed as the value in one case, it is quite clear that you may compare what may be the assessed value in the other case. We are not going to find out now what may be the loss to the English Church or to Wales, but if you do bare the roots of all these transactions, they may be found to be very numerous or very few, very complicated or very simple.
      On this point we have really no information. I do not know whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might have given us that information, but they have not done so, and we do not know what extent of property or values are involved in the acceptance or rejection of this Amendment. At all events, it is quite clear that we cannot accept the Amendment for the purpose of dealing only with this particular part of the subject; the inquiry would have to extend to all possibilities involved. That being so, it seemed to us that it would be very much better to stand by my right hon. Friend's figures, which were practically agreed upon by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If there is any disagreement about what ought to be transferred you have Clause 5, Sub-section (4):—
      "Orders of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty under this Section. …shall be made with the concurrence of the Welsh Commissioners, or, in default of such concurrence, with the approval of His Majesty the King in Council given on the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."
      This property cannot be transferred without an order of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That order having been received, if the two authorities differ as to what

      1239
      values ought to be transferred, there is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The proposal of the Amendment would entail not only a discussion of this question, but of a great number of other questions, and we should have to go into the whole matter. For all these reasons I think the Bill had better stand as originally drawn.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman has really given no answer in any way to the argument put forward very forcibly by the hon. Member for Chelsea. The argument is that this cannot be Welsh national property, because it was property dedicated originally not to Welsh but to English purposes. In all our argument here it has always been assumed that the property which is to be secularised and taken away from religious purposes is property to which Wales, as a nation, has some national right. That is the basis of the whole position. But what the hon. Member for Chelsea pointed out was that this never could have been national property in that sense at all; it was never given to Wales or the Welsh people; it was given to English religious corporations, either at Westminster or Gloucester, and given, therefore, for purposes of religion in England, if we are to draw a distinction, as we do for this purpose, between England and Wales. The case, therefore, is completely made out. It has been pointed out that this sum is £2,000 net, or £3,373 gross, and that it is a sum to which the Welsh Commissioners ought not to have any title. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman dealt with that point at all. What he says is, "It may be quite true that you are entitled to this sum and to keep it, but just think if you open up matters of this kind you may be worse off." We do not mind these matters being opened up; we want a just determination. It may be that if these matters were opened up that the result would be in favour of Wales, but if Welsh Members can bring forward any case which is the least analogous to this, and which ought to inure to Wales under the general principles of this Bill, well and good. They will have my support in the matter. If we are right in saying that the property dedicated under these circumstances for religious purposes in England and given to religious corporations, cannot be national property in Wales, and if it can be shown there is an analogous case to this, let them bring it forward.
      1240
      It is no answer to say that if these matters were gone into there might possibly be found something to set off on the other side. We do not believe that there is, yet you are deliberately taking property devoted to religious purposes in England and making the impossible and absurd claim that it is national property in Wales, without showing in any form that it is. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 5, Sub-section (4), as giving an appeal under these circumstances: You, first of all, want to know the special circumstances and to lay down the principle, and when the principle has been laid down, then, of course, an appeal may be valuable, but until you have done that what is the good of an appeal? We cannot succeed in an appeal against the plain terms of the Act as it stands. That is really a mockery of the idea of appeal. We must, first of all, make it on appealable points which can be discussed and capable of being brought before a tribunal. I am perfectly certain that the Under-Secretary of State will advise the Chancellor of the Duchy that this is not a matter which could be brought on appeal to the Privy Council; it is not a matter which can be discussed as between the Welsh Commissioners and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; it is a matter which we have to determine now as a definite question of right, whether property devoted to religious purposes is to be secularised and used for purposes on the basis of its being Welsh national property, which is denied. You have only to set that up to show that it is a monstrous absurdity, and that it would be confiscation, without the least excuse, of property dedicated to religious purposes in England.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down said there was no ground for our claim that this was Welsh national property, but I distinctly say that we have every claim on the ground of nationality. What is the history of these funds which have been appropriated to the English ecclesiastical corporation of Gloucester? How did these Welsh moneys become devoted to the service of religion in England? The story is this: Robert of Gloucester, the half-brother of the Empress Matilda, having conquered Wales, robbed the Welsh people of these moneys, and transferred them to English purposes, and they have been used for English purposes ever since. I cannot understand how the hon. and learned

      1241
      Gentleman who has just sat down, the protagonist of anti-confiscation, can stand up in this House for all that robbery of 700 or 800 years ago. If ever there was a robbery, Wales was robbed by those people who transferred Welsh money to English purses. I confess, if we were to argue this question merely on the ground of Welsh nationality, I should say the right of Wales is such that this property ought to be retransferred to her as property of which she was deprived by force centuries ago. But I agree that we cannot now argue this question on that basis; there are other considerations that are involved, but while I quite accept the hon. Gentleman's bona fides in the matter, I cannot accept the figures he gives without investigation. How can any of us, when these figures are hurled at our heads for the first time to-night, accept them as correct?
      Mr. HOARE: Will the hon. Member accept the principle of my Amendment, the figures to be ascertained afterwards?
      6.0 P.M.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I must ask the hon. Member to allow me to develop my argument in my own way. I will come to the point. I have never shirked any real question put to me, and I am not going to shirk this question. What is the proposition which the hon. and learned Gentleman makes? Because the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the last eighty years or sixty years have returned to Wales Welsh money, therefore we must not take advantage of their action, but we must stand by the illegitimate action of the old Norman invaders of Wales instead of accepting what the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves accept, namely, that these are really in essence Welsh moneys which ought to be devoted to Welsh religious purposes. There are, of course, I agree, other questions involved. I wish to make this condition. I am speaking only for myself and I have no right to speak for anyone else, but I agree that there should be a thorough investigation not only into those moneys, but a thorough investigation into the whole of the conduct of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with regard to Ecclesiastical revenue derived from Wales. I am not prepared to accept the figure of £26,700 which they put forward in 1906 as the amount of the ecclesiastical revenue derived from Wales. I am not prepared to accept the figure of £3,000 which they say has been devoted by them during the last sixty years to Welsh re-
      1242
      ligious purposes without inquiry. It is an ordinary precaution. You do not accept figures without inquiry, which are given to you, even after the most particular care from the other side.

      I wish to know how the Welsh people stand in regard to these Ecclesiastical Commissioners' funds, and the reason why I insist upon that is this. As my right hon. Friend pointed out just now, when Sir Lewis Dibdin came to give evidence before the Welsh Church Commission in 1906 or 1907, he refused to give details. I am not prepared to accept general statements without particulars. I want to know the names of the farmers in Wales, their annual rent and so on, and after a full, fair, impartial investigation I, for one, am perfectly satisfied to. accept the result. I do not believe a single Welsh Member wishes to take a penny-piece more than is their fair and absolute right under the terms of this Bill, as we understand them. I am willing to accept this Bill as presented, and if the facts are borne out as presented by the hon. Member for Chelsea after a full and fair investigation not a single person in Wales would want to touch a penny of these funds. We want only our fair rights, and if, according to the principle upon which this Bill is based, those funds are held not to be ours, then we have no right to them. I am perfectly willing to abide by that full and fair invesitgation.
      Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I do not think the Government can possibly maintain the position they have taken up after the speech we have just heard and after which it is unnecessary to say more than a few sentences. The hon. Member whom we have confronted throughout these long Debates cannot possibly be accused either by us or by the Government of not being an energetic supporter of the rights of the Welsh people through out these long discussions. He has perfectly, fairly, and fully admitted the principle which underlies the Amendment of my hon. Friend. He has said if we can establish before any impartial tribunal, after any impartial ascertainment of the figures, he himself would not oppose or in any sense—
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I adhere to that, but it must not be one-sided. It must be an investigation which may add to the Welsh funds as well as take from them.
      Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I never intended to attribute any other opinion to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The investigation must be a fair one, and to be a fair one obviously, of course, it must be an investigation in which both sides approach it with an open mind. If that is so, I call on the right hon. Gentleman who opposed this Amendment, in the name of justice and of principle, to accept the principle of the Amendment and withdraw his opposition. I do this with the more strength, because I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said as to his ignorance on this question. This has been on the Paper for some time, and there must be many of those who are advising him on this matter who must have been perfectly well aware that this question was raised months ago, and it is surprising that they should have kept him in ignorance on so important a matter, and should have placed him in the position in which he is to-day against the opinion of one of the most intransigeant of his supporters to maintain an argument against my hon. Friend's Amendment. I certainly would appeal to anybody, after the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether the Government can possibly maintain that attitude?
      Viscount WOLMER: I think that the difficulty and the quandary into which the Government have fallen is due to the fact that in considering their course through the Committee stage of this Bill they have not based their actions on principle, but they have regarded the whole question as a matter of driving a bargain between their Welsh supporters on the one hand and their English supporters' conscientious qualms on the other hand. The reason why they have refused to agree to this Amendment is not because they are able to withstand the principle on which it is based, but because they feel that they have given enough concessions already to the Church party in the House in order to get their Bill through. That is why they have not acceded to the requst. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has returned to this Debate. He has told us frequently, in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill, that the Bill does not propose to confiscate a single penny of property which belongs to the Church in England. That is the basis upon which the Bill has been presented, not only in this House, but in the country. We have been told that this is a question for Wales, which affects the Welsh people alone, and that that is why so much value
      1244
      is attached to the so-called mandate from Wales. We are told that the English Church in England is not to be affected except in dismemberment, but here we point to an instance where about £3,000 worth of property per year of the Church in England is going to be confiscated by the terms of this Bill. We ask the Government by what principle on which they have hitherto defended this Bill can they justify such treatment of the Church of England. Our case is so unanswerable that even the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) is found, with qualifications, upon our side. I think if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been aware of that before there would have been very little difficulty about accepting this Amendment. I wish that the relations between the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Home Secretary were sufficiently cordial to allow them to have communicated a little before this Amendment was discussed. I am sure it would have had an important effect upon the attitude which the Government have taken up.
      I should like to challenge the Home Secretary, if the Government refuse to accept this Amendment, whether he can still continue to say that this Bill does not confiscate property of the Church of England in England. This is a matter of over £3,000 per year, and of really very great importance, in so far as financial matters can be important. I should like to point out if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had simply kept this property in their hands, and given the money they derived from it to the Church this property would never have been confiscated. It is simply because they gave over this property to the Church in Wales that it is now going to be taken from the Church. I do not believe personally when the Government were drafting the Bill that they had this class of property in their minds. I believe that this effect of the Bill is, as a matter of fact, an oversight, and an unforeseen result of the manner in which the Government have sought to divide up the property of the Church in Wales by the drafting of the Bill. Therefore, why on earth can they not agree to accepting this Amendment which we submit is thoroughly in accord with the principle1 on which the Bill is based, and in accord with the principles on which the Home Secretary has defended the Bill? This Amendment would never have been necessary if it had not been for

      1245
      the mere accident of the manner in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have managed their property. On every principle of simple justice and common sense, if the Government refuse this Amendment they stand convicted of the fact that they have thrown principle overboard and have come to the conclusion that the Church has saved enough money from the wreck and is to be allowed no more.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES (very indistinctly heard): The Noble Lord has mentioned a sum of £.3,000, and I would ask him to what exactly does he refer. There are two kinds of property mentioned in the Amendment: "property annexed by way of grants in specie," and "property which immediately before becoming vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners belonged to or was appropriated to the use of an ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation of the Church of England in England or the holder of any such office."
      Viscount WOLMER: I understand that it is tithe redeemed. I do not know for certain; I have only been informed so.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I was waiting to get the information from the Noble Lord. "In specie" suggested money. It may be that it means tithe rent-charge. What property is that? The Amendment refers, not only to property which has been annexed by way of a grant in specie, but also certain property which immediately before becoming vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners belonged to, or was appropriated to the use of, an ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation of the Church of England in England. What property is that?
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: What does it matter what the property is? The question is whether or not property which answers to that description ought to be taken.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: That is just the point. We are not dealing with voluntary grants made by the Ecclesiastical Corporation out of a common fund. We are dealing with property which belonged to some corporation or other just before it became vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and which they have used in the way suggested by this Amendment. Why should there be a deduction? We have passed the Schedule, and without this Amendment the meaning of the words "Welsh ecclesiastical property" is defined. Now comes this Amendment. What
      1246
      is the propriety or what is the justice of the Amendment as limited to the property with which it is concerned? That is what I have been waiting in vain to hear. None-of us want to do anything unjust; but on what principle is this deduction to be made? If you are to have a deduction you must also think whether there may not be additions, and then you have the problem suggested by the Chancellor of the Duchy. It seems to me a very small matter. If you are to enter upon the sort of topic suggested by the Amendment there are various other matters that ought also to be taken into account. I think the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) might have given us more details.
      Mr. BALFOUR: I cannot help thinking; that the Committee is quarrelling over nothing, in the sense that in principle it seems that we are all absolutely agreed. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy, who might be thought to be an exception, is not really an exception at all, because he himself admitted that in principle the Amendment was right. All he said was, "There might be something on the other side. Had you not better let sleeping dogs lie? It may not turn out so much better for the Church in England that this Amendment should be carried. It must be bi-lateral. If you take away property in Wales because it really now belongs to the English Church and must no doubt be given to the English Church, it may be that there is property in England which belongs to the Church in Wales, and, therefore, must be taken away from England. Had you not better leave the matter alone as it may turn out worse for the English Church?" Therefore, he also, on the question of principle, absolutely agreed with my hon. Friend. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) also agreed to the principle of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Brynmor Jones), who really involved himself in questions of figures which are quite irrelevant to the justice of the case, also admitted the principle. The Home Secretary, I presume, does not differ in theory. I think we are all of one mind. What is that one mind? It is not that everything should be given to the English Church and nothing to the Welsh Church. It is not, in other words, that this principle should be uni-lateral in its application. We are all agreed that it should be bi-lateral, that precisely the same measure should be meted out to the

      1247
      Church in Wales as to the Church in England, and to the Church in England as to the Church in Wales. It is impossible to resist the proposition; it has commended itself to every Member who has spoken, and I am certain it will commend itself to the Home Secretary. That being so, all that is required is the addition of a few words to the Amendment, making it perfectly clear that no claim or demand is made upon the property of the Church in Wales which is not also made upon the property of the Church in England, and vice versâ. Surely, if we are all agreed upon that point, it should not be beyond the power of the occupants of the Treasury Bench and their advisers to enable us, before we leave the matter, to embody what is obvious justice within the four corners of the Bill.
      Mr. McKENNA: I think the Committee ought to understand how this matter has arisen at all. We inquired, when framing the Bill, what was the amount now held by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or which they had held at any time arising from the original Welsh episcopal estates. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners informed us that their property, present and past, consisted so far as the present was concerned of a sum of £26,700 a year, and that the property which they had formerly held, derived from Welsh episcopal estates, but now vested by them in certain English benefices, amounted to £14,800 a year. It is quite obvious that if we accepted those figures the total of the Welsh capitular estates would have to include not only the £26,700 a year, but the £14,800 a year which is now appropriated to Welsh benefices. Quite recently the Commissioners informed me, as they have evidently informed hon. Members opposite—I make no complaint about that; they are perfectly entitled to do so; I simply say that it is a matter of common knowledge between us—that in these figures which they prepared for the Commission in 1906, either at the time or immediately afterwards, they did not take into account, as they should have done, that a certain proportion of this £14,800 a year which they have appropriated to Welsh benefices had really been derived from English episcopal estates. The total amount is about £3.000. I believe the net amount is about £2.000. This was brought to my knowledge quite recently, and Amendments "have been put down in order to correct this mistake.
      Mr. HOARE: Five months ago.
      Mr. McKENNA: Then I am afraid it was brought to the notice of hon. Members opposite before it was brought to my notice.
      Mr. HOARE: It was on the Paper.
      Mr. McKENNA: It may be that it was brought to the notice of my advisers, but it did not reach me. So far as I am concerned, I did not become aware of it until quite recently. However, my right hon. Friend tells me that my original statement was accurate. Now the Ecclesiastical Commissioners say that they want to correct this mistake, which, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite says, must be done with perfect fairness. Yes; but before I agree to put any words into the Bill to correct that mistake, or if I put in any words at all, I must consider the question whether we must not go behind the Commissioner's accounts. That is why I somewhat demur to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the figures are irrelevant to the question of justice. I agree that they would be irrelevant to the question of justice if I had not been proceeding throughout in this inquiry upon the basis of accepting the Commissioners' 1906 figures as absolutely binding on both parties. I cannot proceed upon the basis of accepting them as binding upon Wales and not binding upon the Commissioners so far as regards England. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite would agree to that. If the Commissioners have discovered here a mistake of £3,000 which tells against England, and they are quite willing to hold an inquiry so far as this item was concerned, I should have to consider whether I should not be bound to accept the recommendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) and reopen the figures in toto.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why not?
      Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord says, "Why not?" That would be a very long and difficult inquiry, and, for my part, I do not wish it. I think it would be most undesirable to get into any relation of hostility to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether they object to any inquiry?
      Mr. McKENNA: It is very difficult for me to know to what they do or do not

      1249
      object. I have been informed in this House of what the Commissioners desired, and then, when I have inquired of the Commissioners, I have found that hon. Members really did not know their views. My relations with the Commissioners—I am no longer one myself—are of the most cordial kind, and I would beg the Committee to leave this matter to be settled between them and me. The question must all foe discussed again. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] If on inquiry before the Report stage I find that this matter stands alone, and that no investigation on either side would alter the figures so far as England is concerned, I shall be quite prepared to act upon the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen Boroughs. But I must have a full investigation with the Commissioners before I accept this Amendment. The Noble Lord is anxious that the whole of the accounts should be reopened. I really do not think that he speaks on behalf of the Commissioners.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not. I speak as a Member of Parliament.
      Mr. McKENNA: In a large matter of this kind, is it worth while again going through the accounts of nearly a century in a hostile spirit?
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why hostile?
      Mr. McKENNA: Because if you are to investigate the accounts of the Commissioners it must be, I will not say in a hostile, but in a critical sense. If you are to suppose that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners represent the Church party, and that somebody else representing the party in Wales is to examine their accounts in a critical spirit, it almost necessarily becomes acutely critical. Is that desired? For my part I am perfectly satisfied that the Commissioners have given us, so far as they have been able to do so, accurate and fair figures. Is it worth while going over the accounts of the whole century in order to reopen a question in which there cannot be a balance on either side of more than £2,000 or £3,000 a year at the most? Is it worth while staking far more than the money involved?
      Mr. HOARE: It is £3,000 a year.
      Mr. McKENNA: This item has been disclosed for the protection of England. But we have to consider the accounts on the other side, and to ask how it was that
      1250
      this error was made at all. I put forward the suggestion, purely and simply in the spirit of peace, that I should go into this question further with the Commissioners. If we come to a conclusion as to what the net figures should be—as I have said before—I would far rather in the last stage of the Bill incorporate the figures instead of words purporting to describe figures; I would rather put the totals instead of the process of arriving at the totals, if we can agree about these totals. This, I think, would be infinitely better than quarrelling about a few pounds here and there, and opening accounts that have been closed for so long. It would be, for reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, impossible to accept this Amendment in its present form. I would ask the Committee to leave the matter as it stands at the present time upon the basis of the figures of 1906, and not to press for any change in the figures until the Commissioners and I have had the opportunity of agreeing upon what, if any, change is necessary.
      Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I desire to acknowledge the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has met us in this matter. I confess I do not wish, speaking without authority, to embark the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or the Government in an expensive inquiry. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that if two distinguished accountants met over the figures disclosed in the books that they need at all approach each other in a hostile spirit. It is a mere matter of business which might be done perfectly well without the slightest friction on either side. At the same time, as the right hon. Gentleman said, he himself will approach the Commissioners and will ascertain concerning the matter. Having ascertained, he is willing to make it right on Report. I do not myself think that his offer ought to be refused, provided that the right hon. Gentleman will give us, so far as it is possible for him so to do, a definite pledge, that if the matter is not arranged in the way he expects, he will give us full opportunity on Report to deal with it. I admit that under the guillotine a pledge cannot be wholly satisfactory, but if the right hon. Gentleman says that in the event of his not being able to come to this arrangement with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—as we all anticipate he will be able to do—he will give us the full opportunity, and will give the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen the

      1251
      full opportunity also, of dealing again with the matter, that will meet the case. All we want is that there shall be an impartial inquiry and the result embodied in the Bill.
      Mr. CHARLES NICHOLSON: I am rather in an anomalous position at this particular stage, and I could have wished that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield had been here to hear what perhaps I had better say now. We all regret his absence. I may say on behalf of the Commissioners that we shall be perfectly willing to adopt the suggestion of the Home Secretary and discuss the matter with him. I have no doubt that we will arrive at what is the proper amount that should be allocated in this rather complicated question. I certainly think it would be far better to deal with figures in the Bill than to try to arrive at the matter by the Amendment suggested by the other side.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I only intervene because I think the Home Secretary has misunderstood what I have said. I am for an ordinary, full, free, and impartial investigation into the books of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that my acceptance—of whatever value it may be—of the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea, was conditioned by that full, free, impartial investigation by experts. I am not prepared in any other way to accept that Amendment itself.
      Mr. KING: I have followed the discussion this afternoon with some surprise. It has been very technical, and it ranged over a very narrow field. I also have been observing a sort of outward agreement between the two sides of the House, rather by way of profession I believe, rather than of actual agreement. I always view such seeming or outward agreement with some suspicion, especially when it is made in a somewhat thin House by lawyers on both sides. I begin to think there is "something up," and that we must be careful. I therefore hope that this Amendment will be rejected and that no pledge of any time will be given. Too many pledges have already been made.
      Mr. STANLEY WILSON: And broken.
      Mr. KING: Then that is another good reason why this one should not be made.
      1252
      Perhaps after I sit down the hon. Member for Holderness will be kind enough to get up and explain on behalf of those who are not legal Gentlemen, and "in the know," his concurrence in my views. There is this point that has not been sufficiently brought out: The very curious fact that this matter was inquired into before the Royal Commission. The figures there were refused definitely and point-blank. The most interesting quotation read out by the hon. Member for Swansea showed very clearly that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners not only refused the information, but refused under any circumstances to give it. Why have they given it to hon. Members on the opposite side? Having allowed these figures to get into the Report of the Royal Commission, having for years allowed us to suppose that the Bill would be framed upon the figures therein given, at the eleventh hour they have gone and given certain figures to hon. Gentlemen opposite and apparently to the Government. Why have not these figures been given publicly? I view this matter with some legitimate suspicion when I see the way that we have been treated. I am not a Member of the Opposition. I am not a Member of the Government. Therefore, I suppose, I am not worth being informed. At any rate, I take a good deal of interest in this Bill. I have tried to study it. I consider I have as much right to official information as anyone.
      The hon. Member for Doncaster, who I admit is the soul of courtesy and straightforwardness, so far as I have had anything to do with him, has made two speeches this afternoon. I have listened to both of them. They were very short. They gave us no information on this point, which is the only point I want to know about. I wanted to know from him why he gives figures to the Opposition and does not give them to me. Perhaps he will give an answer to these questions. There is one more point in connection with this matter which ought to be remembered. If the whole of these accounts are to be gone into de novo to gather from them apparently for hundreds of years back—at any rate, for 250 years—so far as I can understand—what money has been taken from England and transferred to Wales, and what money has been transferred from Wales to England, both by way of investment and by way of benefits given, you are going into a very large and expensive, and to my mind unnecessary, inquiry. The

      1253
      probable result will be found to be that neither side gains anything. I suppose the reason the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen wants this inquiry is that he thinks that "gallant little Wales" will come well out of it. I hope it will. I hope that he is right. But he may be mistaken, and I think he had better go upon the principle of "a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush." For these reasons, which I think are quite enough to show it, I think we had better reject the Amendment and allow the Home Secretary, if he likes to go to the other side and see whether he can come to an agreement, to do so. Let us, however, not bind him—let him be free.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not intend to answer the last speech except to say that it may be the best course to withdraw this particular Amendment. Before doing so I want to be perfectly certain, so that there may be no doubt about it where we stand. Am I right— for I do not want to misinterpret the Home Secretary—in understanding that if this particular Amendment is withdrawn, it is the Home Secretary's intention between now and Report to investigate these figures on this point which are dealt with under this First Schedule with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and instead of inserting words, as we now have, describing the effect, he will put in the actual figures? That is what a good many on this side understand. Certainly we want to be perfectly certain what the position is. May I point out to the Home Secretary that, according to the Bill, it really is not a matter between him and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; it is a matter between the Welsh Commissioners and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 5, Sub-section (4), to which I have already drawn attention, he will see that the words are very clear. It says:—
      "(4) Orders of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty under this Section and the Schedules therein referred to shall be made with the concurrence of the Welsh Commissioners, or in default of such occurrence with the approval of His Majesty the King and Council, given on the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."
      Therefore, if that Sub-section stands, the matter is one to be settled not between the Home Secretary and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but between the Welsh
      1254
      Commissioners and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. As I understand the plan suggested by the Home Secretary, it would be necessary, if adopted, also to alter on Report that particular Sub-section of Clause 5. For my part we are quite prepared for a thoroughly impartial investigation on both sides, recognising that it is possible that it might be to add something to national property instead of something to the Church. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London said, the investigation must be one of finality. We want to know precisely where we stand, and whether it is the intention of the Home Secretary to investigate the matter before Report—which is a very short time—and to put in the figures on the Report stage. If it is not done, under the conditions in which we are acting under the Parliament Act, I should like to know when the figures can be put in? We know quite well that if we have Amendments proposed to which both Houses agree, they can be made in the Bill, but it may be possible that no Amendments will be made in the Bill in the other House, or the Bill may be rejected on Second Reading.
      Mr. McKENNA: What I stated was that before the final stage I should hope, instead of putting in the Schedules the process by which we arrive at certain totals, to insert the totals themselves. We certainly could not attempt to do it before the Report stage. It is quite obvious if any such totals were inserted in the Bill it could only be done by agreement. I said I would do my best to come to an agreement as to what were the true accounts between the Welsh and the English Churches; that is all I said. Of course, as to the method by which that is to be done, hon. Members must remember that under the Parliament Act, supposing that the worst happened and that this Bill was rejected on Second Reading, it is always possible to send up the new Bill with proposals for Amendment which at the last stage might, for the convenience of all parties, be accepted in another place. Therefore, I do not think there would be any practical difficulty under the Parliament Act. For the present we are content so long as the figures are not accurate to put the process into the Bill and the reason I ask that no change should be made in the process is that the process so far is founded upon the figures given by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If I go behind their figures I must go behind more

      1255
      than these particular figures. I asked them to assist me, and I ought not therefore to put in a unilateral Amendment of this kind, but I will do my best before Report stage to satisfy myself if there is any other ground for criticising the process on which I am proceeding, and if I cannot do so before Report stage I shall certainly do so before the final stages of the Bill. As hon. Gentlemen know the Report stage comes on very soon, and it might not be possible for the Commissioners and myself to definitely come to terms before then.
      Mr. HOARE: I understand an Amendment of this kind is very complicated, and I do not wish to bind the right hon. Gentleman down to any specific figure. What I was anxious to do was to leave the question open, so that if, as I believe, a case is made out we shall not be deprived of certain sums which we believe belong to us and which as my hon. Friend pointed out, we should have lost, in spite of Clause 5 and what the Chancellor of the Duchy said. But having heard what the Home Secretary has just said, and understanding from that that he would consult the Ecclesiastical Commissioners immediately, and if they are satisfied that the case as made out is a substantial one he will in some shape or form embody the principle of the Amendment in the Bill, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. HOARE: The next Amendment on the Paper in my name is at the end of the first Sub-section, after the words "office, as such," to insert the words
      "subject to a deduction from the produce of such property of a sum equal to the amount applied by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in purchases of property conveyed to, or subsequently vested in, any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation of the Church in Wales or the holder of any such office, as such."
      If the right hon. Gentleman will include it with the other I will not move it.
      Mr. MCKENNA: Yes.
      The CHAIRMAN: That also applies to the next Amendment.
      Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in the second paragraph, to leave out the words, "For the purpose of determining what property is property within the meaning of the above provision."
      Mr. KING: Can we have some explanation of this? How do we know that another concession is not being made here? I ask for an explanation.
      The CHAIRMAN: It was explained earlier in the afternoon.
      Mr. KING: Yes, I know it was. I was here, but a great number of Members now present were not here, and I think it ought to be explained again.
      Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps I may say briefly, for the information of my hon. Friend, that I only propose to leave out these words in order to make the purpose of this paragraph perfectly clear, and that other words are proposed to be added at the end. This paragraph does not affect the amount of money to be taken; it only affects the form in which the money is to be taken—whether it is to be taken in the form of cash, or stocks, or land situated in Wales. It is in order to make sure that land now situated in Wales shall be transferred to the Welsh Commissioners that this paragraph is necessary.
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, at the end of the first Sub-section ["the Church in Wales"], to add the words
      "and a sum equal to the amount applied by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in such purchases shall be deducted from the produce of the property coming within the preceding paragraph of this Schedule accordingly."
      I think the Home Secretary will accept this, as it makes more clear the intention of the Amendment he has moved.
      Mr. McKENNA: Subject to verbal alteration which I may have to make hereafter.
      Mr. KING: I object to the Amendment being accepted subject to subsequent verbal alteration. This is a question between the two sides of the House above the Gangway. On behalf of all Members on both sides of the House below the Gangway, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be much fairer to give the exact words which are to be inserted on Report stage and not in this way to accept an Amendment subject to some verbal alteration. It is most unbusinesslike.
      Mr. McKENNA: It is purely a matter of form. If I accepted the Amendment as it stands I might have to alter the form of it hereafter, and I should not be justified on Report in altering the exact words. Consequently, in order to keep myself perfectly open to consider it on Report and to see whether the words are suitable, I simply make the statement that I reserve the right to accept the Amendment on Report, subject to verbal alteration. That is the perfectly correct form.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I hope the Home Secretary will accept these words as they are. I have tried to see whether any better words could be adopted, but as I understand it, these words do really carry out the intention effectively of what is meant. It is because there may be some contra account which will stand in favour of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that you have to have some words of this sort. Therefore, it seems to me that these words are apt in spite of the criticism offered by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and having regard to the very great difficulty there is in finding words, I confess I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for having accepted these.
      Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Part II. (Adjustments), at end of Subsection (1), to add the following words: "Provided that if the money and securities comprised in paragraph (1) of Part I. of this Schedule are less than the sum to be deducted, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall be entitled to a charge on the property transferred for the balance with interest at the rate of 4 per cent, per annum."
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I should like to ask what these words mean, and what will be the effect of this Amendment?
      Mr. McKENNA: In transferring English land belonging to the Welsh Church and Welsh land belonging to the English Church it may occur that there is a sum of £7,000 a year from land in Wales and £700 a year from land in England belonging to the Welsh Church, and it is quite obvious that one cannot be exchanged for the other without leaving a considerable balance to be paid. It may be that the balance in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would not be sufficient to satisfy the amount of £6,300 which is the difference. Therefore, it is proposed to give them a charge upon the property and to allow interest at the rate of 4 per cent. The proposal is a fair one; it is solely in the interest of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners who ought to be entitled to a charge upon the property in these circumstances.
      Mr. KING: I object to this, because the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are treating me very badly, and why I should treat them well I do not know. It may be virtue, but it is not politic.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not quite understand who is to pay the charge. Out of what fund is it to come?
      Mr. McKENNA: The property being transferred, they will have a charge upon it, and will retain that charge until they are paid off.
      Government Amendment made: In Subjection (2), after the word "Schedule" ["Part I. of this Schedule, so far as it is able to bear them"], insert the words "subject to such adjustment as aforesaid."
      Question put, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 195.

      Division No. 561.]

      AYES.

      [7.0 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Barnes, G. N.

      Brace, William

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Adamson, William

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Barton, William

      Bryce, J. Annan

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

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Agnew, Sir George William

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

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Bentham, G. J.

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Alden, Percy

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

      Arnold, Sydney

      Black, Arthur W.

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Boland, John Plus

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Hodge, John

      Parry, Thomas H.

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      Hogge, James Myles

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Clough, William

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

      Clynes, John R.

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

      Phillips, J. (Longford, S.)

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Hudson, Walter

      Pointer, Joseph

      Cotton, William Francis

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Crooks, William

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

      Crumley, Patrick

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Cullinan, John

      Jones, Lelf Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

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

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Joyce, Michael

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Keating, Matthew

      Radford, G. H.

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

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Dawes, J. A.

      Kilbride, Denis

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      De Forest, Baron

      King, J. (Somerset, North)

      Reddy, M.

      Delany, Wiliam

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

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crickla.le)

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Dickinson, W. H.

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

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Dillon, John

      Leach, Charles

      Richards, Thomas

      Doneian, Captain A.

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Doris, William

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Duffy, William J.

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Lundon, Thomas

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Lynch, A. A.

      Robinson, Sidney

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      McGhee, Richard

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Maclean, Donald

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

      Rowlands, James

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Farrell, James Patrick

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      M'Kean, John

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

      Ffrencn, Peter

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Field, William

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

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

      Fitzgibbon, John

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

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

      Furness, Stephen

      Manfield, Harry

      Sheeny, David

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Gill, A. H.

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Shortt, Edward

      Ginnell, Laurence

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

      Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

      Glanville, H. J.

      Meagher, Michael

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

      Goldstone, Frank

      Millar, James Duncan

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Molloy, Michael

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Greig, Col. J. W.

      Mond, Sir Alfred M.

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Sutton, John E.

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Mooney, John J.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

      Morgan, George Hay

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

      Morison, Hector

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Muldoon, John

      Tennant, Harold John

      Hackett, John

      Munro, R.

      Thomas, J. H.

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Hancock, J. G.

      Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

      Neilson, Francis

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Wadsworth, J.

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

      Nuttall, Harry

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      O'Brien, William (Cork)

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)

      Wardle, George J.

      Hayward, Evan

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Waring, Walter

      Hazleton, Richard

      O'Dowd, John

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

      O'Grady, James

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      O'Malley, William

      Watt, Henry Anderson

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

      Webb, H.

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

      O'Shee, James John

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Outhwaite, R. L.

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

      Hinds, John

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      whitehouse, John Howard

      1260

      1261

      Wiles, Thomas

      Winfrey, Richard

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

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

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Mount, William Arthur

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Fleming, Valentine

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

      Newman, John R. P.

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Forster, Henry William

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Gibbs, George Abraham

      Nield, Herbert

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

      Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Goldsmith, Frank

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

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

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Barnston, Harry

      Grant, J. A.

      Parkes, Ebenezer

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

      Greene, Walter Raymond

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Gretton, John

      Peel, Captain R. F.

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Beresford, Lord Charles

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Bigland, Alfred

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Bird, Alfred

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

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Blair, Reginald

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

      Royds, Edmund

      Boyton, James

      Hewins, William Herbert Samuel

      Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

      Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

      Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

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

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Sandys, G. J.

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Butcher, John George

      Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

      Horner, Andrew Long *

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Campion, W. R.

      Houston, Robert Paterson

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

      Carille, Sir Edward Hildred

      Hunt, Rowland

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Cassel, Felix

      Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

      Stanier, Beville

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Cator, John

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

      Starkey, John Ralph

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Stewart, Gershom

      Cave, George

      Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Sykes. Mark (Hull, Central)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

      Thynne, Lord A.

      Chambers, James

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Touche, George Alexander

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Clyde, J. Avon

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

      Valentia, Viscount

      Coates, Sir Edward Feetham

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

      Walker, Col. William Hall

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Lee, Arthur Hamilton

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Lewisham, Viscount

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

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Lloyd, G. A.

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

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Cralk, Sir Henry

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

      Winterton, Earl

      Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Croft, H. P.

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

      Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

      MacCaw, Wm. J MacGeagh

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Du Cros, Arthur Philip

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Yate, Colonel C. E.

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Moore, William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hoare and Mr. Hume-Williams.

      Fell, Arthur

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

      Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.

      PROPERTY VESTED IN QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY WHICH IS TO BE DEEMED WELSH ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY.
      Property which belongs to or is appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical
      1262
      office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, or the holder of any such office as such, except, in the case of any such property which—

      (a) consists of, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from grants

      1263
      made by Queen Anne's Bounty out of the Royal Bounty Fund; and

      (b) does not consist of money arising from the sale of parsonage houses in Wales or Monmouthshire, or the securities in which any such money is for the time being invested;

      such part thereof as has been derived from sources other than Welsh sources.
      For the purpose of determining what property is derived from sources other than Welsh sources, Queen Anne's Bounty shall ascertain and by order declare the amount by which grants made out of the Royal Bounty Fund for the purposes of the Chuch in Wales have exceeded the sums received by them by way of first fruits and tenths in respect of ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales, and such part of any grant so made by them as is proportionate to such excess shall be deemed to have been derived from sources other than Welsh sources.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (b.).
      We are now coming to the Schedule which deals with property which belongs to or is appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales which is deemed to be ecclesiastical property. I presume the Home Secretary will say that, having regard to the alteration which he has made so far in the Bill, it will be necessary to alter this Schedule in a very marked degree. Perhaps I may be allowed to call attention to the form of the Schedule, and indicate why I propose to leave out this paragraph, and also what I think it will be necessary to do to the Schedule if it is really to be an effective portion of the Bill. The property vested in Queen Anne's Bounty is to be deemed Welsh ecclesiastical property, but certain of that property is to be exempted. The Clause is drawn in a somewhat cumbrous fashion. In the opening words we have got the very widest possible definition, because ecclesiastical office, as defined in the Bill, excludes all the offices which are in the Church Discipline Act of 1840, and also "cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, or the holder of any such office as such." According to the Interpretation Clause, the term "ecclesiastical office" means "any bishopric, ecclesiastical dignity, or preferment." I doubt whether there is any meaning in the words "appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the
      1264
      Church in Wales." That seems to me to be covered by the Interpretation Clause. Then there is the phrase "or the holder of any such office as such." Those words are undoubtedly covered by the Interpretation Clause. Next we have the words, "except, in the case of any such property which," and then follow paragraphs (a) and (b), and the concluding words are, "such part thereof as has been derived from sources other than Welsh sources." I suppose that means that where certain accumulations have been derived from English sources the fact that they have been appropriated in some measure to the Church in Wales is not to prevent those appropriated from English sources remaining English property, and not being handed over to the Welsh Commissioners. Then we come to the paragraphs-which more closely define that property which is not to become Welsh property. It provides that—
      "except in the case of any such property which—

      (a) consists of, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from grants made by Queen Anne's Bounty out of the Royal Bounty Fund; and

      (b) does not consist of money arising from the sale of parsonage houses in Wales or Monmouthshire, or the securities in which any such money is for the time being invested."

      I have really great difficulty in finding what is the meaning of those words, and that is why I propose to leave them out in the hope that we may have some explanation. Do they mean that where there has been a sale of benefices, or in some way there has been a sale of parsonage houses, and the securities have been invested with the Commissioners, they are, so to speak, to follow those securities and to take them in the place of what is standing in the place of parsonage houses. I hope the Home Secretary will explain the meaning of that term. It is not very easy to construe either paragraph (a) or (b) without looking at the subsequent portion of the Clause. I ask the Home Secretary to give his attention to this last portion of this Schedule, because I have read and re-read it, and, save and except in a marine insurance policy, I never saw a Clause which was so difficult to find its meaning. It seems to follow the principle of marine insurance, because it introduces not a real liability or indemnity, but a proportional liability or indemnity according to the proportion the insurer insures of the whole

      1265
      amount, which is the subject of the risk. I can conceive no other reason for framing these words in that way, except a rooted admiration for the principles of marine insurance. I have read the words, and tried to make something of them. The concluding paragraph of the Schedule reads as follows:—
      "For the purpose of determining what property is derived from sources other than Welsh sources, Queen Anne's Bounty shall ascertain and by order declare the amount by which grants made out of the Royal Bounty Fund for the purposes of the Church in Wales have exceeded the sums received by them by way of first fruits and tenths in respect of ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales, and such part of any grant so made by them as is proportionate to such excess shall be deemed to have been derived from sources other than Welsh sources."
      One remembers the old rule of three sum; you have got to get some proportion, but surely there is a simpler way of doing it. When you have by recent alterations already made in the Bill, got a point at which Sub-clause (a) is otiose entirely and Sub-clause (b) very difficult to construe and not very explicit, surely we might ask for a simpler Clause than the last paragraph in the Schedule and one less difficult to work out than one based on a system of proportion between two sums when ultimately found. I would urge the Home Secretary to withdraw this Schedule and make a simpler one. We want to get something more or less easily understood, and it seems to me the original framework of the Schedule is unfortunate. It is never very easy to begin with a negative sentence and afterwards have an affirmative, and you have both in this Clause. Then you have a curious method of proportion between first fruits and tenths and what has been derived from sources other than Welsh sources, which it is almost impossible to construe. Having given this criticism on the Schedule, riot in a hostile spirit, but rather with a view to learning what it means, I do ask the Home Secretary, having regard to the necessity for a very considerable alteration in the Schedule, to undertake to make a different Schedule altogether and one which might be more simply and easily understood.
      Mr. McKENNA: I am sure every one reading this Schedule for the first time
      1266
      must concur with the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is undoubtedly extremely difficult to construe. He will, however, upon examination—I am not sure he does not already appreciate the matter—find the Schedule is necessary and that it does carry out the required purpose. It is quite true it will hereafter, owing to the promises of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty be quite immaterial what property is declared to be Welsh ecclesiastical property, inasmuch as whether, directly or by a subsequent gift, the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty are going to devote the whole of their properly to the purposes of the representative body. So far I am entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but we do not and ought not to compel Queen Anne's Bounty to transfer by Act of Parliament what the Governors may quite legitimately hand over as a matter of gift. Consequently, we are bound in this Schedule to distinguish between the property which passes necessarily to the representative body and the property which, first of all being re-transferred to Queen Anne's Bounty, is subsequently to be handed over by the bounty to the Welsh Church. Paragraph (a) must be read in connection with the last words:—
      "(a)consists of, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from grants made by Queen Anne's Bounty out of the Royal Bounty Fund; and … such part thereof as has been derived from sources other than Welsh sources."
      We except that part of the property from the Welsh ecclesiastical property upon the ground that it is not derived from Welsh sources and should therefore be retransferred to Queen Anne's Bounty. Paragraph (b) relates to certain property which although originally derived from English sources has been devoted by Queen Anne's Bounty to the purpose of building parsonage houses. Under the Bill parsonage houses are transferred to the representative body. Parsonage houses therefore, whether they were derived from English or Welsh sources, are treated as Welsh ecclesiastical property. We hold that inasmuch as the Bill transfers all parsonage houses to the representative body, we ought not to inquire whence they were derived, whether from English or Welsh sources. Therefore-paragraph (b) is necessary in order to secure directly to the representative body the proceeds of the sale of parsonage houses, whether they were built out of English or Welsh money.
      Mr. POLLOCK: If I follow the right hon. Gentleman correctly, and I hope I am right, both paragraphs (a) and (b) are cumulative. They are two conditions which the property has to fulfil. I am not quite certain. The words "such property which" may mean (a) so and so, and an additional class of property (b), or they may mean property which fulfils two conditions—namely (a) and (b). I want to be quite clear what they do mean. "Such property" may be divided into two classes, (a) or (b), or it may be "such property" which fulfils both conditions.
      Mr. McKENNA: That is quite right; the hon. and learned Gentleman has appreciated the meaning. The sentence could really run without the interposition of (a) and (b). I think it would perhaps be clear if the sentence runs continuously. You do not require (a) and (b). It might read:—
      "Such property which consists of or is the produce of…but does not consist of. …"
      as one continuous sentence. On examination the meaning is quite clear, but whether the point is clear or not is of no material consequence, inasmuch as, whether this property is or is not declared to be Welsh ecclesiastical property, it is all to be transferred to the representative body, and errors in this part of the Bill will have no effect.
      Mr. POLLOCK: What about the last paragraph?
      Mr. McKENNA: There is more meaning in the last paragraph than the hon. and learned Member, unless he was aware of the history, could anticipate. The total amount of Queen Anne's Bounty, which now consists of a capital sum—that is an accumulated income over all the years—is estimated to have been derived as to two-thirds from English sources, and as to one-third from Welsh sources. It cannot be said year after year the accounts have been accurate, although in the sum total the conclusion is correct. These words in the last paragraph are therefore simply to convey the meaning that Queen Anne's Bounty shall be deemed to be as to two-thirds derived from English sources, and as to one-third from Welsh sources. It is merely a statement of the process of calculation by which that result is obtained.
      Mr. CAVE: The right hon. Gentleman has carefully considered the Amendments
      1268
      on the Schedule, and I am sure we are very much obliged to him. I am rather encouraged to think he will reconsider this Amendment. I quite agree it is worth while distinguishing in the Schedule property which the Bounty must give up. If you look at the end, both will probably be given up, but in one case it is compulsory and in the other optional, so it is worth while making the distinction. I understand the effect of the particular paragraph to which the Amendment is directed to be this: Money in the hands of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty derived from the sale of Welsh parsonages built out of English money shall be confiscated.
      Mr. McKENNA: No; shall be treated as Welsh ecclesiastical property. The proceeds of the sale of parsonages are transferred to the representative body. Therefore, if we do not treat this as Welsh ecclesiastical property it would not necessarily be transferred to the representative body; it would go back, first of all, to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty.
      Mr. CAVE: Then the effect of paragraph (b) is not to render the property liable to be confiscated?
      Mr. McKENNA: No; on the contrary.
      Mr. CAVE: But to bring it within the category of property which is exempted from confiscation?
      Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
      Mr. CAVE: And transfer it to the representative body?
      Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
      Mr. CAVE: If we are quite sure about that, it seems to me to meet the point; but it is an extremely cumbrous way of doing it. My hon. and learned Friend suggests that the whole Schedule might be reconsidered before Report to see if something much simpler cannot be done, especially in view of the changes made in the Bill. I am not complaining at all on behalf of Queen Anne's Bounty. I think matters affecting them have been considered, but one knows obscure Statutes lead to that undesirable thing, litigation, and possibly a good deal of difficulty, dispute, and litigation might be avoided if the whole of the Schedules were reconsidered before Report and some attempt made to put them in a much simpler form.
      Mr. McKENNA: I will look into it.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I had some idea I understood this Schedule, but now I have heard the explanation of the Home Secretary it is quite clear I did not understand it in the least. Paragraph (a) and (b), so far as I can understand them, are exceptions to a rule. The Schedule defines property which is deemed to be ecclesiastical property—property now in the possession of Queen Anne's Bounty—and then it says, "except in the case of any such property which." Then come "(a)" and "(b)." As far as I could understand the Home Secretary, "(b)" is an exception drafted upon an exception "(a)" Surely the resources of the draftsmen of this Bill are not so far exhausted that we are obliged to put in first the rule, then an exception, and then an exception to the exception, making the whole thing read like a policy of marine insurance.
      Mr. McKENNA: I will consider the question before the Report stage.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I hope it will be put in some form that we can understand before the Report stage, so that we may have some vague idea of what is intended.
      Mr. CAVE: In which Sub-section are these words given effect to?
      Mr. McKENNA: In Clause 8. We deal with the proceeds of sales and we say, that where the estate has been sold or otherwise converted—
      "such moneys as aforesaid, or the securities in which such proceeds or moneys are for the time being vested, shall be dealt with in like manner as if they were property of that class."
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, that in view that possibly fresh inquiries may have to be made by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, and that they may have to reopen some accounts, provisions should be made that it should not be done at their expense. We moved an Amendment that the expenses should not be borne by the Commissioners, and it was resisted on the ground that the main work they would have to do would be so small. Yet it has been daily added to, and as fresh work has now been put upon them, they certainly ought to be relieved of the expense.
      Mr. McKENNA: There will be no fresh work thrown upon the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. They will transfer the whole of the property.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: There may be some inquiries involving a very considerable amount of work, and I hope that that will be provided for at a later stage.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: These are questions for the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to consider.
      The CHAIRMAN: They do not arise upon this Amendment.
      Mr. POLLOCK: May I appeal to the Home Secretary in regard to the last words in this Schedule. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman there are moments when a wayfarer has to try and wander through the Schedules without a glimmer of light to guide him. The right hon. Gentleman has no doubt given us some instruction, but there are many people who will not have such an opportunity. I understand the Home Secretary to say that the words—
      "such part thereof as has been derived from sources other than Welsh sources. For the purpose of determining what property is derived from sources other than Welsh sources, Queen Anne's Bounty shall ascertain and by order declare the amount by which grants made out of the Royal Bounty Fund for the purposes of the Church in Wales have exceeded the sums received by them by way of first fruits and tenths in respect of ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales, and such part of any grant so made by them as is proportionate to such excess shall be deemed to have been derived from sources other than Welsh sources."
      I understand the Home Secretary to say that these words really mean two-thirds and one-third, and that somehow or other that has been ascertained. Is it very important for us to really ascertain whether it shall be five-twelfths and seven-twelfths or two-thirds and one-third? If the latter proportion had been found to be the proportion, as between English and Welsh savings under Queen Anne's Bounty, is it really necessary for us to keep in these words when the whole thing might be simplified by putting in the figures two-thirds and one-third, and thus avoid a prolonged examination and careful scrutiny of the accounts? I beg the Home Secretary to cut the words I have quoted out of the Bill and put in something simpler in their place. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman say two-thirds and one-third?
      Mr. McKENNA: We have not introduced proportions in working figures into the Bill. The whole money will go to the representative body, so that it really does not very much matter. The drafting of the Schedule is in accordance with accepted ideas.
      Mr. POLLOCK: Not my ideas.
      Mr. McKENNA: I have already undertaken to consider if we can bring up the Schedule in a simpler form.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: What has induced the right hon. Gentleman to have the Schedule at all? It is pretty certain the whole of the amount in Queen Anne's Bounty will go to the Church. The Welsh portion is to go and the English part may go. Is it really worth while to put the Governors of the Bounty to the trouble of making these declarations? I suggest that the simplest way out of the difficulty would be to withdraw the Schedule altogether, to consider whether it is necessary to have a Schedule at all, and, if it is, to bring a new one in an amended form on the lines suggested by my hon. and learned Friend. It seems to me that under the concession made on Clause 8 such a Schedule is really putting the Governors of the Bounty to a great deal of unnecessary trouble.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: According to the evidence given before the Welsh Church Commission, the work has already been done. Sir Lewis Dibdin put in most elaborate accounts showing what was the work contemplated by the section. Nobody wants to impose unnecessary labour on the Governors of the Bounty, neither do we want a Schedule so obscure as to be difficult to work.
      Mr. POLLOCK: Does Sir Lewis Dibdin give the proportions two-thirds and one-third?
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: The figures are embodied in the report of the Commissioners. The whole matter was brought up, I think, in 1906. Of course there may be a little trouble involved in bringing it up to the date of Disestablishment, but it should not be a troublesome task.
      Mr. POLLOCK: After the explanation of the Home Secretary I do not desire to press my Amendment, but I do trust that, in mercy to mankind generally and to those interested in this Bill, he will try and produce a better Schedule.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Motion made and Question proposed, "That this be the Second Schedule of the Bill."
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said that this work had already been done, and he quoted the evidence given by Sir Lewis Dibdin before the Welsh Church Commission. I am informed that those figures are only approximate, that they were put in for the purposes of the Welsh Church Commission and have not been gone into in thorough detail. If this Bill passes, you will have to go very much more closely into the matter. I am sure I am right in saying that if this Schedule is passed you will put upon the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty a great deal of additional detailed work, and I consider it unnecessary to do that, having regard to the changes made in Clause 8. The only distinction between the property is as regards the future treatment of property derived from Welsh sources and that derived from English sources. That derived from Welsh sources will be immediately handed over to the representative body. The property derived from English sources may be so handed over by the Governors of the Bounty. There is not the slightest doubt that it will go to the representative body, and, that being so, I ask why put the Governors to the trouble of these elaborate calculations? I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that the work has been done. It has not been done with the thoroughness necessary for the purposes of this Bill. It was done sufficiently accurately to give the Commission a bird's eye view of the situation. The matter will have to be gone into afresh in much greater detail. That, at any rate, it the information placed at my disposal. Again I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to drop this Schedule and, if necessary, bring in another, not quite so obscure as this one, which would entail less work on the Governors of the Bounty. But the right hon. Gentleman might put in rough figures which would settle the thing once and for all, and that is the course he ought to adopt.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: I understood the Home Secretary to explain that in the case of the First Schedule he proposed to put in definite figures. Why not adopt the same course in regard to the Second Schedule? If it is possible to arrive at definite figures with the Ecclesiastical

      1273
      Commissioners, it surely is also possible to arrive at an agreement with the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty.
      Mr. McKENNA: All these figures are known. The total capital sum is £576,000, and inasmuch as the whole of the property is going to the Welsh Church, there is no complication. I would deprecate inserting figures into the Bill at this stage. It is undesirable. But I hope to be able eventually to insert agreed figures. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not been correctly informed as to the difficulty. Throughout the Commissioners have had to deal with one principle and through one source. They have had a single principal from the first, with the result that their accounts are very easy to disentangle. I do not think hon. Members need really trouble about the work which will be given to Queen Anne's Bounty under this Schedule. I have promised to consider whether the purpose of the Schedule cannot be brought before the House on Report stage in a simpler form.
      Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Is it not possible to omit the Schedule altogether?
      Mr. McKENNA: You cannot omit it, because we cannot impose on Queen Anne's Bounty the duty under an Act of Parliament of transferring English money to the Welsh Church. They are empowered in the Bill to do it as a matter of gift. We have already passed that in Committee, consequently we must provide in the Schedule means by which Queen Anne's Bounty can make the gift. We cannot in the Schedule go back on what we have already done in the Bill.
      Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Could you not alter the Bill, because that would simplify the matter? Every Member of the Committee is extremely hazy as to what the Schedule really means, and I am not surprised. Speaking for myself, I cannot pretend that I wholly grasp its meaning. It is something that the Home Secretary should say he will try to produce a simplified Schedule on Report. Is it not possible by altering the Clause in the Bill to get rid of the Schedule altogether?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I desire to point out to the Home Secretary that I do not think the omission of the Schedule would impose a duty on Queen Anne's Bounty to hand all the money over to the representative body. As the Bill stands, they have to hand over the money
      1274
      from Welsh sources, and, if they wish it, to hand over the money from English sources. If they do it, they would not have to make any division. The Welsh money would go anyhow, and the English money would go if they choose; therefore no Schedule is necessary. If, on the other hand, they do not choose, they can make the division without the Schedule. What is to stop them? Therefore I say the Schedule is practically useless. I cannot accept the view that if the Schedule is omitted any duty is imposed on Queen Anne's Bounty to hand over the money.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I will point out that the Schedule is necessary because of Clause 4, Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), which says:—
      "all property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty which is ascertained as hereinafter mentioned to be Welsh ecclesiastical property."
      Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman also look at Clause 5, Sub-section (2), which says:—
      "Queen Anne's Bounty shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, and before the date of Disestablishment, ascertain and by order declare what property vested in them at the passing of this Act, or under the provisions hereinafter in this Section contained, is property of the class or description mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act, and all property so ascertained and declared shall be Welsh ecclesiastical property within the meaning of this Act."
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: You can leave those particular Sub-sections out on Report. My view is that they are no longer necessary in consequence of the change made in the Bill in Clause 8.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: For the purposes of the Committee stage we still must have the Schedule, in order to carry out the purposes of Clause 4 and Clause 5. What the hon. and gallant Member says is true, that if there is going to be a recasting the Second Schedule is not necessary, and the Clauses may have to be amended in that respect. I was only answering the question as to how we should deal with the matter now. It is far better, from his point of view, to leave the Second Schedule in its present form than to have the Clauses amended.
      Question put, "That the Second Schedule stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 114.

      Division No. 562.]

      AYES.

      [7.52 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Goldstone, Frank

      O'Grady, James

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

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

      Adamson, William

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      O'Malley, William

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Griffith. Ellis J.

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

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Alden, Percy

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

      O'Shee, James John

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Arnold, Sydney

      Hacked, John

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Hancock, J. G.

      Parry, Thomas H.

      Barnes, G. N.

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Bentham. G. J.

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Pointer, Joseph

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Black, Arthur W.

      Hayward, Evan

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Boland, John Pius

      Hazleton, Richard

      Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Primrose, Hon. Nell James

      Bowerman, C. W,

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Radford, G. H.

      Brace, William

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

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Higham, John Sharp

      Reddy, M.

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Hinds, John

      Redmond, John E. (Watertord)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Hobhouse. Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Hodge, John

      Redmond. William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Hogge, James Myles

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Byles, Sir William

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Cair-Gomm, H. W.

      Horne, Charles Siivester (Ipswich)

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Hudson, Walter

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      John, Edward Thomas

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Clancy, John Joseph

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

      Robinson, Sidney

      Clough, William

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Clynes, John R.

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Rowlands, James

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Joyce, Michael

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Keating, Matthew

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Cotton, William Francis

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Sheeny, David

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Crooks, William

      Kilbride, Denis

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

      Crumley, Patrick

      King, J. (Somerset, North)

      Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

      Cullinan, John

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

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

      Leach, Charles

      Smyth. Thomas F. (Leitrim)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Spicer, Rt, Hon. Sir Albert

      Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Sutherland, J. E.

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

      Lundon, Thomas

      Taylor, John W (Durham)

      Dawes, J. A.

      Lynch, A. A.

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclifte)

      Delany, William

      Macdonald J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      McGhee, Richard

      Tennant, Harold John

      Devlin, Joseph

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

      Thomas, James Henry

      Dillon, John

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Doris, William

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Duffy, William J.

      M'Kean, John

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Wadsworth, J.

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Watt, Henry Anderson

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

      Webb, H.

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Meagher, Michael

      Wedgwood, J. C.

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Millar, James Duncan

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

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Molloy, Michael

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Wiles, Thomas

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Mooney, John J.

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Ffrench, Peter

      Morgan, George Hay

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Field, William

      Morison, Hector

      Winfrey, Richard

      Fitzglbbon, John

      Muldoon, John

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

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Munro, R.

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      Gill, A. H.

      Nolan, Joseph

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Ginnell, Laurence

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)

      Glanville, H. J.

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      O'Dowd, John

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Malcolm, Ian

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Fleming, Varentine

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

      Forster, Henry William

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Balcarres, Lord

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Moore, William

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Mount, William Arthur

      Barnston, Harry

      Greene, Walter Raymond

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Gretton, John

      Nield, Herbert

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Beresford, Lord Charles

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

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Bigland, Alfred

      Gwynn, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Bird, Alfred

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Blair, Reginald

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E,

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Remnant, James Farquharsort

      Boyton, James

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail)

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Royds, Edmund

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

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

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hoare, Sir J. G.

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Butcher, John George

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Campion, W. R.

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Cassel, Felix

      Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Stanler, Beville

      Cave, George

      Horner, Andrew Long

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Stewart, Gershom

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts., Hitchin)

      Hume-Williams, W. E.

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Thynne, Lord Alexander

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Touche, George Alexander

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

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

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Winterton, Earl

      Croft, H. P.

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Doughty, Sir George

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

      Duke, Henry Edward

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

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Rawlinson and Major Gastrell.

      Fell, Arthur

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Question put and agreed to.

    THIRD SCHEDULE.
      Part I.—PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE TRANSFERRED BY THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS TO THE REPRESENTATIVE BODY.
      Property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which has by them been before the 25th day of April, 1912, annexed or appropriated to any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales by way of grant, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from, property so annexed or appropriated and which is not Welsh ecclesiastical property within the meaning of this Act.
      Part II.—PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE TRANSFERRED BY QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY TO THE REPRESENTATIVE BODY.
      Property vested in Queen Anne's Bounty which has by them been before the 25th day of April, 1912, annexed or appropriated to any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales by way of grant, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from, property so annexed or appropriated, and which is not Welsh ecclesiastical property within the meaning of this Act.

      Part III.—PROPERTY A PERPFTUAL ANNUITY OF THE ANNUAL VALUE OF WHICH MAY BE CHARGED ON THE COMMON FUND OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
      1. Charges on the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners made before the 25th day of April, 1912, by way of grant for any ecclesiastical purpose in the Church in Wales, not being charges in respect of the property mentioned in Part I. of this Schedule and not being Welsh ecclesiastical property within the meaning of this Act.

      2. The average amount granted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners out of the annual appropriations from the surplus income of their common fund during the seven years ending the 31st day of October, 1911, by way of augmentation or Endowment of benefices or towards the stipends of assistant clergy in Wales and Monmouthshire.

      Part IV.—PROPERTY A PERPETUAL ANNUITY OF TUE ANNUAL VALUE OF WHICH MAY BE CHARGED ON THE ROYAL BOUNTY FUND.
      The average amount by which the grants made out of the Royal Bounty Fund for the purposes of the Church in Wales in

      1279
      the seven years ending the 31st day of December, 1911, have exceeded the average annual amounts received by Queen Anne's Bounty in those years by way of first fruits and tenths in respect of ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales.
      Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, in Part 1, after the word "before" I "before the twenty-fifth day of April"], to insert the words—
      "the date of Disestablishment annexed or appropriated to any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales by way of grant, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from, property so annexed or appropriated, and which is not Welsh ecclesiastical property within the meaning of this Act; but the amount of property so transferred shall not be less than the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had up to."
      The Amendment which stands in my name has the appearance of being a rather complicated one, but in fact it is nothing of the sort. It is simply an alteration in the date from which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty may calculate the amount of property which they are to be allowed to hand over to the Church in Wales. The reason it starts in this elaborate fashion is that if the date which I suggested was rejected by the Government it would still be in order to propose some alternative date, but all that I propose is that the date in the Bill should not be the 25th day of April, but the date of Disestablishment. The Home Secretary has already gone some way to meet us in proposing that it should be the passing of this Act. Therefore the issue between us is whether it should be the passing of the Act or the date of Disestablishment. This, of course, is not a -very important point. The question of whether it should be the 25th of April, 1912, or some date after the provisions of the Bill were made known was the really important question. What particular date after the provision of this Bill becomes known should be selected is, in my opinion, comparatively an unimportant question, but I should like to argue in favour of the principle that the later the date can be the "better it will be for the interests of the Church, and I am sure in a matter of this sort the Government and hon. Members opposite would not desire that any arrangement should be inserted in the Bill -which can in any way be injurious to the
      1280
      Church without carrying out the primary object of this measure. The reason why I should prefer the date of Disestablishment instead of the passing of the Act is simply the question of time. I want the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty to have plenty of time to go through their accounts, to examine their resources and calculate how much money they think they will be able to give to the Church in her disestablished state—how much money they can afford from their English resources—so that they can appreciate exactly what the needs of the Church will be and what opportunities they will have of giving and what amount they will have to give. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty will have to think of the future as well as the present. They will have to consider in what danger their funds and their revenues stand in the future.
      We have been told by the President of the Board of Agriculture that this Bill is only a preliminary to a Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of England, and therefore, in handing over to the Church in Wales moneys which are really the property of the Church of England, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will have to take into consideration the question of the possible Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in England as well as the question of the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, and it is because they will have to look into the future in regard to their revenues that I desire to give them as much time as possible before they make this final allocation of the money to the Church in Wales. Then it is not only a question of the possible future Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of England that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will have to bear in mind. They derive their revenues from certain forms of property which are at present the target for a great deal of abuse and challenge from hon. Members opposite, such as mining royalties and rents from urban properties, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will have to go carefully into the whole question of the source of their revenue and how far future legislation will be likely to invade upon their property in these respects. Therefore, this question of allocating property will be a very momentous and a very difficult one for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, and therefore they should be

      1281
      given the maximum amount of time that is possible to make up their minds and to fix the salary, and that there should be no attempt to hurry them in any way.
      Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord has really built a huge superstructure on a very slender basis. His Amendment would not have the effect he desires, nor would it in the least matter to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in making up their minds whether I put in this date or any other date. The date in the Clause is only for the purpose of calculation. It is not the date upon which they have got to decide. It is nothing to do with the length of time they will have, but only the date which is to be taken for the purpose of calculation. I quite agree that the date of 25th April, 1912, is not as good a date as the date of the passing of the Act, but I think for the purpose of calculation we ought to have the passing of the Act. In regard to his other point, the Noble Lord must remember that this only relates to property which has already been appropriated by the Commissioners to the Welsh Church with the intention that the property shall be permanently appropriated to the Welsh Church. They have already arrived at their decision on the point, and they have informed me that, although the property is handed back to them for the purpose of this Bill, they intend to reappropriate it for the purposes of the Welsh Church. I think, therefore, we might agree without further discussion that the passing of the Act is the best date, and to accept that as the date for this purpose.
      Viscount WOLMER: I have not made my point quite clear. What the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have given in times past to the Church in Wales is not really relevant to what the property of the Church ought to be after she has been Disestablished and Disendowed. It may quite well be that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will say, "When the Church in Wales has been Disestablished and has had two-thirds of her property taken away, it would be only fair and right that we should give to the Church in Wales more money and more property than we have hitherto given in years past," and that is why I objected so strongly to the date, 25th April, because it really took away all initiative from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the matter. The only issue between us is whether it should be the passing of this Act or the date of Disestablishment, and I think the opinion of
      1282
      the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might be very materially influenced by the business they will have to go through between the passing of this Act and the date of Disestablishment. They will have to go through a great deal of business in clearing up the mess which will have resulted from the passing of this Act, and they will, by the time the date of Disestablishment comes, be in a far better position to know what the funds of the Church in Wales are and how far every particular parish and church has been robbed and despoiled than they would foe at the time of the passing of the Act; therefore I make a very particular point that they should be given as long a time as possible to make up their minds, and, if necessary, to make a further increased grant to the Church in Wales. Surely the right hon. Gentleman has no objection to that.
      Mr. McKENNA: Not the slightest.
      Viscount WOLMER: Then why not facilitate—
      Mr. McKENNA: Because the Noble Lord's Amendment does not do it. It gives them no longer opportunity to make up their minds.
      Viscount WOLMER: The date of Disestablishment is after the time of the passing of the Act, perhaps a year, or perhaps six months—it all depends on the political situation as to when the Government think an election is coming—but, at any rate, at a later date, and in that interval between the passing of the Act and the date of Disestablishment the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will have had occasion to go through the accounts of practically every parish in Wales, and they will know, in a way in which they cannot know at the passing of the Act, what the detailed facts of the ravages of this Bill will be on the individual parishes, and, therefore, they will be in a much better position to know, if it is necessary, and if they can afford, and if it is wise and right for them to make an increased grant to the Church in Wales.
      Mr. CAWLEY: May I point out that this matter is in no way affected by the Schedules, but by paragraph (c) of Clause 6—
      "It shall be lawful for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, if they think fit, within one year after the date of Disestablishment…"

      1283
      That is the date. They can fix any date up to that time one year after the date of Disestablishment to make up their minds, and no alteration of the Schedule will affect that.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member, I think, is mistaken, and so, I think, is the Home Secretary. It is quite true that paragraph (c) begins in the way the hon. Member read, but they cannot transfer more than the whole of that specified in Part I. of the Third Schedule. The whole must be that which exists in Part I. of the Schedule. Part I. is the property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which has at a particular date been appropriated by them to the purposes of the Church in Wales, therefore not more than was appropriated by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at that date.
      Mr. McKENNAdissented.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: "Property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or has by them been before the passing of this Act annexed or appropriated to any ecclesiastical office." That is the amount which is specified in Part I.—the amount which has been appropriated before that date. They cannot transfer to the Church in Wales more than would have been appropriated at that date, therefore it is true to say that the discretion of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is limited to this. They may transfer everything which was appropriated at that date. They cannot transfer more, though they may transfer less, than was appropriated at the passing of this Act, if we assume that the Amendment is put in. If, therefore, you extend that time you give them the opportunity of appropriating more up to the date of Disestablishment, and then they can transfer more. That is the argument of my Noble Friend and, as far as I can see, that argument is right. Assuming that it is right, what is the substantial reason for it? I think it is a strong one. It is quite right that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have the opportunity of considering the position of the Church as soon as they see the form in which this Bill finally passes Parliament. It seems to me they have a right to a little time for consideration after that to see the effect of the Bill. Once they see the final form—and that would be provided for by the Amendment of my Noble Friend—they would be able to say
      1284
      whether the Church in Wales is to receive more than has hitherto been appropriated under Part I. of the Third Schedule. I think it is right that they should be able to say that, but the question whether the whole policy is right is a different matter, and a good deal may be said upon it. The question whether it is right that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be required finally to fix a certain sum which is to be transferred from English purposes to Welsh purposes without any possibility of going back upon it, and whether it is right to provide for the Re-endowment of the Church in Wales from English sources is a very serious question. But that is not the question raised by the Amendment proposed by my Noble Friend. I observe that "the date of Disestablishment" is referred to in paragraph (c), Clause 6, and it is within one year after that date that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are to decide whether they will transfer the whole or part of what they have appropriated. That seems to me to indicate that the date contemplated is the date of Disestablishment. I think it would have been more symmetrical to put it in the Schedule as well.
      Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord has not shown how the Amendment would extend the time for the Commissioners to make up their minds. All the knowledge would be in their possession at the date of Disestablishment. They have a year after Disestablishment to make up their minds whether the Noble Lord's Amendment is accepted or not. It cannot extend the time which the Commissioners will have at their disposal for making up their minds. At the date of Disestablishment all the materials and facts will be known to the Commissioners, so that they will have all the information necessary to make up their minds. The only conceivable difference which the acceptance of the Amendment might make is that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might, six months or a year after the passing of the Act, pay slightly more than at the passing of the Act. That is the sole object of the Amendment.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: They might appropriate more.
      Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no, they could not really do that. The Noble Lord did not complete the reading of paragraph (c), Clause 6. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are only entitled to appropriate to

      1285
      the Welsh Church what they have given in the past, but they are allowed to take into account what might have been given to the Church in the future. I have offered to give them unfetterd discretion as to how much they should give if they ask me for it. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is for the House to decide."] I am willing to give the Commissioners power to give as much as they like if they ask me for it. As a matter of fact, I do not think they will ask me for it, and I think they are quite right not to ask it. But that is neither here nor there. So far as I am concerned, I do not mind inserting "the date of Disestablishment," but these arrangements have been made with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and I do not think I ought to be pressed to put in conditions which would enable them to give more money to the Welsh Church unless I am asked by them to do so.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why?
      Mr. McKENNA: Everybody who has spoken has expressed grave doubt as to the propriety of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners being allowed to use English money for the purpose, as they call it, of re-endowing the Disestablished Church in Wales, and yet at the same time efforts are made by hon. Members opposite to enlarge the latitude of the Commissioners in the exercise of that policy about which they have such grave doubts. If we are to adopt the policy of perfect freedom for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, I think that ought only to be done on the request of the Commissioners themselves. If, on the other hand, we are to enter into arrangements with the Commissioners, and to treat them as trustees for this property who ought to be consulted, then I say the Bill carries out the arrangements, so far as I have been able to understand them. If, however, the Commissioners prefer, not the Noble Lord's Amendment, but the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, I would be willing to put in "the date of Disestablishment." I do not think the Commissioners would prefer that.
      Viscount HELMSLEY: On a point of Order. I desire to ask whether the Amendment of the Noble Lord is in order as proposed, or whether it ought to be divided into two? It seems to me to incorporate words already in the Schedule, and also at the end to introduce some fresh ones. It seems to me that the first part of the
      1286
      Amendment should be put as a separate Amendment, and that subsequently the words—
      "but the amount of property so transferred shall not be less than the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had up to"—
      should also be put as a separate Amendment.
      Viscount WOLMER: Is the Noble Lord in order in asking whether the Amendment is in order after it has been called by the Chairman, and debated for a considerable time?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: When I called the Amendment I considered it in order, and I see no reason to change my mind even after the Noble Lord's appeal to me.
      Viscount HELMSLEY: Is it in order to move an Amendment which inserts certain words and then goes on to insert further words which are already in the Schedule?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see anything inconsistent in the original Amendment as it stands on the Paper.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think the argument of the Home Secretary is an extraordinary one. He says he cannot do what is asked without first consulting the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I have a great respect for them, but they are not the Church, and certainly they are not Parliament. Parliament is now legislating for the Church in Wales. It is enacting that certain funds should be taken away and giving power that other funds should remain. It is a matter for Parliament to decide what is to be done, and in no sense is it a matter for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and I protest against the suggestion of the Home Secretary that before he can make an Amendment desired by any section of the House of Commons, he must first consult an outside body, it is quite clear that the Amendment of the Noble Lord is not necessary if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners exercise the widest possible option, or if, in fact, the Home Secretary had incorporated the Amendment which I think I moved on Clause 6 to allow them to give an unlimited amount out of English resources to the Church in Wales. That has not been incorporated in the Bill. All we know is that the Home Secretary says he cannot incorporate it unless he is asked by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I think that the position is a very ridiculous one. At the same time,

      1287
      having regard to what the Home Secretary has said, I think we had better leave the matter as it is. I understand that he is quite prepared to consider it and that he will consult the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and will take an opportunity later on either of giving the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the full option to give as much as ever they could out of English resources or else take the minor course of putting in the date of Disestablishment instead of the date of the passing of the Bill. In those circumstances I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and we can further consider the matter on Report or whatever opportunity may arise.
      Mr. KING: I have got very deep sympathy with hon. Gentlemen opposite who cannot possibly occupy the time profitably until half-past ten when we conclude the Committee stage. So I offer one remark which is of importance. It is that we ought to have one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners here; two of them are Members of this House; they are the chief people to whom this Schedule refers. One of them, I am very sorry to hear, is unwell, but the other is here in the House, and has been constantly within the precincts during the whole of the proceedings on this Bill. Why cannot he be here at the very time when the Schedule which affects him more than anybody else is under discussion. I call the attention of the Committee to this because it is a very remarkable circumstance which ought to be explained.
      Amendment put, and negatived.
      Government Amendments made:—
      In Part I., leave out the words "twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and twelve," and insert instead thereof the words "passing of this Act."
      In Part II., leave out the words "twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and twelve," and insert instead thereof the words "passing of this Act."
      In Part III., first paragraph, leave out the words "twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and twelve," and insert instead thereof the words "passing of this Act."
      In Part III., first paragraph, after the word "grant," insert the words "or provision."—[Mr. MeKenna.]
      Government Amendment proposed: In Part III., after the word "Schedule," insert the words
      "or charges transferred to the property mentioned in paragraph (1) of the First Schedule to this Act, except so far as that property is not able to bear them."—[Mr. MeKenna.]
      Mr. CAVE: What is the effect of this Amendment?
      Mr. McKENNA: It is simply to correct a double negative, but I had not followed the Amendment to its last stage, and if the Committee will allow me to consider the matter for a few minutes I shall be very happy.
      Mr. BOOTH: It seems to me that the object is to deal with that property which is not able to bear the burden. No one wants to put any burden on property which cannot bear it. Even the most extreme single-taxer never suggests putting on more than property can bear, and the object of this Amendment is specially to protect that property from having to bear an unfair share of the burden.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: All we want to know is what does it mean? Do you know?
      Mr. BOOTH: I am endeavouring to explain it. I have been listening the whole evening to hon. Members opposite to find out what they meant and have utterly failed. I submit that my explanation is far superior to anything I have heard from them.
      Mr. POLLOCK: Is not the point that under the First Schedule of the Act they provide for mortgages—that is to say, that it should be possible for the Commissioners to allow certain charges to stand? Then, when we get to this Third Schedule, it is necessary to safeguard the rights which are given by the First Schedule and to secure that Part III. of the Third Schedule and Part I. of the First Schedule should stand together. Therefore, they have got to put in these words to prevent them putting too large a mortgage or burden upon any particular property. Subject that the two Clauses can be read together.
      Mr. McKENNA: The Amendment should read
      "or charges transferred to the property mentioned in paragraph (1) of the First Schedule to this Act, so far as that property is able to bear them."

      1289
      I confess that I was so full of the other Amendment that it was not so easy at first sight to follow this. The charge on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the bishops and chaplains in Wales now amount to £29,000. The amount, of property which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners hold to meet these charges is £26,700. There is consequently a balance of £3,000 a year which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners now pay, but which does not spring from Welsh money. Part of the payment of bishops and chaplains in Wales does not spring from episcopal estates, and it is in order to dispose of this £3,000 a year that these words are added. Otherwise there would be a balance of £3,000 a year which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would not have been able to pay to the Welsh Church, although they have paid it hitherto, and, on the principle of the Bill, we propose to allow them full liberty to go on paying whatever they paid in the past.
      Mr. CAVE: I am not quite sure the effect of the Amendment is to enlarge the amount which the Commissioners give, and I am rather disposed to think that it limits it. The words we are dealing with are charges in respect of the property mentioned in Part I. of this Schedule, "not being Welsh ecclesiastical property within the meaning of this Act."
      Mr. McKENNA: It leaves the £3,000.
      Mr. CAVE: But the effect is to reduce the amount of the grant.
      Mr. McKENNA: To increase it. The words "so far as the property is able to bear them" would limit the amount of the reduction to £26,700. The total amount of the property is £29,000, so that this limitation upon the reduction does produce an increase.
      Mr. CAVE: I quite understand that the final words limit the reduction, but the Amendment as a whole limits the grant. That is my point. The effect of the whole Amendment is to limit the maximum grant, and therefore to reduce the grant. I am not at all satisfied that this is not done.
      Mr. McKENNA: I have stated the purport of the Amendment, but I will reconsider the language employed. I was satisfied that the language was right, but in these very complicated matters it is not always very easy to see what effect language has. I will, however, go care-
      1290
      fully into the matter again. The object is to secure that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall go on paying the additional £3,000 a year which is derived from English sources.
      Mr. CAVE: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment now and deal with it on Report? I am really very doubtful about the effect of the Amendment, and I am afraid it does limit the grant.
      Mr. McKENNA: It is immaterial to me. I will put it down on the Report stage, if the hon. and learned Gentleman feels seriously about it. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment that the words may be reconsidered. Undoubtedly we have got a restriction upon the limitation, and both the limitation and the restriction upon the limitation will be considered in relation to the original grant. I quite admit that it becomes an extremely complicated question, but it is merely one as to the language to be used.
      Mr. CAVE: That is all.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, in Part III., second paragraph, to leave out the word "eleven" ["October nineteen hundred and eleven "], and insert instead thereof, the word "twelve."
      The effect is that the average amount to be calculated by an interval of seven years, shall be reckoned as in 1912.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In Part IV., leave out the word "eleven" ["December nineteen hundred and eleven"], and insert-instead thereof, the word "twelve."—[Mr. Cave.]
      Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not wish to keep the Committee more than a moment in discussing this Schedule, although there is a very great deal which could be said about it. It is a very curious proposal, and really the result of the Schedule is that the Church of Wales may be subject to a second Disendowment if at any time the Church of England should be Disendowed. I merely wish to ask permission to say that we do protest very strongly against the most unskilful and absurd allocation of time made in connection with the Committee stage of this Bill under the

      1291
      guillotine. The result has been that big Clauses like Clause 1 and Clause 8 were insufficiently discussed, and to-night and other nights we really have had more time than is necessary. I do think that if the Government choose to deal by means of the guillotine with important Bills like this a little more care ought to be exercised in the allocation of time. As it is, great and important parts of the Bill have been insufficiently discussed or not discussed at all because of this faulty allocation. I think we have very just ground for complaint of the manner in which we have been treated in regard to this Bill.
      Mr. KING: I must just offer a word in reply to what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite. In my view, the Debate has broken down now because the Opposition have been completely outclassed on every point. They have been answered again and again. We have convinced many on their own side that they are in the wrong, and we have so completely triumphed over them in the course of this long discussion that they have nothing more to say.
      Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, 3rd February.
      The Orders for the remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
      Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  UNDERGROUND TELEGRAPH CABLES, SCOTLAND.
  Mr. PIRIE: Certainly, it is true that it is the unexpected that happens in this House, and one can never be certain of what is going to happen; otherwise I know I should have been supported now, as I hope to be later, by several of my Scottish colleagues who wish to take part in the discussion of a matter which is not before the House for the first time, namely, the neglect of the commercial interests of Scotland by cutting it off from the advantage of enjoying the underground system of telegraphs in that part of the country north of Falkirk. In the miserable remnants of time which unfortunately are left to us Scottish Members to discuss this
  1292
  question, the question was raised as regards the action of the Postmaster-General as to the very unjust proportion in the money expended in this country and in Scotland on this service. Let it suffice for me to point out that 1,200 miles of underground telegraph lines have been laid in England and 130 in Scotland. That is not all. By a series of questions I elicited the fact that over and above those 1,200 miles of telegraph lines in England there are also an additional number of shorter underground cable communications not taken into account in those 1,200 miles, and I hope by still more questioning I shall find out the exact mileage. Thus the proportion of mileage between the two countries is even greater than the figures I have given. However, it is not my purpose to dwell on this matter as regards the Postmaster-General, because I know that some of my colleagues, especially the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson), were going to take part in the discussion. We Scottish Members are determined to raise this question on another adjournment, when I hope my hon. Friend will be able to be present and give us the benefit of his great business knowledge on this question as regards the action of the Postmaster-General.
  To-night my purpose is to call attention to the action, or rather inaction, of the Secretary for Scotland as regards this matter in defence of Scottish interests. I say at once that, as far as possible, I do not intend to make any criticism or attack on either the Secretary for Scotland personally or on his office, but more on the system which prevails in his office. I say, however tied down that office may be by Parliamentary usages, yet when you come to unprecedented cases you are justified in taking unprecedented action. We live in more ways than one in an era of unprecedented action and unprecedented events, and as far as unequal treatment between Scotland and England are concerned, I do not think there has ever been a blacker case of injustice than in this apportionment of money devoted to underground telegraphic extension. I therefore say that it is time, and more than time, not only in the case of the present holder of the office, but also in that of his predecessor, for representations to be made on behalf of Scotland generally that more justice should be done. The Secretary for Scotland tries to ride off by saying that that is not his province, but the province of the Scottish Members. I will

  1293
  ask any fair-minded man to put himself in the place of the Scottish Members, and think what opportunities they have either of taking time by the forelock and getting beforehand, or even, when details of injustice are known, of taking any action. The Scottish Member cannot be aware of the intentions of the Government, and his opportunities for criticism or debate in this House are limited as far as his own affairs are concerned to a miserable half-dozen hours in the year, and that even sometimes is overstating the facts of the case. Then, again, if he brings up a grievance such as this on the Estimates he is naturally voted down by his more numerous English colleagues.
  What is the unfortunate Scottish Member to do, if he cannot look to the right hon. or hon. Gentleman who occupies the post of Secretary for Scotland, and more than ever when, as in this case, I am happy to say the Secretary for Scotland is not in another place, but here with us in the House of Commons. It was a great enough scandal, and I say that now, after all these years, when the Secretary for Scotland was allowed to be in the other place. Many of my Scottish colleagues at the time of the appointment of the late Secretary to another place spoke out more strongly even than I am speaking now. I held my tongue, hoping his appointment was only temporary. It ran its course despite the many attempts to secure other conditions, and it was not until his appointment to the Governorship of Madras that we got rid of being separated from our Secretary in this House. Now we have him here, and I venture to say that the A B C of his position would be this: to endeavour to constitute himself the leader of the Scottish Members on both sides of the House to defend Scottish interests. This ought not to be a party question. I recall what happened a few weeks ago as regards Ireland when there was a just grievance felt by all Irish Members as regards the treatment by the Board of Agriculture. I allude to the attack of foot-and-mouth disease in which there were Regulations proposed which were considered very unfair by the Irish Members. There both parties of Irish representatives united at once to make re presentations in defence of their national interests. Here at the present moment apart from party—
  Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. I see two Members (Mr. MacVeagh and Mr. Pringle) who are not Members of
  1294
  the Privy Council sitting on the Front Opposition Bench.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): Hon Members are entitled to sit in any part of the House which is open to them.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. PIRIE: I do not mind the hon. Member from Ireland occupying a seat there, but I must say the hon. Member from Scotland ought to show a greater sense of seriousness, although some of these matters may be objects of ridicule, but really they are not, and I think they deserve the serious consideration of the House. I wish now to call attention to the nature of the answers which the Secretary for Scotland thinks it his duty to give to questions on such paints as these. His main object seems to be to endeavour to hide the true facts. I ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any representations had been made either by his predecessor or by himself to the Postmaster-General with regard to the frequent breakdowns of telegraphic communications in the North-East of Scotland, and the consequent great financial loss which had been incurred. If he had given me a straight answer his answer would have been "No, I do not know what my predecessor has done, and I have made no representations." That really is what his answer amounted to. Instead of that, he desired to mislead the Scottish newspaper readers. I say that plainly to the right hon. Gentleman's face. He said:—
  "I am not able to say what representations my predecessor may have made at the time referred to."
  He might have taken the trouble to find out. He said further:—
  "On a recent occasion representations were properly made directly to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General."
  That was not my question. My question was whether he himself had made any representations. Any straightforward man would at once have given me the answer, "No, I have not made any representations." That is the plain and blunt truth, which the right hon. Gentleman did not want the Scottish electors to know. I asked him then if he had taken the trouble to find out what representations, if any, his predecessor had made. He then gave me a straight answer, because it was a. supplementary question, and he had not time to prepare the reply. He said, "No, I have not." Last week I asked him, in view of the statement of the Postmaster-General, what steps he was prepared to I take to safeguard Scottish interests. He

  1295
  made another evasive answer. He began by saying:—
  "The first part of the question asking for postal statistics should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General."
  I had not asked for any statistics; on the contrary, I had given some statistics and asked him if he was aware of them. He then rides off on the old excuse that it is not in accordance with Parliamentary practice for a Minister to make communications on a matter which is entirely in a colleague's province. That may be; but if it is the Parliamentary practice, and if he holds office on those terms, it is time that he changed the practice. I openly say that under present conditions no self-respecting Liberal ought to hold the office of Secretary for Scotland unless he is prepared to get justice done to his country. It is time the people of Scotland knew the actual state of affairs in regard to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman treats representations from Scotland and Scottish interests. As long as they are not in his Department he treats them with absolute indifference, apathy, and neglect. It is a monstrous thing that the whole of the North-East of Scotland and important centres of commerce like Dundee and Aberdeen should not receive proper treatment, whilst small town in the suburbs of London are treated to underground communication. Not only as regards postal matters, but also as regards larger questions affecting the national development of Scotland, Scottish interests are treated with indifference, contempt, and neglect. We Scottish Members are unduly handicapped in this House at present, and the least the Secretary for Scotland could do is to take up a decided line of action, and say that there must be a change—such, for instance, as perhaps federalism would give. On that point, during the passage of the Home Rule Bill, whom would one have expected to speak on the federal scheme but the Secretary for Scotland? But not once did the right hon. Gentleman open his lips. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because he is half-hearted in the matter, as some others are. Luckily, we know that important Members of the Cabinet favour the federal scheme, and the minor Members will have to follow their lead. We Scottish Members are absolutely entitled to have heard during these last few weeks some outline of the policy of the Secretary
  1296
  for Scotland for the country which he misrepresents.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The matter upon which my hon. and gallant Friend has made so vivacious a speech is one of great simplicity. I do not know what authority he has for saying that I have treated it with indifference, apathy, or neglect; because he has not the least idea how I have treated it, and I have not the least intention of telling him. He finds fault with me for not inquiring what line my predecessor took, not in regard to anything which happened in Scotland, but in regard to the laying of a telegraphic cable at Penzance. My predecessor is in India, and I say quite frankly that I did not feel called upon to expend sums of public money on cablegrams for the purpose of dealing with a matter which was really not in the province of my Noble Friend, namely, the question of laying telegraphic lines in England. I believe, as a matter of fact they were laid to connect with oceanic cables. As for myself, the position is perfectly clear. What my hon. Friend invites me to do is to take up a question that has never been brought to my notice by the representatives who came here expressly to deal with it—representatives of trade and commerce in the municipalities interested. They understood a great deal more about the procedure of Parliament and the duties of Ministers than my hon. and gallant Friend seems to do. They came directly to the Postmaster-General, and put their case before him. This House, in course of time, has laid a vast number of duties on the Secretary for Scotland, but the duty of running the postal system of this country is not included in them. It is perfectly true that it is a matter upon which the Secretary for Scotland would naturally take a personal interest, but that is not what my hon. and gallant Friend is asking me to do. What he is really inviting me to do is to criticise my colleague the Postmaster-General. I think I am entitled to say that is not only contrary to Parliamentary practice, but that it is not a course of action which will promote harmony in the Cabinet, or serve the interest of any person who really desires to see work accomplished. What my hon. and gallant Friend wants is not work, but grounds for complaint. He finds them in the most trivial causes, and searches for them in the most obscure corners. He has no right at all to expect anything of the kind. If I make representations to my colleagues about

  1297
  Scottish business, I intend to do it in the way I think most effective, and that is, to speak to my colleagues in private and try to convince them of the justice of any claim that I think right. I have no notion of getting up and being made a sort of stalking horse for an attack upon one of my colleagues. If that is all the complaint the hon. and gallant Gentleman has against me, I am not afraid to meet it in Scotland or anywhere else, and I cannot help regretting that the time of the House should have been taken up by a matter so trivial and so absurd.
  Mr. HOGGE: I did not intend to speak, but I think it is the duty of a colleague of any Scotsman who brings up a question to support him in the main point that he puts. I do not think that the Secretary for Scotland has such reason to complain of the attitude that the hon. and gallant Member has taken up that he makes things better by taking up the attitude he himself has taken up in the speech which he has just delivered. He says deliberately in this House that he has not the least intention of telling hon. Members what he has done. I submit that that is not the attitude that the Secretary for Scotland ought to take up towards one of his colleagues. However much I may differ from my colleague, and however much the right hon. Gentleman may think that my colleague searches obscure corners for trivial cases to criticise his conduct in the House, I take it that the Secretary for Scotland ought to take Members from Scotland—at any rate Members from Scotland who sit on this side of the House—into his confidence on matters of the kind. I must frankly say that the action of the Scottish Secretary is not always above criticism any more than the suggestions we make on occasions of this sort may be above criticism from him. For example, I myself raised a question which is a very acute question so far as a large part of one of the counties of Scotland is concerned. No less than some eight or nine months ago I drew attention to the fact that owing to the want of telegraphic communication—and this does not involve the overhead or underground cables at all—but for want of reasonable telegraphic communication the Island of St. Kilda was shut off for six months of the year from communication with the mainland. An offer was made to the Post Office by an outside individual to supply a wireless telegraphic installation between that island and the mainland. The only thing that prevented
  1298
  it being erected at once was the procuring of a licence from the Post Office. Owing to some cause which I have never been able yet to understand, that licence was delayed to such an extent that although the installation was ready and was offered for nothing to the Post Office, St. Kilda is again shut off from the mainland this winter and will be for some six months. Advantage was not taken of this offer to the nation. One would have thought that here was a question upon which the Secretary for Scotland might have spoken privately to his colleague, the Postmaster-General, and have seen that the thing did not lapse for so many months. I think that is fair criticism.
  Mr. McKINNON WOODmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Mr. HOGGE: I asked a question in the House and got no information. If communications were made by the Secretary of Scotland will he stand up and say so?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly, there were communications on the subject.
  Mr. HOGGE: Did the Secretary for Scotland take the trouble to see that that installation was erected in time to prevent the island being shut off for six months?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member entirely changes his ground. He asks one moment if communications have been made, and he next asks if I have done the work of the Postmaster-General. Of course I have not!
  Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand my question. The point I put is this: That it may be quite true that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken to his colleague upon the matter, but it does not matter whether he has spoken or not so long as he has not spoken effectively enough to procure the installation being erected before the island is shut off for six months. Speaking is nothing.
  Mr. BOOTH: Hear, hear.
  Mr. HOGGE: Quite so, and that is quite possibly one reason why the Scottish Members are given so few opportunities of speaking. Action is very much better than speaking. The point I am putting is this: The right hon. Gentleman says that my hon. and gallant colleague for North Aberdeen wants him to get up and practically to abuse his colleagues on that bench. He says that is a thing subversive

  1299
  of discipline in the Cabinet of which he is a member. It is an experience we might all relish, as witness what happened only a few days ago, the result of which no one seemed to be very much struck about. The whole point seems to me to be this, that the Secretary for Scotland seems to have some kind of idea that he alone is competent to know all the business that exists in Scotland, that all the interests that require to be satisfied, and petitions, and other matters should be brought within his province. I am perfectly certain that the question which has been raised now is quite legitimate. You have in Scotland, owing to the absence of underground cables, continuous telegraphic breakdowns. You have in England underground cables all over the country. {An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] Well, to a much larger extent than in Scotland. Our point of view is that our Post Office in Scotland earns a very large profit, and that we are entitled out of that profit therefore to have served those towns in Scotland which are now cut off on account of the telegraphic delays which occur at intervals. Why, I say, it should be resented as an impertinence by the Secretary for Scotland that a Scottish Member should bring this matter up on the Adjournment passes my wit to understand. Because of the absolutely irrelevant and impertinent answer of the right hon. Gentleman I have taken a part in the Debate.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I have no quarrel whatever with the Secretary for Scotland. He has always shown to me extreme courtesy and consideration in anything I laid before him. At the same time, I think he enunciated a principle the other day which might lead to a certain amount of barrenness in Scottish administration. It appears to me that if there is to be a scramble for public funds by the Celtic fringe, Scotland might suffer considerably in the presence of such rapacious demands as are made by the other component parts
  1300
  of the United Kingdom. It seems to me that the Secretary for Scotland would require to take a stand in favour of a fair allocation of public funds for Scotland. I want to call attention to one thing in Scotland that I think in the past has been very seriously neglected not by the present occupant of the high office of Secretary for Scotland alone, but quite as much by his predecessors. For many years in Scotland there has been an attempt to carry on an experimental investigation of a mid-Scotland canal joining up the east and west coasts. For want of a very small sum of money, that investigation has been retarded notwithstanding the fact that in very recent times the disposition of the fleet in the North Sea, the creation of a naval base at Rosyth, and "Dreadnought" docks at Renfrew make a canal a necessity.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to call attention to the fact that forty Members are not present.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): Perhaps the hon. Member would not persist in view of the fact that the Debate will automatically stand adjourned in a minute and a half.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I want to appeal to the Secretary for Scotland to give some encouragement for the further investigation of this scheme, because of its strategic advantages to this country and because of the great commercial advantage that would accrue by the joining up of the east and west coast ports of Britain and by making that canal a great thoroughfare for European traffic. It would afford a short and safe route between the North Sea and the Atlantic, and between North European ports and America.
  It being half an hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes after Nine o'clock.

  Imported Food.
  Imported Food.
  Customs and Excise (Amalgamation).
  Customs and Excise (Amalgamation).
  Stamp Act (Evasions).
  Stamp Act (Evasions).
  Irish Office (Members' Questions).
  Irish Office (Members' Questions).
  Public Trustee (Ireland).
  Public Trustee (Ireland).
  Castleisland Parish Committee.
  Castleisland Parish Committee.
BRITISH ARMY.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  WAR STRENGTH.
  WAR STRENGTH.
  MONOPLANES (WAR OFFICE COMMITTEE).
  MONOPLANES (WAR OFFICE COMMITTEE).
  INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF OVERSEA FORCES.
  INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF OVERSEA FORCES.
  Victoria and Albert Museum.
  Victoria and Albert Museum.
  Continuation Schools (Berlin).
  Continuation Schools (Berlin).
  Indian Mints (Silver Bullion).
  Indian Mints (Silver Bullion).
  Police Duties (India).
  Police Duties (India).
  Alleged Bulgarian Outrages.
  Alleged Bulgarian Outrages.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Goods Manufactured (United Kingdom).
  Goods Manufactured (United Kingdom).
  Clothing and Millinery Trades.
  Clothing and Millinery Trades.
  Wheat and Bread Prices.
  Wheat and Bread Prices.
  Vaccination Case (Kirkcaldy).
  Vaccination Case (Kirkcaldy).

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Regulations, made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to the sums payable in respect of Deposit Contributors towards the expenses incurred by Insurance Committees in the administration of benefits;
2. Regulations, dated 25th January 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Irish Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled tin National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions) Regulations (Ireland), 1913;
3. Regulations, dated 27th January 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions) Regulations (Wales), 1913:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 197.)

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
Debate on the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, viz., that the Bill be read a second time this day three months resumed (according to Order).
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as I understand that a considerable number of your Lordships are anxious to speak in this debate, may I ask the noble Viscount opposite if it would not be for the general convenience of the House that we should meet at three o'clock instead of half past four both to-morrow and on Thursday?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): I should have thought that what the noble Duke asks is perfectly reasonable, and that it would be convenient to meet to-morrow and on Thursday at three o'clock.
THE DUKE op DEVONSHIRE: We agree to do so.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, in the observations that I shall address to you upon this Bill I shall not attempt to deal with the larger and wider issues which relate to the establishment of a separate Parliament and Government for Ireland. My opinion on that subject remains the same as it was nearly forty years ago. When I was Irish Secretary in 1874 it fell to my lot on behalf of the Government of the day to oppose a Resolution for the introduction of Home Rule in Ireland. I still believe that the institution of an Irish Parliament, with an Irish Government responsible to it, would weaken the United Kingdom and therefore the Empire, would be a retrograde step in our history, would be injurious to the minority in Ireland, and so far from improving the relations which exist between Great Britain and Ireland, would add friction and trouble to those relations. I will say nothing more upon the subject; nor will I turn aside to deal with the tempting problem which my noble friend Earl Grey presented to us last night with such ability—the subject of federation for the United Kingdom. I think myself there is a great deal of difference between the circumstances of the Dominion of Canada, extending as it does widely across a continent, and those of a small compact unit like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. But I will not attempt to deal with the noble Earl's speech further than to say that I entirely agree with him in the conclusion at which he arrives, that, whatever the merits of federation may be, this at any rate is certain, that this Bill, so far from being a step in the direction of a federal system, would be an absolute block to a federal system, for whoever heard of commencing a federal system with a unit which so far from being able to contribute towards federal expenditure, is not able to bear even the cost of administering its own affairs.
I propose to confine myself, as far as I can, solely to the question of the finance of this Bill. The whole subject of the Bill is too large, I venture to submit to your Lordships, for any one of us to do more than to attempt to take a portion of it. My part, I fear, is complicated and dry, but of its importance no man can doubt, for finance must be the keystone of any proposal of this kind, and if the finance of the proposal is bad, as I hope to prove that it is in this case, the Bill itself must

519
fall to the ground. It is a remarkable fact that no one in Ireland, so far as I am aware, has approved of the finance of this measure. Last night Lord MacDonnell declined to go into the subject because he considered that could be more fitly done in Committee. That, of course, might be right in another place; but I submit to your Lordships that we at any rate could not deal with this matter in Committee because it would be impossible according to the custom of many years for your Lordships to make such alterations in the financial proposals of this Bill as would be really different from their present form. I take it, therefore, as it stands.
Lord MacDonnell and Lord Dunraven last night equally denounced the finance of the Bill. Both knew something of Ireland from different points of view. But that is not all. Mr. William O'Brien, the Leader of the Independent Irish Nationalists, denounces it as bad from top to bottom, and says it would be unfair to England and Ireland to pretend that as to finance, and the powers of the two Parliaments, and the relations between them the Bill could be accepted as a full and final acquittance for their national requirements. Mr. John Redmond, himself an author of the Bill, says it is only a provisional settlement, and that the financial provisions are not so generous as he could wish; that the Bill would not give Ireland that complete and immediate control over all her finance which he would have been glad to see; but it did not profess to be a final settlement of the financial relations. Lastly, if any one of your Lordships will turn to the Report of the able Committee presided over by Sir Henry Primrose, fully representing Irish as well as other interests, which was established by His Majesty's Government specially to consider this question, he will find that His Majesty's Government have absolutely rejected the proposals of the Committee. We have been asked to hope that this Bill will establish friendly relations between Great Britain and Ireland, that it will, in the words of the noble Marquess opposite, remove the intolerable burden of Irish debates in the House of Commons, and that it will give to the British taxpayer a certain knowledge of his future liability to contribute for Irish purposes, which will be confined to the commencing bonus, if I may so call it, of £500,000 a year, gradually diminishing to nothing.
520
Those are the hopes which are held out to us from the passing of this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I interrupt the noble Viscount for one moment? What I said was that the contribution would begin by £500,000, after three years reducible by £50,000 a year until it reached £200,000.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I am sorry for the mistake. I should have said, gradually diminishing to £200,000. Now let us see whether, in view of the opinions I have quoted and the facts of the case, these expectations are likely to be realised. I think it has recently come into Mr. Redmond's mind that for many years past he and his friends have held out to the people of Ireland expectations of a millennium of material advantages to be derived from Home Rule. Railways are to be nationalised, mountains are to be afforested, great river valleys are to be drained, every community has been led to expect that some particular thing which it wants will be secured under Home Rule, something of which it has hitherto been deprived by the grasping Treasury in London. I ask your Lordships whether there is any chance under the finance of this Bill as it appears in the Bill itself that these expectations can be realised. We are told that the revenue of Ireland may increase. I think it is more likely to decrease under Home Rule. But supposing that it increases, that increase will go, not to the benefit of the Irish Parliament, but into the coffers of the Imperial Exchequer. Is it possible that all the blessings which are anticipated can be realised out of the bonus of £500,000? I almost hesitate to talk of an increase of taxation by an Irish Government in Ireland, because for years past one lesson which has been dinned into the ears of every Irishman is that he is over-taxed already. But supposing an Irish Government did try to impose an additional tax, where is it to come from under the limitations of this Bill I Can it come out of the Customs and Excise I The limitations are so strong that though the Irish Government might attempt to increase, let us say, the duties on tea and sugar, if supporters of noble Lords opposite persuaded the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer to establish a free breakfast table Irish expectations from tea and sugar would be entirely disappointed. Spirits have been

521
a strong item in Irish revenue. Well it is a remarkable fact that whereas the taxation on spirits rose between 1895 and 1911 by forty per cent., the proportionate receipts from that taxation diminished by no less than £1,250,000. You have taxed spirits up to the hilt in both Ireland and England.
Does anybody think that Irish farmers would be willing to assent to the expectations which are held out to us in England of heavy taxation upon agricultural land? Can any one believe that they would assent to the imposition of the sort of rates we have to bear in England for elementary education? There is just this possibility for an Irish Government. They might increase the price of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor; but, unfortunately, most of the sellers of intoxicating liquor are warm supporters of the Home Rule Party. Then the last resource might be, no doubt, direct taxation. It is in the power of the Irish Government under this Bill so to manipulate the scale of exemption and abatement in the Income Tax, the rate of the Super-Tax, and the rates of Death Duties, as to impose an almost intolerable burden upon the more well-to-do classes of the community. But even when they had done that they would not raise much money by it because the wealth of Ireland is not sufficient to enable them to do so. I venture to maintain, and I do not think any one who goes into the question can contradict me, that under this Bill there will be no resources in the power of an Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer which will enable him anything like to fulfil all the expectations that have been held out of benefits for Ireland ender Home Rule. But that is not all. One thing will be taken away, and that is the advantage which Ireland now enjoys from the Imperial credit in the issue of Loans for such purposes as land improvements, labourers' cottages, sanitation, drainage, and other matters of that kind. Under this Bill these Loans are no longer to be issued by the Public Works Loans Commissioners or from the Local Loans Fund on the Imperial credit. The Irish Government, will have to find the money for the purpose, and it must necessarily be able to offer, owing to its limited powers of taxation, only a limited security. Is it not certain that its credit will be much lower than that of the Imperial Government; and that therefore Irish borrowers will have
522
to pay far higher rates for Loans than have hitherto been asked? Therefore I venture to submit to your Lordships that these provisions of the Bill as it, stands can only breed discontent in Ireland.
And how is that discontent likely to be assuaged Yesterday the noble Marquess gave us some very plausible reasons why forty-two Irish Members should be retained in the British House of Commons. He said that taxation and representation ought to go together. Well, my Lords, if His Majesty's Government had adopted the recommendations of their own Committee there would have been no question of that kind. The Irish Members would have disappeared. The noble Marquess said that the removal of the Irish Members from the House of Commons at Westminster pointed to separation. Perhaps it would; but so does the institution of a separate Parliament and Government for Ireland. He said—and this was a most extraordinary assertion—that the presence of the forty-two Irish Members in the British House of Commons would aid the adoption of a federal system. Well, the Transvaal, for example, was granted responsible local government by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Government without anything of the kind, and that did not prevent, the Transvaal joining the South African Union in common with other units on a proper basis. No, my Lords, these may be plausible reasons, but the real reason for the presence of the Irish representatives in the British Parliament is this: they are to act as agents of the Irish Government with the British Treasury. The noble Marquess spoke of them as a microcosm of Ireland. I think he mistook the word. He meant an Irish microbe devastating the British Constitution.
What will these agents do? There will be no division of parties. One and ail will vote together in a raid on the British Treasury. They will simply go to the Prime Minister of the day and they will say to him, "Our Irish finance under this Act is very difficult. We want further aid, and you must give it to us either by grant or a guarantee or something of that kind. There is a critical division coming on; forty-two votes will make a lot, of difference, and if you do not give it us there may be unpleasant results." That will initiate a series of blackmailing acts on the British Executive and the British Parliament

523
which I venture to say will be the worst form of political corruption. Here will be these men coming from a country which does not contribute to Imperial expenditure deciding some grave question of Imperial policy by their votes. Here will be these men, having a Government of their own with which British Members will have nothing to do, supporting a Government in power at Westminster which may be odious to the majority of the British electorate. Here will be these men, with whose local affairs, local taxation and local administration no British Member can in the least interfere, deciding by their votes matters of British local administration, taxation, and expenditure with which they have not the faintest moral right to interfere at all. I venture to say, my Lords, that that will be an intolerable position for Great Britain, as a very short working of the Act will prove if ever it comes into force.
Now let me turn to its effect upon Ireland. The Postmaster-General, who, in financial matters, conducted this Bill with the greatest ability through the House of Commons, used what appears to me to be a very wise expression. He said that a position of self-reliance was the only position compatible with the status of self-government. Does this Bill place the Irish Government in a position of self-reliance? It does nothing of the kind. I have suggested to your Lordships what I believe will be the way in which the inclusion of the Irish Members in the British House of Commons will work. That is not self-reliance. Why has the wholesome principle so strongly advocated by Mr. Gladstone in both the Home Rule Bills of 1886 and 1893 been departed from in this measure? He insisted that Ireland under Home Rule should be self-supporting. He insisted that she should also contribute to Imperial expenditure. But under this Bill not only does Ireland not contribute to Imperial expenditure, not only does she not bear one penny of the burden of National Debt, although she owed £130,000,000 of it in 1817, but £2,000,000, and I think I shall show more, are to be paid yearly by the British taxpayer for Irish administration. I think that it will be something more than £2,000,000, because between the present time and the date of the passing of the Bill, if it ever does pass into law, it is perfectly certain that the expenditure on Irish Estimates will rise, while it is probable that the Irish revenue,
524
in anticipation of Home Rule, will diminish. Further, my Lords, as time goes on and the period arrives for the consideration by the Irish Government of the question whether it will exercise its option of taking over the reserved services or not, the Irish Government will be quite clever enough to exercise that option at the precise moment when the reserved services have reached their highest amount and are on the point of beginning to decline.
Then there is the question of the Constabulary. The noble Marquess opposite used rather a remarkable expression in his speech last night. He told us, I think, that in his opinion it will be a long time before a centralised Police force can be dispensed with in Ireland. Now the Constabulary under the Bill is to be controlled and managed for six years by the Irish Lord Lieutenant. I do not understand what that means. Will the Lord Lieutenant act on his own initiative under the instructions of Ministers in Downing Street, or will he be merely the mouthpiece of the Irish Government, acting on the advice of his Ministers? If the former, it will certainly soon come to the latter position. If the Lord Lieutenant ventured to use the Constabulary in any way in any matter of importance of which his Ministers disapproved, the Ministers would very soon bring him to book by resigning their offices; Parliament would stop supplies, and the administration would be made unworkable. You cannot rely upon an Irish Lord Lieutenant as the controller and manager of the Irish Constabulary during a period of six years. But, however that may be, it is probable that the expenses of the Constabulary will considerably increase during the six years. There may be trouble in Ulster, and in other parts of Ireland there may be discontent with the working of the Bill. The Irish Nationalist Party will not be so unanimous in the Irish Parliament as they are in the present Parliament. There will be factions of various kinds, and factions in Ireland are apt to make it very unpleasant, as the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Morley) knows, for the Government of the day in its work of maintaining order. Therefore the cost of the Constabulary will be at the end of the six years more than it is now, and I believe that the whole subsidy imposed on the British taxpayer will be much nearer £3,000,000 than £2,000,000.

525
We are told that at present at any rate the cost of Irish administration is a million and a-half more than the yield of the Irish revenue. Why is that? It was not so a few years ago? The common accusation of the Party opposite is that this excess in Irish expenditure is due to extravagance on the part of the Unionist Government in attempting to kill Irish Home Rule with kindness. That is a mistake. Undoubtedly Unionist Governments did increase public expenditure in Ireland, but that was necessary because under the working of Mr. Gladstone's Land Acts private expenditure had largely disappeared. But, more than that, it was wise, because that expenditure was made in accordance with true economical principles. It was made reproductive, and, as everybody knows., the improvement in the condition of Ireland during that time has been enormous, and only the other day His Majesty's Government admitted that the revenue in Ireland had increased lately by £700,000 a year. What is the cause of the present deficit? It is the want of financial foresight on the part of His Majesty's present advisers. What they did was to add to the cost of Irish administration by deliberately including Ireland in the Old Age Pensions Act and the insurance Act. That cost amounted to something like £3,000,000 a year, or double the amount of the deficit. I am not about to suggest to the House that, if a Unionist Government had been in power and had passed measures for old-age pensions and insurance, they would not have extended them to Ireland. Of course they would because, as hitherto, they would have dealt with Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. But the principle of His Majesty's Government is to deal with Ireland as a separate country. Knowing as they did that they would very soon be forced to bring in a Home Rule Bill; knowing, as they did, the expenditure that would be imposed on the country by those Acts, why did they extend old-age pensions and insurance to Ireland, a separate country in their opinion? Not at the request of the Irish Nationalists.
There is a passage in the report of the Government Committee on this subject which I should like to read to your Lordships. They say—
"If Home Rule had been granted to Ireland before the passing of the Old Age Pensions Act it is very doubtful indeed if an Irish Parliament would
526
have in that regard followed the example of Great Britain. So much has almost in terms been stated in public speeches by the leading Irish politicians. It is absolutely certain that the Act would not have been so costly as to absorb at one stroke nearly one-third of the total revenue of the country."
I believe that to be absolutely true, and all I have to say is that when His Majesty's Government appeal to the British taxpayer to help Ireland by bearing a deficit of £2,000,000 for an indefinite time and, as I believe, permanently, they ought at the same time to tell him that the deficit is due to their own want of financial foresight in their legislation. But, of course, my Lords they have been, so far as the Imperial Parliament is concerned, absolved from the consequences of their action by the fact that the Imperial Parliament has ratified it, and therefore, in my opinion, if Home Rule is to be accepted for Ireland, it will be only fair that the Imperial Parliament should provide proper aid to Ireland in starting on her new path in the shape of taking over some of the burdens of the extravagant expenditure which has been incurred.
But there are two ways of doing that One way is that suggested by the Committee. They propose that the whole of the old-age pensions in Ireland existing at the time of the passing of this Act should be taken over by the Imperial Exchequer, and that, if anything more is necessary to establish an equilibrium in Ireland between expenditure and revenue, part of the Constabulary pensions existing at the same date should also be taken over by the Imperial Exchequer. The advantage of that proposal is that it automatically puts an end to the subsidy from the British taxpayer to Ireland and places the Irish Government on its own financial resources. His Majesty's Government, on the contrary, propose that a subsidy which they call £2,000,000 a year, but which I believe will be nearer £3,000,000, shall be permanently—I say permanently, because what can be more vague than the suggestion that the time may come when Irish expenditure might be less than Irish revenue?—given to the Irish Government, who may do with it exactly what they like, subject to the individual interests protected by this Bill, I submit that it is grossly unfair that the British taxpayer should be saddled with that subsidy when the causes which have made that subsidy necessary have expired. I submit also

527
that nothing could be more opposed to the lesson of self-reliance which you should teach and to the position of self-reliance in which you should place the Government of Ireland.
The Committee, in their Report, use such wise words on this matter that I will venture to read some of them to your Lordships. The principle of the Bill is that the British Government is to have the odium of levying the taxes in Ireland and that the Irish Government are to spend them. That is the division of labour. The Committee say—
"It is most objectionable that revenue should be raised for Irish purposes by an external authority through duties the character and amount of which will be determined, not by reference to Irish needs or predilections, but by reference to those of another and different people."
And they go on to say—
"The first principle of sound government is that the same authority which has the spending of revenue should also have the burden, and not infrequently the odium, of raising that revenue. That one should have the unpopular duty of providing the means and another the privilege of spending them is a division of labour that leads to disaster. The lesson which is required to bring home to the individual Irishman in concrete and palpable form is that, before any money can be expended by the Irish Government, he must first pay his share of that money in taxation. We believe that this lesson cannot be effectively taught if the Imperial Parliament retains the power of collecting and imposing Irish taxes."
I do not think a more forcible argument could be adduced from a financial point of view against this Bill with regard to Ireland. But it is certainly not less important that the responsibility of maintaining a proper relation between expenditure and ways and means, and of adjusting taxation to the economic needs of the country should be thrown on the Irish Government. The more we denounce the cost of Irish administration as extravagant, the more we are bound to induce the Irish Government, by every means in our power, to rely on their own resources. This Bill does nothing of the kind. What will be the position of the Irish Government? It will be guaranteed by Great Britain a revenue of a certain amount. It may divert the application of that revenue, subject to individual interests, in any way it pleases. But that revenue will come in whatever the Irish Government does. If the Irish Government, by wise administration, by prudent legislation, increases the prosperity of the country and therefore increases the revenue,
528
the surplus of the revenue will go, not to the Irish Government, but to the British Treasury. If the Irish Government, by maladministration, by foolish legislation, injures the country and decreases the revenue, the British Treasury will bear the burden, and not the Irish Government. And, further, my Lords, there will be this astounding result, that the Irish Government, so far front being induced to effect economies in their total expenditure, will be absolutely tempted never to effect such economies, because a reduction of their total expenditure would bring the time for a revision of the financial arrangements of this Bill, which might make Ireland pay for her own expenditure and possibly even make a contribution to the Imperial Exchequer. That is not a position in which any Government should be placed if it is anticipated that that Government will really benefit the country over which it is put to rule.
But if I may detain your Lordships a little longer there is still one point to which I should like briefly to refer—a point which, I am bound to say, appeals greatly to myself as having been for seven years connected with the administration of the Exchequer. It is the question of the relations between the British Chancellor of the Exchequer anti the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, and what is called the interlocking of their respective duties in the administration of finance and taxation. It seems to me an essential part of any such system of government as is proposed by this Bill that there should be a clear-cut division between the powers and duties of the local Government and the Imperial Government, and between the finance of the local Government and the finance of the Imperial Government. What would happen under the provisions of this Bill? The financial arrangements of the Bill are so complicated and so difficult that it is not easy fully to appreciate them. They never will be fully appreciated unless, unhappily, they should ever come to be actually worked.
What, at any rate, is pretty clear is that the financial powers of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will be very limited. If he does happen, through the ingenuity, which, as an Irishman, he would naturally possess, to hit upon some new and useful source of revenue to Ireland, he will be liable at any moment to be deprived of

529
that source of revenue by the grasping hand of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer appropriating it for Imperial purposes. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in this position. His finance will be troubled and harassed by the necessity of consulting, and if possible agreeing with, the Irish Chancel or of the Exchequer. Take this case. I suppose the present Chancellor of the Exchequer if he did not always spend snore than he ought, might possibly consider, at the request of his supporters, the institution of a free breakfast-table by the abolition of the duties on tea, sugar, cocoa, and other things. If he did that, the Imperial revenue levied in Ireland would be decreased by the amount of tax on those matters which would be due to Ireland. He would have to make up that amount of loss to the Irish Government by imposing taxation on some other articles. Does anybody suppose that the forty-two Irish members would not take very good care that that taxation was imposed in a manner that would not in any way touch Ireland? Then, again, supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreeing with noble Lords on this side of the House, proposed what I believe is the latest phase of Tariff Reform—a Customs import duty on manufactured goods. It would not be a very easy matter if he was his own master to settle such a tariff. It would be doubly and trebly difficult if he had to settle it with the assent of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, as no doubt he would have to do, or he would be subject to opposition from the Irish Members in the House of Commons.
Take another case. Supposing we were involved in a war and had to raise Imperial taxation. Well, our wars have been generally unpopular in Ireland, or at least the Irish Members have said they were. I do not think in those circumstances the duties of the collectors of Imperial revenue in Irelanl would be made easier by what I may describe as an unsympathetic attitude of the Irish Government and of the officials of all grades in the Irish service. But take a more difficult case still. The time may come—it is somewhat long delayed—when the question of local taxation in Great Britain will really be taken in hand by the Government. The cries of the ratepayers may induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day to propose some aid to local rate-
530
payers from taxation. But the services which will most require aid in England and Scotland, such as education and highways, will, in Ireland, be Irish services, the whole cost of which would, under this Bill, be borne from Irish sources. Supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer tries to levy an Imperial tax on Ireland to aid these British service. At once you have an Irish grievance. Money is to be levied for a purpose from which Ireland would get nothing at all. At once you have a demand for a subsidy from Imperial sources for Ireland and a return to that system from which you profess that this Bill will deliver us, or else you complicate the financial arrangements of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer and compel him so to raise his aid for local taxation as to impose it solely on Great Britain.
I could go on for the rest of the evening suggesting cases in which there would be friction and difficulties of this kind between the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain; but I think there can be no doubt in the mind of any one that this Bill absolutely provides opportunities for such friction. How are they to be dealt with when they arise? There will be disputes, perhaps, not only between the officials but between the two Houses of Commons on the subject. Are these to be settled by that remarkable tribunal, a Board of Exchequer? Consider the questions that Board will have to decide—what is the cost to the Exchequer of Irish services at the time of the passing of the Act; what is true Irish revenue; what is or is likely to be the cost of a transferred service; whether a tax imposed by the Irish Parliament is substantially the same as an Imperial tax; whether it is a protective tax or not; what are its proceeds as distinguished from the proceeds of an Imperial tax of which it may form a part; what is the loss to the Imperial Exchequer by the retention or discontinuance of an Imperial tax by the Irish Parliament; and lastly, when the true Irish revenue exceeds the cost of Irish services, and the time has arrived for revising the financial provisions of the Act. Those are all questions of the utmost importance as between the two Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland. They will give rise to endless differences of opinion.

531
What is the Board which is to decide those matters? It has no staff; it has no office; it has no salaries; it does not even get the pay of a Member of the House of Commons. It is composed of two Irish Treasury clerks, who will vote according to the ideas of the Irish Treasury; of two British Treasury clerks, who, of course, will vote precisely in the opposite direction, and of whom we were told in another place that they will be under the direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day; and the chairman is to be some important person, but where he can come from I do not know. He cannot come from either Great Britain or Ireland if he is to be accepted as impartial by either country. I would suggest for the consideration of His Majesty's Government that he might be taken from the Isle of Man. Now, it is really proposed that such a Board as this is to be the arbiter of finance to two democratic Assemblies like the British House of Commons and the Irish House of Commons. Can any one for a moment suppose that either House will accept its decision as satisfactory, even if aided by the legal guidance of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? Why, all these matters, and numberless others, will be fought out again both in Dublin and at Westminster. And here again you will have not a decreased burden from Ireland to the House of Commons, but an increase of friction and an increase of debate. That is the effect of the whole of this Bill.
There are, I know very well, difficulties in the government of Ireland; but these difficulties to my mind will be largely increased by such a measure as that which is now before your Lordships' House. I think this measure is framed, not to work, but to pass. Its working is in the future should it become law. Its working depends, not on the will of His Majesty's present advisers, but on the use which may be made of it by politicians in Ireland; and of this I am quite certain, that Mr. Redmond and his friends would never have agreed to such a measure as this if they were not certain that, through the leverage of the Irish Parliament and the forty-two Irish Members at Westminster, they could convert it in the future into any form they desire. If I could for a moment put myself into the place of the noble Marquess opposite, if I could really believe that the institution of a Parliament in Dublin and a Government responsible to it were not only advisable but
532
necessary for Ireland, then I will frankly say that I should vote against this Bill. What I would vote for in that case is the arrangement that was suggested by the Committee whose advice the Government absolutely neglected. That Committee, at any rate, recommended a system which gave a clear-cut division between Imperial and Irish finance. It provided that Ireland should levy its own taxation, depend upon its own taxation, and spend its taxation as it chose. It took away Irish Members from the Imperial Parliament, in accordance with what I believe still is the opinion of the noble Viscount opposite, and finally, by a fixed grant automatically coining to an end it did give real relief to the British taxpayer in the future from any further demands from Ireland. I do not say there were no objections to that proposal. Of course, there were grave objections to it, but in regard to one objection, the institution of Customs Houses between the two kingdoms, I do not believe the scheme of this Bill will get rid of the evil one whit more than the scheme proposed by the Committee. But I cannot put myself into the place of the noble Marquess. I do not believe in the wisdom or the necessity of establishing a separate Parliament and Government for Ireland.
The noble Marquess last night warned us in solemn accents of the trouble that might ensue among the majority of the population of Ireland from disappointment and resentment if this Bill were destroyed. He used words which, if they had been used by Lord Londonderry, would have been denounced in every Radical newspaper as an incitement to rebellion. I was not frightened by those words. I heard them in 1886, and I know that by resolute government for a short time fears of that sort may be rapidly put to an end. Nor can I believe that they were really felt by His Majesty's present advisers. If they were, is it possible that between 1905 and 1910 they would have dropped Home Rule absolutely from the Liberal programme? I believe that the meaning of the demand for Home Rule and its extent has changed materially during the last twenty years. Forty years ago in the minds of not a few of the population of Ireland Home Rule meant a separate national existence, and by the very fact that they have introduced this Bill as a remedy His Majesty's advisers show that

533
in their own opinion it is now nothing of the kind. Home Rule then became, in the time of Mr. Isaac Butt and his followers, a demand for a separate Parliament and a Ministry responsible to it, but with much larger powers than the present Bill gives. I believe that the meaning of Home Rule in, Ireland has now still further changed. I think it has long been little more than a feeling that Irish affairs have been somewhat neglected by the Imperial Parliament. Only last night the noble Marquess himself showed how little justification there is for such a feeling now. He told us of increasing prosperity in Ireland, and of the measures passed by both political Parties in this country which had in many parts of Ireland turned poverty into prosperity, and he told us that many of these measures were part of the Nationalist programme. No one can deny that during that period the Parliament of this, country has dealt with Ireland according to her needs and has recognised that her needs and requests are not necessarily the same as our own.
If I were asked what I would do my suggestion would be to pursue the same policy patiently, and further to extend the principle of popular local government which is embodied in the Irish Local Government Act of 1898 in the direction suggested, I think, by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches last night (Earl Grey) possibly through provincial councils or agencies of the kind, but at all events by the substitution of popularly-elected authorities for the boards in Ireland—now anachronisms—to which so much of the local administration of the country is entrusted. I think such councils might have no small powers of local administration awl legislation such as is entrusted to Scotland with regard to Private Bill legislation. I think that if the Parliament of this country steadily pursued that policy any desire in Ireland for a separate Parliament and a separate Government responsible to it would soon be a mere survival of the past.
This Bill no doubt comes to us supported by large majorities in the House of Commons, but to what are those majorities due? To the suppression of free debate. I know something of the House of Commons, and I am convinced that if there had been the same opportunity for
534
free discussion of this Bill in the House of Commons as was given to Mr. Gladstone's Bill in 1886 this Bill would never have come to us in its present shape, if indeed it had come to us at all. Why has that free debate been suppressed? Not because the House of Commons was pressed with work, but because Ministers wished to take an unfair advantage of the Parliament Act and overloaded the session with three great measures, one of which has now, I am glad to say, happily disappeared. A Bill passed in this way through the House of Commons cannot be regarded as the deliberate expression of the mind and judgment of that House, It has no authority except that of the Cabinet and the Irish Nationalist Party which support it. I venture to say that if a Bill so framed, resting on no better authority than that, and relating to a subject of infinite importance to the United Kingdom and the Empire, is forced on the Statute Book without the express consent of the constituencies, the responsibility for any trouble and disaster which will follow must rest with the Government alone.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just resumed his seat has rendered this House one service as to the value of which we should all agree. This House has a high reputation for the power which it occasionally exhibits in debate, and the noble Viscount to-night has nobly sustained that reputation. His great power as a debater, his high reputation as a financier, and the weight he carries as one of the advisers of the nation all combine to make his speech a powerful one. Into what he said about the Parliament Act and procedure I do not propose to enter, but the noble Viscount indicated at the end of a stream of destructive criticism a constructive element which was in his mind. He told us what his policy with regard to Ireland was, and for a moment seemed to associate himself in some particular way with the speech delivered by Earl Grey last night, but only for a moment, for a speech more destructive of Earl Grey's ideas I cannot conceive. The noble Viscount would have none of Home Rule in a general sense, but was prepared to go this length. He was actually sanguine of what would be the result if we continued to pursue the policy which the Unionist Party have hitherto pursued, and to develop the policy of the Local Government Act,

535
with the addition of something in the direction of what Earl Grey indicated. I am far from sanguine, and am not prepared to say what would be the result.
I sat, as the noble Viscount did, in the Parliament of 1886 which threw out the Home Rule Bill of that year, and I sat through the Parliament of 1893, when again a Home Rule Bill was destroyed. We have now reached a third stage; but, during the long interval that has elapsed between, this is certain, I have witnessed the fortunes of the political Party with which I am associated ebb and flow, and have seen them very low and remain so for a long time. Liberalism was not in favour in the country; but one thing affected me, and that was the intensity of the devotion with which four-fifths of the people of Ireland waited during that period for Home Rule, and if your Lordships think any particular plan like that foreshadowed by the noble Viscount will be successful I have the strongest conviction that it is the vainest ideal. We listened last night to the speeches of Earl Grey and the Earl of Dunraven. Both adopted a different attitude from that indicated in the speech to which we have just listened. Both believed in a large measure of self-government, and both insisted that the time had come when it must be recognised that the policy of the Unionist Party had become a hopeless policy. Earl Grey, in an eloquent speech inspired by that noble tone which we all appreciated although we may have disagreed with his argument, spoke of his desire that this question should be settled by national consent, and I wish I could believe that prospect was near at hand. It is a prospect of which we should not allow ourselves to despair. He spoke of Ulster, and suggested that the North-East of Ulster might be made into a province akin to the provinces of Canada, and should be given a Constitution something akin to those provinces, and so put on a federal basis with the rest of Ireland.
I have not Lord Grey's advantage of a great knowledge at first hand of Canada, but I have some knowledge of it. I have also, like him, had a great deal to do with the Canadian Constitution, and for an even longer period. For thirty years—most of that time spent at the liar and latterly as a Judge—I have had constantly under examination and investigation the inter-
536
pretation of that Constitution, and I wish to point out why the idea which the noble Earl has put before us is an idea which on the face of it will not work. The Constitution of Canada has succeeded because of its vast territory and the immense resources which have given rise to wealthy men in most parts of the country and especially to the possibility of direct taxation. The result was that it has been possible for the provinces in Canada to go for their support to direct taxation alone. The Dominion Government has great powers of legislation affecting the provinces; but direct taxation is left to the provinces; and the provinces have no power to go beyond direct taxation. If they tried to raise a penny by indirect taxation their act would be invalid, as being ultra tires. Apply that to Ireland. Ireland is not a rich country; on the contrary, it is a very poor country so far as the number of rich men is concerned. In a country like that taxation must necessarily be in the main indirect. We have actual estimates upon that subject. The whole direct taxation of Ireland does not amount to more than £1,000,000; it could not be made more than £4,000,000, while the cost of the Irish services alone, excluding the transferred services and the deficit, amount to £7,000,000. How would it be possible to set up the analogy of provincial government, which implies direct taxation? How would it be possible to apply it to the circumstances of Ireland? The thing is out of the question; and although we considered among many other things the Canadian system in the fashioning of this Bill, we were bound for that reason to reject the idea.
The matter does not stop there. The noble Earl seemed to suggest that the relations of the provinces of Canada to the Dominion formed some precedent which might be profitably studied as regards the relations of the Irish Legislature to the Imperial Parliament. But if the Dominion Parliament by its legislation trenches upon subjects which belong to the provincial Parliaments it at once finds its legislation invalid as being ultra vires, and its Acts have been set aside scores of times. Such a position we could not tolerate for a moment. I ask your Lordships to observe that under this Bill there is no such thing possible as an ultra vures act on the part of the Imperial Parliament.

537
Its legislative power, its supremacy, its legal efficacy are preserved in express terms, and it remains, as it is meant to be, a supreme Parliament. It is proposed only to hand over certain legislative powers to be exercised locally.
If you cannot legislate for Ulster on the analogy of the provincial Parliament, what can you do? A second proposition that has been made by other speakers is that you should leave Ulster alone. I wonder if any one who listened carefully to the speech of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal in moving this Bill could have failed to realise how impossible that is. It is a point which has not, I think, received sufficient attention. My noble friend pointed out that the legislation of Ireland is 'wholly different from the legislation of this country. Under the Land Act you have got a wholly different system from anything with which we are familiar. Certainly the laud question in the rural parts of Ulster is not less acute and not less different from our own system than is the land system in other parts of Ireland. If the question were mainly that of the land, there would be no more intense Nationalists than the men of Ulster, because of their views about the land. You have a special Court which has to administer the Land Acts. Supposing, you take Ulster out of the purview of this Bill. Suppose you were to put Ulster under the British Government, what would be the consequences? You could not set up in a small part of Ireland the whole of that expensive machinery. I am not speaking of the land alone, but of local government, education, the Congested Districts Board, and all the vast congeries of subjects that present very little analogy to what we are familiar with here, and which are administered by a wholly different executive and in a wholly different fashion. We might put Ulster in England or make it a part of Scotland, but I venture to say it would be useless, and I therefore dismiss the notion from my mind.
I come now to a question which brings me nearer to the general plan of this Bill. Why should we refuse to grant Home Rule to Ireland because of the objection which Ulster has to a change in the system? It is always difficult to prefer the interests of a part to the interests of the whole. I respect thoroughly the feelings that I know many men in Ulster and many of your
538
Lordships have upon this subject. I realise the intensity of those feelings, but I have a strong impression that they depend upon a too contracted view of history in this matter. The objections of Ulster have not always been the objections of Ulster. Ireland had its legislative institutions since the days of the Plantagenets. She had two Chambers—Lords and Commons, and although it is true that under Poynings' Act, and under the Act of George I, which gave rise to even greater feeling in Ireland, the powers of the Legislature in Ireland were subjected to those of the British Legislature, Ireland had always enjoyed its own Legislature clown to the time of Grattan's Parliament. When the agitation arose about Grattan's Parliament it arose because it was considered that the British Government had treated Ireland badly, that the legislative power of the British Government had been exercised to injure Ireland in the matter of her woollen trade, her shipping, and her coinage. Why did the agitation for Grattan's Parliament become so acute? It was the outcome of the work of those volunteers who owed their origin largely to Ulster. Ulster was in the very forefront in the agitation which took place for the change which was made in 1782. The intense feeling which has arisen in parts of Ulster about this Bill is a growth of comparatively recent times. It has arisen during the nineteenth century; it has become intensified during the last sixty years, and the measure of its rise is the rise of the religious question. I am not a believer in the theory of separation on the ground of religious feeling alone. I believe that these troubles will pass away. I am led to the conclusion that, at least as regards Ulster, we have no right to assume that the objection is a permanent one, or one which should be allowed to stand against the proposals in this Bill.
Why is this Bill essential? It is essential on two grounds. The first of them is one which has been touched upon by the noble Viscount, but I must touch upon it from a different point of view. He spoke of the Report of the Primrose Committee. That was a very remarkable Committee and a very remarkable Report. That Report pointed out that there was a situation of the utmost gravity that was arising with regard to Irish finance under the existing system, and that nothing short of radical treatment would be sufficient to deal with

539
it. The Primrose Committee advocated conclusions which seemed to imply treatment so drastic that we did not feel ourselves at liberty to deal with them. Nothing short of Colonial Home Rule would have met satisfactorily the recommendations of that Report. Again, the Committee in their financial estimates hardly took into account certain increases in the charge of this country for the benefit of Ireland which were imminent; and we felt that they had underestimated what we should have to pay under the system they supported, and yet the grave reasons they alleged for their drastic demand remained. They pointed to the change which had taken place within the last fifteen years. Fifteen years ago income and expenditure in Ireland more than balanced, but since that time, while Irish revenue has gone up by 28 per cent., Irish expenditure has gone up by no less than 91 per cent. They pointed out that the cost of the Post Office had gone up by 74 per cent., a change that was not justified by the circumstances of the country. If that be so, then there is something wrong, and the Committee traced the evil to the fact that Ireland is in political partnership with a nation which is increasing rapidly in wealth and prosperity and is reaching a standard of living far in excess of anything that Ireland could hope to keep up, unless she was to maintain the position of a mere pampered dependant looking for sustenance and maintenance to the rich country with which she was associated. That is a position which has been repudiated by a vast majority of the people of Ireland, and, I think, repudiated in a way that does them credit. It is humiliating to preserve a dependent position, and you have the voice of Ireland declaring in most unmistakable terms that she would rather face the situation as she can with freedom than remain in the shackled, the increasingly shackled, position to which this state of things condemns her.
There is another reason why the situation cannot remain as it is, and that is the situation in this country. The noble Viscount referred to the state of business in the House of Commons and the little time that could be found for the discussion of this Bill, as though that was something casual and in the power of the Government to alter. If you look back at the legislation of the last twenty years, you find that phenomenon constantly occurring. In
540
Parliament we have a congested centre where Members not only discuss Imperial affairs, but find it convenient to discuss local affairs also. Some remedy is necessary if the Imperial Parliament is to continue to discharge its functions, and it is because of the recognition of that we have thought it right to frame our Bill on a footing which gives a chance of devolution not only in the case of Ireland but—it may be in different forms and in varying shapes—to other parts of the United Kingdom.
I think my noble friend Lord Grey in his speech last night was rather led away by words as distinguished from things. He laid hold of the expression "national," as used by my noble friend who leads the House. No doubt there must be an element of what is national if you are to satisfy a nation, but there is no inconsistency between nationalism and what he means by federalism, if you mean by federalism the devolution to a nation within the ambit of a sovereign Parliament of as complete control over its own affairs as you can give it. You may do it under this Bill, and apply it, with such variations as may be necessary, to other parts of the United Kingdom until you get an Imperial Parliament which is free to deal with Imperial matters. The theory of the Bill is this—devolution, retaining Imperial supremacy over the Legislature, over the Executive, and over the Judiciary.
Under this Bill you have true devolution as distinguished from true federation. I do not like names in describing Bills. I would rather not use the word devolution at all, but one must have some expression to distinguish devolution from federation. The best example of federation is the United States Constitution. You will see how radically this Bill differs from that. The United States Federal Parliament cannot interfere with the jurisdiction of the State Legislature. If it does, its legislation is at once declared invalid by the Supreme Tribunal; nor can the Federal Judiciary interfere with the decision of a State Judge. There is not interference of any sort or kind. The relation is that of co-ordination, which is the basis of federalism, and we felt that that was something quite impossible and not to be looked for in a Constitution such as we were seeking to set up in Ireland, and which might form a model for setting up similar Constitutions in

541
other parts of the United Kingdom. What makes Imperial legislative supremacy certain under this Bill is that every British Statute is intra vires and cannot be changed on the ground that it is ultra vires, and the power of the Imperial Parliament remains by express declaration unimpaired. The proposition that you cannot interfere when once you devolve is one which must be taken with qualifications. If you have successfully devolved to a local Legislature and things are working well, you attain the object at which you are aiming, and you do not require or desire to interfere. In that sense de facto supremacy is diminished. But if, on the other hand, things do not go well, and there are Acts which have to be vetoed and executive dealings to be controlled, those powers of control remain intact and can be put into operation.
The noble Viscount spoke of the forty-two Irish Members in the Imperial House of Commons as agents to make raids on the British Treasury. Whatever may be their tendency they will be here for a totally different purpose and a vital and necessary purpose—to give reality to and to maintain the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, which is to remain the Imperial Parliament not less after this Bill is passed than before it comes into operation. As far as legislation is concerned there is not only the power of veto but another very real power, and that is the power of the Judicial Committee which is authorised and entrusted with the duty of considering the validity of legislation even in advance of Bills becoming law. That is a new power in this country, but very familiar in connection with the Canadian Constitution. As regards the executive supremacy, the peculiarity of this Bill is that tae Irish Executive is a statutory Executive. It cannot go beyond the provisions laid clown in the Statute. The Viceroy holds his office as a non-party official representing the Crown, and not any political Party in the State. All federal powers and those not delegated remain in the Crown and are subject to Imperial direction. In that respect the Bill makes a great advance in the skill of constitutionalists over the Bills of 1886 and 1893.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Are directions given to the Irish Executive what they are to do?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly; express powers are mined in the Bill.
LORD ASHBOURNE: It is not generally known.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is in the very forefront of the Bill. Then, my Lords, the advantage you get froth that is that the two Executives are interlaced and one has to rely on the other, and a good thing it is. The Irish Sheriffs who execute the orders of the Courts will have to rely for some years at least upon the Royal Irish Constabulary, which is an Imperial force. The Irish Legislature, in gathering its taxes, will have to rely on the Imperial tax-collector; and so far from taking the somewhat gloomy view which I think suggests itself to the noble Viscount over that arrangement, I take a hopeful and a sanguine view. I believe they will come together and that they will have this analogy at least to carry them, that as the interlacing of legislative and executive power has worked well between the Dominion and the provinces so it has every chance of working well here under the provisions of this Bill. The judiciary is again under the ultimate Imperial control because the power of appeal is greatly extended beyond what it is at present to this House on its Judicial side, and these extended appeals are so possible that every question of importance can be taken to the Judicial Committee which will sit as an Imperial Tribunal and review the judgments of the Courts below. It is essential that this part of the Bill should be understood.
Now I wish to address myself to the specific topic of finance. With a measure devised such as this, what form of financial arrangement is possible? It is perfectly plain that you must, in the first place, deal with the situation as you find it. What is the situation here? All the taxes levied in Ireland are Imperial, and they are levied by the Imperial Parliament. There is no other Parliament to levy them. Therefore the Bill starts off by doing this. It sets up an Irish Exchequer, and it sets up a very important body—the Exchequer Board, which has very material functions. The cost of those services which are Irish—that is to say, the general services of Irish Government apart from the reserved services such as old-age pensions, national insurance, the Land Acts, Constabulary,

543
and so on—is ascertained at the time the Bill comes into operation by the Exchequer Board, and their cost is made a charge upon the entire revenue of Ireland and the United Kingdom. In other words, they are charged on the Consolidated Fund. What will happen under the system the Bill sets up would be this—that all Irish taxes will have to be paid into the Imperial Exchequer; that out of the Imperial Exchequer there will be paid the Transferred Sum, which will consist of three elements: the amount of money which represents the cost at the time of the measure coming into operation of these Irish services to which I have referred, the addition which is made in order to give Ireland a surplus with which to work—beginning at £500,000 a year and diminishing after three years by £50,000 a year until it reaches £200,000 a year—and in the third place what the Exchequer Board certifies to be the amount of Irish taxes collected by the Irish Legislature, gathered for them through the Imperial tax-gatherer, paid into the Exchequer, and then the amount paid out to the Irish Exchequer. That is necessitated because the Imperial tax-gatherer collects these taxes; they go into the general Exchequer, and on the Consolidated Fund of the general Exchequer there is charged this Transferred Sum which includes the three elements of which I spoke.
Observe the great advantage that that gives Ireland, at any rate at the start off. The Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will have a guaranteed revenue sufficient to meet his Irish services as they exist to-day, and they are fairly expensive to-day, with a surplus which is added to enable him to have a margin. The other taxes stand in this fashion. The balance of the Imperial taxes go likewise into the Imperial Exchequer, but when they are there they do not nearly amount to what is necessary to make ends meet in Ireland. So far as the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, he is secure and safe, but that £1,500,000 deficit, which is the estimated deficit for the year we are entering upon, plus the margin of surplus, will have to be provided for out of the surplus of Irish revenue, and, as to the rest of the deficiency, it will be made up, for a long time at all events, out of the Imperial Revenue. The position is shortly this. We found ourselves in view of the Report of the Primrose Committee and our own investigations, face to
544
face with one of the most serious financial situations that it was possible to realise—a, situation which tended to get worse rather than better. The legislation which has been passed, and other legislation for which the Party to which the noble Viscount belongs is directly responsible, has done a great deal to create the financial situation to-day.
I am sure that it will be generally agreed that the state of Ireland to-day is very much better than it was twenty years ago. If we have spent money we have spent it wisely. We are face to face with a condition of things in which it is well to spend more; but, we have secured this, that at least we put some limit to the loss. The noble Viscount asked what prospect there is of the deficit ever being wiped out. I think there is a very considerable prospect having regard to the improved circumstances of Ireland. Of late years the revenue of Ireland has increased by something like £200,000 a year. That does not seem a large amount when you have to multiply it by twenty-five to get any analogy between the revenues of Ireland and the revenues of the United Kingdom. Although it would be sanguine to expect that that amount will be maintained during all the years which are ahead, I think there is no reason to despair. By that means and others which the Bill provides it is possible to look forward to a time when Irish revenue and expenditure will balance. If things work well, we shall desire, when the time for the revision of the financial relations comes, to give Ireland further control over her own financial affairs; if things do not work well we shall remain masters in our own house and the matter will have to be one of settlement by mutual consent.
The present cost of Irish services is estimated at something like £7,000,000, and the cost of the reserved services for which the United Kingdom will pay under this Bill is £5,000,000. To-day we are paying nearly £12,500,000 and receiving from Ireland only £11,000,000. Under the financial provisions of this Bill we shall do precisely the same thing until the time for revision comes, and the only additional payment we make wilt be for the surplus, which will come down to £200,000 a year. The noble Viscount said that was too small a surplus to enable an Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer to turn round, and that he would require much more to meet the various

545
demands made upon kiln in Ireland. There are no doubt people who have extravagant expectations as to the financial result. I believe, however, that you will have Irishmen able to direct their attention to Irish matters with a standard of administration and economy which is not the standard in England. Practically now the standard in Ireland is that which obtains in England. Irish matters are not discussed in detail in the House of Commons. We have got out of our obligation by saying, "You shall have whatever we do." That a monstrous system if a nation is ever to look forward to having its own financial independence.
If a nation is to look forward to having financial independence you cannot do it a greater injury than to get these ideas into the heads of Ministers and people: and if this Bill does nothing else it will do great good if it puts it into the head of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer that Irish standards and not English standards must regulate his expenditure. On the Estimates in imposing taxes and in the exercise of the powers to make adjustments, he will have large scope within which to model his expenditure as he pleases. The financial machinery of the Bill is directed entirely to the management of the finances of a Parliament winch exists by devolution and on a footing under which some functions, at all events, will be left to be performed by the Imperial Parliament. I do not think we should have done better if we hail followed the recommendations of the Primrose Committee, nor do I think that the deficit of £2,000,000 is likely to be exceeded. There however, no limit to the amount which this country is likely to have to pay if the standard of social reform rises in this country and you want to apply it to Ireland without reference to Irish requirements. There are certainly some things which will come down. The cost of old-age pensions will begin to diminish substantially; there will be certain charges in connection with the Land Acts; and the time will come when the Irish Parliament, desiring, as it will do, to make ends meet, if only for the purpose of getting its own affairs more into its own hands, will strain every nerve and make every effort to secure economical administration, and we have provided in the Bill machinery which will enable them to take that course. Such difficulties as may arise we can contemplate with equanimity.
546
The truth is that the machinery provided under this Bill is much more precise than that contemplated in the Bill of 1886 or that of 1893, when the Bill was altered and the financial relations between the two countries underwent a change. It is possible to make every sort of criticism on a measure of this kind if your belief is that nothing of the sort could work, if von believe that Ireland will mismanage her affairs. If you believe that the Irish people will use anything given them as a measure to extort further concessions and to give further trouble, then no defence of the Bill in detail, no attempt to justify its provisions, can make any impression. I despair of converting your Lordships to my own point of view, but dealing with the matter on the footing on which the noble Viscount dealt with it and taking the provisions as they stand by themselves, I say that the Bill represents a carefully-considered endeavour to devise machinery which should work with the minimum amount of possible friction.
The system is a new one, but it is a necessary system, if you are to make the advance that many of us have in view. In his eloquent speech last night Earl Grey spoke of the future. He spoke of a Parliament free from the congestion of business that exists at the present time. I share Lord Grey's aspirations. I look forward to the time when we shall see the Imperial Parliament free from the weight which bears it down to-day, which is destroying its great reputation, and causing something of a scandal, in that we cannot discuss in any adequate degree the most important affairs of the world. Foreign policy, Imperial policy, the state of things that concern defence, and all the matters that go to our very existence as a nation, and the pride of our place among the great peoples of the earth are not being considered by Parliament as they should be, because we have not the time, but are borne down by this great press of business which ought to be disposed of. It is said that the Government of the day controls Parliament and moves the Legislature to its purpose. I think that is an imperfect diagnosis. What is true is that, owing to the impossibility of getting legislative business properly considered in Parliament, there has been on a vast scale delegation by Orders in Council, Provisional Orders, Departmental Committees and other methods, of what is in the legislative power

547
and capacity of the Executive of the country. I think it is a great evil that the changes in the law which are made nearly every week should take place without that scrutiny and debate to which they are entitled in Parliament. It is true that Parliament is, and will be, unable to deal with these things until you assume a different attitude altogether to that which is prevalent in the minds of the great majority of this House with regard to this Bill. Somehow or another we have to deal with this question. This Bill represents an attempt—the first attempt—in that direction, and it is because it is an attempt which, if carried, would make possible still further progress in the same direction that I commend it to your Lordships.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: Your Lordships can well understand the hesitation with which one of the Spiritual Lords of Parliament enters upon a discussion of a question on which Party divisions are so clearly marked. Few votes, I suppose, are more closely scrutinised and few more strongly criticised on one side or the other. But there are matters, I think, outside the limits of the concerns of the Church and the social and moral condition of the people affecting, and profoundly affecting, the history and welfare of the whole nation on which, perhaps, we may without presumption say what we think. I have, indeed, no right to speak for any of those who sit on the Benches behind me. Some of them take a very different line, but I hope that what I have to say may be found to express the opinions of a very large number of fair-minded citizens of this country elsewhere. I have neither the wish nor the competence to follow the noble Lords who have just spoken in such extremely able and important attack and defence on the actual provisions of this Bill. I desire rather to call the attention of the House to one of those broader and simpler issues upon which, after all, our judgment must depend, and which are apt sometimes to be obscured by discussions of details however necessary and important these are.
Let me say at the outset that I approach this question with a strong bias in favour of some measure of self-government for Ireland. I think that there are few of us who can deny that there is a real and
548
an urgent Irish problem or believes that we are likely to advance towards its solution by merely repeating, "We will not have Home Rule." Nor do I think that it is sufficient to have a policy, however generous, of promoting the economic welfare of Ireland. I cannot resist much of what was urged with so much eloquence by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack—that some recognition must be found for the persistent and sustained desire of the majority of the Irish people to have some liberty to manage their own affairs in their own way. I will go further, and agree with what has been said on both sides, that some measure of Home Rule is necessary not only to meet the needs of Ireland but to meet the needs of the Imperial Parliament. We agree that the burden of business laid on the House of Commons at the present time is too heavy for it to bear, but I cannot resist suggesting to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, if he will allow me to do so, that the evils of which he so eloquently complained might be mitigated by a little economy on the part of His Majesty's Government as to the number and character of the measures that they ask the House of Commons to accept. The chief remedy by which it is sought to relieve this congestion of business—the constant use of the guillotine and time-table—obviously only increases the evil, largely depriving the House of Commons of its functions as a deliberative Assembly and interfering not only with the deliberative but the administrative functions of the House. Is it too much to say that it partly explains the increase—as some people think, the sinister increase—of the power of the great administrative Departments? Nothing could be worse than that the House of Commons should lose its full control of public administration. I think we must also admit that the congestion of business does partly account for what must perhaps be described as the growing distrust among many people of the efficiency and importance of the House of Commons.
I agree strongly that the time has come, probably has come long ago, when the Imperial Parliament ought to be relieved by some system of delegation or devolution—words matter very little—by which the concerns of each component part of the United Kingdom can be considered and dealt with by local assemblies. I do not think that

549
we need be alarmed by the pictures drawn of the effect upon the unity of the Kingdom. Facts must be faced as they arise. Our central Government, which had its foundations in local government, has become somehow top heavy, and to conserve its own work and credit it must lay hold of the old foundations once again. Certainly nothing could be more fatal to the cause of the unity of the Kingdom than the failure of the Imperial Parliament to maintain its great functions of caring for the welfare, the defence, and the Imperial and international relations of the Empire as a whole. If, therefore, this Bill had been so constructed as to lead the way towards strengthening the Imperial Parliament by the growth of local Legislatures, I should have viewed it with the greatest sympathy, but I cannot but agree with what has been most ably said, that it seems rather to obstruct than prepare the way for such development.
The Bill contains provisions that could not possibly be extended to similar Legislatures in other parts of the United Kingdom, and those provisions affect not only those specially Irish questions to which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has rightly called attention, but the principles on which the measure of devolution is constructed. These financial provisions as to Customs and Excise and the public services, such as the Post Office, could not possibly be transferred to other bodies. Above all, and this goes to the root of the matter, I should have thought that in delegation on a large scale, consistent with the true supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, only those matters that were expressly defined should be delegated to the subordinate Legislature and that all the others should be reserved for the Imperial Parliament. This Bill is constructed on the opposite principle, and only those matters that are expressly defined are entrusted to the Imperial Parliament, and the rest are reserved for the Parliament in Ireland. I think it is surely obvious that if this Bill became law the Irish Parliament would have a position of distinction—one might say of privilege—in comparison with any other local Legislature that might be created. My own feeling, therefore, is that this Bill would be a block rather than a first step in the way of relief to the Imperial Parliament.
550
But I am well aware that, in view of the actual situation with which we are confronted, such remarks must appear almost abstract and academic. That situation is governed after all by one dominant factor. My desire is to recall the attention of the House to that central fact, which is, of course, the invincible repugnance of Ulster to this Bill. By Ulster, of course, I mean, as we all mean, a general expression to describe a body of our fellow-citizens in Ireland entitled to our respect by their loyalty, their character, their place in the life of Ireland, and their contribution to its prosperity. The very safeguards which are inserted in this Bill are a proof of their title to be heard with great respect. So far as I know, these safeguards are a quite unique feature in any scheme for the creation of a subordinate Legislature. They mark this problem to be one unique and unprecedented in its character. Moreover, the claims which are urged on behalf of the majority of the Irish people, which, as they were urged by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack command my own sympathy, find an echo in the claims of Ulster. I mean nationality, distinctive character, treasured history, deep and passionate desire. Lord Dunraven, in his speech last night, told us that the description of two nations in Ireland was a political fiction. I do not know how far that description of the noble Earl's would he endorsed by his fellow-citizens in the north-east part of Ireland.
Behind all these glowing periods used by the Prime Minister and Mr. Redmond there stands this figure of Ulster, grim, determined, menacing. It is the skeleton at the feast of these sanguine hopes. We may not like it. Frankly, I do not like it. It carries marks of religious and racial bitterness and suspicion. It uses language about disobedience to the law, which must provoke disquiet and dislike in the minds of all who care for the good government of the country. I am not competent, because I have not shared in the experience of the history of these Ulster people, to decide whether or not their fears are groundless. All these things seem to me to be somewhat beside the point. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has drawn the conclusion from history that the antagonism of Ulster need not be permanent. We all hope that it need not be permanent, but the point is that it is

551
present. It is here and now and real. It is there. No eloquence can exorcise it, no special pleading can evade it, and I would venture to add, no true statesmanship can ignore it.
I used to consider that this attitude of Ulster was something of a scarecrow, made up of old and out-worn prejudices, phrases, and traditions. I have sometimes been tempted to use the language of good-natured banter used by Lord Ribblesdale last night about this parade of marchings and counter-marchings, and the like, but I cannot resist the evidence of men who are in close touch with these people of Ulster, men whose judgment and fair-mindedness I respect, who assure me that they are, of all men, the least likely to be drunk with the wine of words, that they are men who, of all other men, mean and do what they say. And I would like respectfully to ask His Majesty's Government whether they in their heart of hearts do really think that this attitude of Ulster is mere bluff, and that it does not represent a most serious and most imminent problem. If this be true, if Ulster means to do what it says, then the results are certainly such as no citizen can contemplate without grave concern. It would be wasting your Lordships' time to dwell in any detail upon these possibilities, and it is hard to avoid the appearance of exaggerated language. But, surely the most moderate of us must at least admit that it would mean an administrative strain which would force into flames the embers of racial and religious bitterness.
It might mean—God forbid that it should—actual bloodshed. If so, on whatever scale it was, it would send a current of shame and indignation running through the whole country, and if Ulster takes to blows they may be very easily resisted, but they will shatter all those hopes of a united Ireland upon which the noble and learned Viscount has discoursed most eloquently, and they would create another of those tragic memories which have clone so much in the past to darken and embitter the history of Ireland. This is the risk—I would not put it as more—which we are running. In view of it, I confess that a good deal of the discussion which passed here yesterday, though to a less extent to-day, seems somewhat unreal. This is a risk which cannot be forgotten, which cannot be fenced, which must be faced.
552
I admit, every one must admit, that there are circumstances in which a Government is entitled and bound to run this kind of risk. At the present time I think we all feel that there is a call upon Governments to stiffen rather than to slacken their determination in the presence of threats of disobedience or disorder. I will go further and admit that there is one condition which would justify in my mind His Majesty's Government in running the risk of the forcible coercion of Ulster. That condition is that they should have received from the people of this country an authority, clear and explicit, to undertake that risk. Has that condition been satisfied? That is the question which troubles me, honestly anxious to look at this matter from a fair and impartial point of view. Was it met by the proceedings of the last General Election? It is perfectly true that the Prime Minister gave notice that if his Party were returned to power they would be free to raise again the question of Home Rule, but there is a great difference between the abstract question of Home Rule and a concrete Home Rule Bill. Even so, the question was no sooner raised than it was rather put into the background by the Prime Minister himself and most of his followers. In any case the force, reality, and the gravity of the attitude of Ulster was not before the minds and imaginations of the people at the last election. Has the condition been satisfied in any since then? I have no skill in the analysis of the results of by-elections, but my impression is that in by-elections since there has been much more of Food Taxes and the Insurance Act than of Home Rule.
The truth is—I think it is a significant and rather painful truth—that the people can scarcely be brought at the present time to take serious interest in the proceedings of the House of Commons. There are no doubt many reasons. One of them, I believe, certainly is that an increasing number of people are much more profoundly interested in questions that concern their social and industrial welfare than they are in questions of a more exclusively political kind. But I think there is another. It is the effect, not wholly unforeseen, of the Parliament Act, under which the country is at present governed. For the first three years of a Parliament's life we are seeing that great measures will he crowded on the stage. Already—no

553
wonder the Lord Chancellor complained of the business the House of Commons has to get through—National Insurance, Home Rule, Disestablishment and Disestablishment in Wales, extension of the franchise, these great measures are hurried across the stage by every device that the stage manager can command. The leading actors appear to be perplexed and mechanical in the rendering of their parts; the supers—I hope private Members will not resent such a description—are obviously bewildered. They are merely moved automatically about through the wings and the Lobbies. But what about the spectators, the people of the country? I think many of them give up, unconsciously, the attempt to understand the play, and console themselves with the reflection that there is an interval of two years between the acts. Honestly I do not believe that this is au exaggerated picture. Those of as who do not mingle very constantly with politicians cannot but be conscious of a growing apathy in the public mind in regard to the momentous measures which are presented to Parliament. It is an apathy to which the most rev. Prelate behind me called striking attention not long ago in an address which was widely circulated. The public mind cannot take in measures that are introduced with such bewildering rapidity. They come to feel that they will go through automatically and the y honestly do not follow the debates or realise the great issues that are at stake.
I apologise for this digression, though the matter is serious enough. But its object has been to enforce the question—Have the people, with full knowledge of the issues involved, authorised the Government to undertake the risk of coercing Ulster? If not, ought that risk to be run until the necessary authority has been received? It may be said, What difference would be created in the attitude of Ulster if a General Election resulted in a majority for the Government? I think the difference would be very great. In the first place, so far as I understand it, the resistance of Ulster at the present time is due not so much to the attitude of the people of this country as to what they regard, rightly or wrongly, as a conspiracy between a Government protected by the provisions of the Parliament Act and the Nationalist Members in the House of Commons. I am not for a moment saying it is a just criticism; but remove that
554
suspicion and the position of Ulster must be profoundly modified.
In the second place, what is more important is that the serious resistance of Ulster would be futile without the moral support of at least one of the great Parties of this country, and may I recall your Lordships to the remarkable exchange of challenge and response which passed across the floor of the House of Commons recently between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister asked, Would the Opposition continue their support to Ulster if a General Election resulted in an endorsement of the Home Rule Bill? The Leader of the Opposition replied that they would not. I do not suppose that the question was lightly put or that the answer was lightly given. It certainly seems to increase the responsibility of a Government in withholding from the people their chance of deciding, with full knowledge of the facts as they are and of the consequences as they will be, whether or not the resistance of Ulster, if need be, will be forcibly set aside. The question, then, which I would respectfully put to His Majesty's Government is—and I think without presumption I might say that behind this question there is a large bulk of thoughtful and independent citizens in this country—Will they undertake to refer this Bill before it becomes law to a General Election? If they will, then personally I should be most willing to vote for its Second Reading; if not, I do not see what alternative the House has but to vote against the Second Reading. That seems to me, in the grave and imminent circumstances, to be almost the only course that any Second Chamber of independence would adopt. It is true that we are no longer able directly to refer this matter to the people, but at least we can give the people time to think, time to understand what is its stake, and we can submit this Bill to a period of delay during which the accidents and exigencies of politics may give to the people a chance not only of reflection but of decision.
I hope I have not said a word that exceeds the restraints which are rightly expected front those members of the House among whom I sit. I would not wish to close with a note of mere opposition. Personally I cannot but share with other noble Lords who have spoken, and notably the noble Earl, Lord Grey, the hope—perhaps it

555
would be more true to the facts to say indulge the dream—that both Parties might make an effort to approach this problem with a desire to settle it by conference and by consent. It cannot be ignored; it must be solved. I am willing to believe that the new language of the Nationalist Members in the House of Commons is due not to a mere political situation, but to a new spirit of reasonableness and moderation. I am certain that many people, even within the ranks of the Party of noble Lords opposite, look upon Home Rule now with eyes very different from those with which it was viewed, say, twenty years ago. It would indeed be a misfortune if Party divisions prevented the citizens of this country from looking the problem of Irish self-government fairly in the face, not as something at all costs to be set aside, but as something if possible to be settled, as it ought to be settled, for the common good. At least I can honestly say that there is no one, not even upon the Government Bench, who is more anxious than I am to see this problem justly and peaceably settled. Only I cannot persuade myself—I wish I could—that the policy of pressing this Bill through without further reference to the country is the road along which the fulfilment of these hopes and wishes can be found.
LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I do not propose to enter closely into the details of this Bill, much less to enter upon the grave financial and constitutional problems which have been so ably dealt with by preceding speakers. My chief wish is to point out the feeling which exists about this Bill and the whole question of Home Rule in my part of Ireland. It is often said that a new generation has sprung up since 1893, and that former opponents of Home Rule are becoming lukewarm in their opposition to it. I have been at a great deal of pains to ascertain the opinion of all classes in my part of the country, and I am convinced that that is an absolute fallacy. On the contrary, I am sure that many former supporters of Home Rule are now doubtful about it. As an instance of that I may tell your Lordships that a large farmer said to me only a few days ago, "Many are wavering, only they are afraid to let it be known publicly." That they should be afraid is not a matter of wonder to anybody who knows our country and remembers the influence that the United Irish League has and the obloquy, boycot-
556
tings, and possible outrage to which any opponent of it is likely to be exposed.
The most rev. Prelate asked just now, "What are you afraid of?" I put aside the religious aspect altogether. I think too much is made about that. We have always lived in our part of the world on perfectly good terms with our Roman Catholic countrymen, and I know many Roman Catholics who are as much opposed to Home Rule in any shape or form as any noble Lord in this House. But we look with apprehension on the threatened commotion that will be raised in other parts of Ireland, and we fear that a recoil from it may follow which would materially affect our lives and properties in the isolated position in which we are. Apart from this, even if all passes away quietly, we are afraid of two things especially under this Bill—over-taxation and increased agitation. The financial provisions of the Bill are so inadequate to the requirements of the Public Service, from what we have heard, that increased taxation appears inevitable. On what is it to fall? The noble Viscount spoke about a Land Tax being so unpopular among the farming class that it was not likely to be proposed. But the difficulty of raising money is so great that that is exactly what we are afraid of.
It must be remembered that, although a good many landowners have sold their property, there are still a considerable number who have not, and those who have sold parts of their estates still retain their demesnes and home farms, and in addition to those there are the large farmers and those who have purchased their holdings. It is the latter class to which a good many of those who have become lukewarm on Home Rule belong, for the good reason that they have now something to lose. There may be also ingenious modes of taxation invented to press especially on political opponents, leaving others comparatively free—the Super-Tax, increased Income Tax, and other burdens of the kind. There have been ominous hints held out that it will be remembered who were the friends and who were the opponents later on. In any case, the money will have to be got somewhere. We cannot believe in the promised economy in public expenditure. In the first place there are too many supporters of the Nationalist Party wino will be clamouring for what they look upon as an

557
Eldorado, a place under Government, and their wishes can only be fulfilled by either creating fresh posts or displacing the present holders of official positions by putting them on pension. In addition, there are the many projects which were spoken of by the noble Viscount—the nationalisation of railways, arterial drainage the encouragement of manufactures, and so on. Where is the money for all these things to come from? Undoubtedly the borrowing powers of the Irish Exchequer will be very limited if they no longer have the English Exchequer at their back We are also afraid, with good reason, of increased agitation.
We are assured by friends of the Bill that old days are going to be forgotten and all ancient animosities put aside, and that the millennium will come about under this Bill. But the land question still remains. There are many covetous eyes directed on the land that is still held by the owners and the large farms still existing, and so far from ceasing it is probable agitation will increase. Supposing an agitation of that kind arises, how can we hope for adequate protection from an Executive responsible to a Parliament elected under the direct influence of the United League and the Ancient Order of Hibernians? Speaking in the House of Commons in October last the right hon. gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said—
"I regard executive authority conferred upon this Irish Parliament, responsible to the Members of that House and country which elects them, as in my judgment one of the most important and indeed absolutely essential operations of the Home Rule Bill.
Therefore in the event of agitation we should have an Executive indifferent to our interests, if not absolutely hostile. We have had some experience of lenient dealing with agitation in past years and have suffered under it, but we prefer the temporary rule of King Log to the permanent rule of King Stork.
We have been told that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament will be maintained in the event of future legislation through the veto of the Lord Lieutenant. We are told that this will he a safeguard, but at the same time we are told by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons that it would seldom if ever be exercised. It is quite easy to understand that it would seldom be exercised; for how the unfor-
558
tunate Lord Lieutenant is to elect, whether he is to act under the instructions received from the Imperial Parliament or on the advice of his Irish Ministers has never been made clear. That it may not be required is another matter. It is rather hard for us to imagine that the Irish Parliament on its election soil I have arrived at such a pitch of sinless perfection and infallibility that they will never do anything that can be called in question, and it is easy to believe that some friction may spring up between the Parliament here and the Parliament in Ireland. The Irish Parliament may pass some measure which contains provisions not absolutely illegal as exceeding the powers conferred on the House by this Bill, but which might be deemed tyrannical and oppressive by the Imperial Parliament, and if the Lord Lieutenant then exercised his veto, would not this be immediately followed by increased agitation with regard to which the majority of tine House of Commons in Ireland and t he agitators would take the same view? What, then, becomes of our safeguards? We should no doubt be saved from the provisions of the Bill after it had been rejected, but the agitation, which might be just as bad, would remain. These are some of the reasons why we most strongly protest against being deprived of the protection of the Imperial Government. We have been constantly faithful to the connection with England; we have incurred obloquy from our fellow-countrymen in consequence, and we think we have a claim to the support of our fellow-subjects over here.
But apart from apprehensions affecting our property, there are other points as to which we believe this measure might be detrimental. There is the question, for instance, of education. The system of education has been a marked and signal success in Ireland, but we are told by the resident Commissioner of Higher Education that there are many points in which increased expenditure is absolutely necessary. We want to know how the money for that is to be obtained. Also there has been a report that the whole system of education is to be revised and recast from the beginning. We dread the confusion that would arise if this were to happen, and the effect it would have on the religious teaching of children of our own faith and also on the children of the Roman Catholic faith. There was a warning to this effect issued not

559
very long ago by a high dignitary of the Roman Catholic church.
It is for these reasons that we look upon the passing of this Bill with the utmost apprehension. We object to it as to a certain extent weakening the tie which binds the two countries together; but still more, we look upon it in this way—that it will be only considered as an instalment, because it seems impossible that the present Leader of the Nationalist Party would have accepted such an imperfect measure except on the ground that any one step forward, however short, brings a man nearer to the goal, and also gives a firm and secure foothold for another and further step onwards. We are assured that our fears are vain, and that everybody will be so contented with this Bill that there will be no question of opposition or ill-feeling at all. But it is hard to reconcile tin se professions of satisfaction with the utterances of prominent members of the Nationalist Party addressed to other audiences and the claims made to a measure directed more and more towards the independence of their country. If we are told that these must be received with a certain modification as being made to suit the temper and feeling of the people and that we are to take them with that modification, why are we to place more implicit confidence on the utterances as to the perfect contentment and satisfaction that exists with regard to this Bill addressed to a different audience? Why are they not to be subject to the same modification? We therefore fear that this Bill will be used only as a lever to extort further concessions more directly tending towards separation. We cling to an intimate connection with this country. We wish to remain closely united to the centre of the great Empire which our countrymen have done so much to extend and consolidate, and we claim as our birthright that no distinction should be drawn between us and our fellow-subjects, and that we should be allowed to remain, as they are, under the protection and control of the Imperial Parliament.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE: My Lords, I desire to look at this question from a point of view that has not yet been touched upon by any one. I refer to the commercial relations existing between Great Britain and Ireland, which I consider are endangered by this Bill. In a paper very
560
widely read in Scotland—namely, the Glasgow Herald—there was an interesting article some months ago headed "A Foretaste of Home Rule." This article quoted extracts from the Freeman's Journal of that period. We are all agreed that the Freeman's Journal is a strong supporter of Home Rule and of the Nationalist Party. The article had to deal with the cattle trade of Ireland, and this is what the writer in the Freeman's Journal said, talking about the embargo on Irish cattle, which was then in full force—
"The change that is needed is simple and obvious, simply that Ireland should not be treated as a foreign country. Clare has the same right to a free trade in cattle with Great Britain as Aberdeen has."
Then the Glasgow Herald commented on this, and said—
"The point is that while the Irish Home Rulers want Ireland to be treated like a foreign country for political purposes, they Will not face the economic consequences of their own suicidal policy. They want to manage their own affairs without Great Britain's interference, and at the same time desire to retain the fullest advantages of the Union."
If this Bill becomes law, and I assume His Majesty's Government intend that it should become law, what political pressure will the Irish Parliament be able to bring to bear upon the English Board of Agriculture? Very little. Irish cattle will have no more chance of being admitted into the ports of Great Britain than Canadian cattle have had up to the present time if there is any suspicion of disease in Ireland. It has been computed that the Irish cattle trade with Great Britain is worth £15,000,000 a year to Ireland. Is any clearer proof needed of the dependence of Ireland on Great Britain? Apart from its geographical situation and such considerations, it is obvious that Ireland's manifest destiny is to remain within the United Kingdom.
As I understand it, this Bill is a first step towards Ireland being separated from the United Kingdom. Being an Ulsterman, I should like to saw a few words upon that question. I listened with great attention and pleasure to the speech of the Archbishop of York as regards Ulster, and I cordially agree with what he said. It seems to me that the hardest task His Majesty's Government have set themselves is not how to take Irish affairs out of English hands, and that is hard enough, but how, having once done that, to unite under one Government the Ulsterman

561
and the Nationalist, between whom temperament, tradition, and religion have set up such serious obstacles. We seem to forget over here that the Ulsterman is different from his countrymen in the West of Ireland. We may say-that the Ulsterman is the willing partner in the Union, and that the Nationalist is the unwilling partner, and whatever arguments may be used for releasing the unwilling partner from his obligations, it is a far more difficult matter to insist on releasing the other partner who is content with his position. Great Britain may have the power, she may even have the right to dissolve her partnership with Ulster, but I think it is perfectly clear that she has not the right to tie up Ulster in a new partnership with someone else against her consent. As a writer in The Times has put it very graphically—
"Conceivably we may divorce Ulster as Henry VIII divorced Queen Catherine, but we cannot thereupon marry her to another bridegroom against her kill, not even if we secure her interests under the most advantageous marriage settlement which the ingenuity of lawyers can devise."
I understand that His Majesty's Government have no intention of allowing Ulster to place her case before the electorate of Great Britain. If I am correct in my surmise, it must follow that Ulster must rely upon herself and, as has been said, pursue the argument to its logical conclusion. Have His Majesty's Government ever contemplated such a possibility? What does pursuing the argument to its logical conclusion mean? The only remedy an Ulsterman has, I say, is force. There is no other. I am certain, and I speak as an Ulsterman, that no one in the North of Ireland desires war; yet if the worst comes to the worst that is their only remedy, and it seems to me that if this Bill becomes law as it is at present under the Parliament Act, Ulster is slowly but surely drifting to that awful calamity. I am told that this is "bluff" on the part of Ulster. Speaking as an Ulsterman and knowing full well the seriousness that may be put upon my words, I say in all sincerity that if His Majesty's Government think this is bluff, I can assure them they are profoundly mistaken. There are two courses open to the Government. One is, they can exclude Ulster from the provisions of the Bill; the second course is to adopt the federal system which the noble Earl, Lard Grey, pleaded for so eloquently last night. I see in the papers that the Leader of the
562
Nationalist Party has said over and over again that he will not take this Bill if Ulster is excluded from its provisions. He has said he will not consent to the dismemberment of Ireland; that his aim and object is to have a United Ireland. I can understand that perfectly; but I would say to Mr. Redmond, When has Ireland been united? Except for a brief period when Grattan's Parliament was in power, you have to go back to the days of Brian Boroimhe before you can say Ireland was united; and I doubt if you could say that even at that time the North of Ireland owned allegiance to Brian Boroimhe. I frankly admit that Ulster has no right to dictate terms to the rest of Ireland; at the same time I maintain that the rest of Ireland has no right to dictate terms to Ulster. Ulster has a perfect right to accept or reject this Bill for herself irrespective of what the rest of Ireland may or may not wish. I may be told that because, roughly, half the representatives of Ulster are in favour of Home Rule, therefore Ulster cannot he excluded. My answer to that is this, Is the representation of Ulster the correct one? A redistribution of seats in Ulster according to population would tell a somewhat different tale. If His Majesty's Government want to know the real feeling there they can perfectly well submit this Bill to a referendum in Ulster.
Now I come to the federal system, which appears to me to be the only practical way out of the difficulty. For myself I believe that union with England, all things considered, is the best for Ireland; but sooner than see the awful calamities that civil war brings on a country, I would be willing to try the federal system. It has been foreshadowed by a Cabinet Minister, in a speech dealing with the policy of the federal system for the United Kingdom, that the populous counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire might one day have their own separate Parliament. How much stronger is Ulster's case? Surely to any ordinary man it would appear that not only has Ulster the same right to manage her own affairs as either of the two counties I have mentioned, but an even stronger right to reject a Bill which would place her under the control of a Parliament elected by an overwhelming majority of Roman Catholics in the South and West of Ireland. Ulster claims no ascendancy over Ireland, but merely to be allowed to live as she

563
has lived, at peace and in charity with the rest of her neighbours. She does not wish to coerce the rest of Ireland. If this Irish question is ever to be settled it can only be done, in my opinion, by consent. The land question, which racked Ireland for something like a century, was settled by consent. Is it too much to hope that some day this question also will be settled by consent, that some day it may be possible to give a system of government to Ireland which will not only satisfy the Nationalists, but not do any injury to the Ulsterman As I have Bald, I believe the Union is, after all, the best policy; but I frankly wish to say, that if a scheme of federal government is brought in which can satisfy both parties without doing injury to either of them, I am perfectly willing to give it my favourable consideration.
THE EARL OF WICKLOW: My Lords, I am glad to think it is the intention of your Lordships to reject this Bill, and on the principle that it is supposed to he no use to flog a dead horse perhaps further argument may seem unnecessary. But all the same, I think your Lordships will perhaps agree that it is desirable that we who represent Ireland on these Benches should not on this occasion give a silent vote, but should do our best to place upon record some of the reasons which have led us to adopt an attitude of uncompromising hostility to any proposal for granting Home Rule to Ireland. I think it will be generally conceded that before embarking on a fundamental change in the Constitution of the country it is desirable to try to find out whether such a change is likely to be beneficial, and whether the people of the country are more or less unanimous in their desire for such a change. It strikes me that there would be considerable doubt as to whether Home Rule is likely to be beneficial to Ireland.
The Leaders of the Nationalist Party in another place have been asked on several occasions what in their view are the advantages which Ireland can receive under Home Rule which she does not receive under the Union, and, as far as I know, no answer to that question has ever been vouchsafed. In the absence of any reply to that question, it is, I think, a permissible inference that the advantages which these gentlemen have in their minds are of such a nature that they cannot prudently be displayed in the light of day. I think that
564
they are probably advantages which could only be enjoyed by professional politicians, and in which the country as a whole would probably have no share. At any rate there can be no doubt whatever that the people of Ireland are very far from being of one mind on this question. A large and important section of the population of Ireland, comprising perhaps the most prosperous, the most progressive, and the most industrious people in the whole country, have declared with no uncertain voice that under no circumstances will they submit to Home Rule in any shape or form; and in the rest of Ireland, where Nationalists are generally returned to Parliament, I doubt whether you would find one single constituency where anything like unanimity on this question exists. In many of those constituencies you would probably find something not very far from a fair division of opinion, and it is my conviction, a conviction which is probably shared by many of your Lordships who have any connection with Ireland, that even those voters who are in the habit of returning Nationalist representatives to Parliament are actuated not so much by any strong desire for Home Rule as by a fear of the secret organisations which unfortunately dominate the country. I will go further and say that if this Bill is killed, the news of its demise will be greeted by many Nationalist electors with something not unlike a sigh of relief.
The noble Marquess who introduced this Bill made an observation in his speech on which I should like to say one or two words. He said—
"There is no sillier error than to suppose that, because a man purchases his holding, ho ceases to be a Nationalist."
I venture with very great respect to suggest to the noble Marquess that that is not quite the case. I do not think that it is a silly error. It is a fact, and the best proof that that is so is the fact that the Nationalist Party in another place have taken very good care to assist His Majesty's Government in putting a stop to land purchase. The noble Earl, Lord Grey, in his speech yesterday said lie thought that if Home Rule was passed it might lead to a rapprochement with the United States of America. I think the noble Earl got his idea from something which has been said by Mr. John Redmond. No one can doubt the desirability of a rapprochement, if that is necessary, with the United States of

565
America; but even if the Irish-Americans were disposed to be reconciled by the passage of a Home Rule Bill in this country, the Irish-Americans, after all, ace not the American nation. I world not wish to say anything in the least disrespectful about the remarks of the noble Earl, for I. have the utmost admiration for the services which he has rendered to the Empire, and I know his sincerity and the enthusiasm which he feels for imperial ideals.
It strikes me that an impartial observer of this controversy might not unreasonably express some surprise that Irish Unionists seem rather more afraid of trying the experiment of Home Rule than of continuing under the uncontrolled domination of the unscrupulous political cabal which in this country has usurped the functions of a Ministry. For my part, I must say that the prospect of escaping from the domination of noble Lords opposite and of their colleagues in another place possesses considerable attraction for me. I think on the whole it is the only bright feature in the Bill. But, my Lords, there are to my mind matters more important than the temporary inconveniences and evils which result from bad government. I suppose that in no part of His Majesty's Dominions is there more enthusiasm for Imperial ideals than among the Unionist population of Ireland. We are very proud of being Irishmen, but we are, I think, immeasurably more proud of being able also to call ourselves English, or perhaps I ought to say British. We are immeasurably more proud of being citizens of this great Empire which our ancestors as much as yours have done their best to build up. We have often been referred to by our political opponents in Ireland as "the English Garrison" in that country, and although we are at least as much entitled to call ourselves Irishmen as any of the representatives of Ireland in another place we are not ashamed to be called the English Garrison in Ireland. There have been English garrisons in many parts of the world, and I do not know that any member of such a garrison ever had cause to feel anything but proud of his position.
But we should be a poor garrison if, seeing in these Home Rule proposals what we think is a conspiracy to undermine the very foundations of the Empire, a conspiracy fostered by that legacy of bitter spite which has come down to us from the bad old days of British misrule in Ireland,
566
financed by the enemies of England abroad and aided and abetted, I am sorry to say, by the cupidity and the love of office of right hon. gentlemen at home—we should be a poor garrison if, seeing that conspiracy we did not do our best to warn the people of England of the danger they are being led into by those who ought to know better. My Lords, I shall vote against the Second Reading of this Bill with the utmost confidence that if it is submitted to the electors of this country, as I think it must be submitted soon, they will reject it with no uncertain voice, and I think that we may look forward then to seeing Ministers who have not been ashamed to be kept in office by the votes of those men who have never hidden their hostility to England overtaken with a full measure of that just retribution which I think they most richly deserve.
[The sitting was suspended shortly before eight o'clock and resumed at nine o'clock.]
EARL BRASSEY: My Lords, as a loyal follower of Mr. Gladstone in years long past, I venture briefly to address your Lordships in support of the general policy of Home Rule for Ireland, to which it is sought to give effect in the Bill before your Lordships' House. I shall vote for the Second Reading on broad grounds. In the Committee stage, which, as I regret to know, we shall not be permitted to reach, I should have taken an independent course. I look back to the time and to the circumstances under which Mr. Gladstone declared for Home Rule. There was need for his enthusiastic advocacy of change in the principles and methods of government in Ireland. Here, in the Imperial Parliament, we were paralysed by obstruction. The conditions in Ireland were without parallel in any country in the civilised world. Everywhere, except in North-East Ulster, the people were poor, discontented, disloyal, lawless. In that dark period in the history of Ireland Lord Spencer was Lord Lieutenant, and as a member of the Cabinet, with exceptional responsibility, he showed unflinching courage. He favoured a policy of conciliation. He preserved an equal mind, and he declared for the policy of self-government. The influence of Lord Spencer in Irish affairs was commanding. His support of this policy had a great effect on the thought of the day.

567
A generation has passed. By the measures devised by Mr. Gladstone and by the Land Purchase Act which we owe to the Conservative Party, we have dealt with the chief grievances of former years. The desire for self-government has not abated. It has been constantly expressed by overwhelming and undiminishing majorities. My Lords, we are bound to deal with the Irish demand. Ulster bars the way. Mr. Asquith and his colleagues have admitted that the Ulster difficulty is real and grave. With goodwill on both sides, it should not be insuperable. Mr. Redmond has tendered the olive-branch. He has asked that the past should be forgotten. He has appealed to the men of Ulster to join in governing their common country. In the United States, with a population drawn from every nationality in Europe; in South Africa, with the Boer and the Briton; in every new country where the settlers necessarily come from many lands, men work for the common good. Why not in Ireland? If our hopes should not be realised, the legislation to which your Lordships' approval is now asked can be amended. In Canada, when self-government was first granted, Ontario and Quebec were thrown together. They are now two provinces. If need were, we could deal similarly with Ireland.
There is a point of view from which both sides in politics may stand on common ground. Under existing conditions Ireland holds the casting vote in the Imperial Parliament, decides as to the rise and fall of Ministries, and controls the destinies of the Empire. We cannot in honour reduce the number of seats, unless as part of a general settlement accepted by the people. A redistribution of seats is essential to the good government of the Empire. I will not insist on the possible advantages to the Party to which the majority of your Lordships belong. It is surely time to deal with Ireland. Early in his career Lord Beaconsfield had studied Irish history. Speaking in the House of Commons in 1843 he said—
"Believing that Ireland is governed in a manner which conduces only to the injury of both countries, I hope the time will come when a party framed on true principles will do justice to Ireland and put an end to the state of things that is the bane of England and the opprobrium of Europe."
Not long ago the settlement of the Irish question was advocated in powerful journals
568
on both sides in politics. The letters of "Pacificus" were published in The Times and commended in leading articles. It was pointed out that the inherent difficulties in the solution of the problem had disappeared. To-day, when statesmen at home and beyond the seas are seeking by every means to bind together the Empire, let us not longer delay to apply the wisdom of Parliament to the framing of a measure which will secure true union with Ireland.
My Lords, we hear less to-day of separation. It is impossible. We have the Army, the Navy, the Constabulary, and the power of the purse. England is the chief market for the spare produce of the Irish farmer. Our hopes are high that, under a Government in sympathy with popular sentiment, our fellow-subjects by nature warm-hearted, will be as loyal to the Throne in their own country as they are in the Empire beyond the seas. I have seen a thousand men wearing green scarves march in procession through the streets of Melbourne to do honour to their revered Queen on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee. In no part of the Empire has self-government failed. I feel assured that it would not fail in Ireland. I should not vote for self-government unless I sincerely believed that it would make for material progress and conduce to social peace.
LORD FARNHAM: My Lords, we can no longer appeal to your Lordships' House to restore the question of Home Rule for Ireland to an electorate which has twice rejected it in a most emphatic manner, owing to the fact that the promoters of this Bill have taken care to deprive your Lordships of that power, and have, with callous indifference to the wisdom of our forefathers, destroyed our Constitution which it took them generations to build up. But we do earnestly appeal to your Lordships to use what powers are left to you, and to delay this Government for Ireland Bill, which is really more obnoxious than the two previous Home Rule Bills, as long as you have power to do so, in the hope that the electors of this country may be given a chance of saving our country of Ireland from the greatest calamity which could befall it. The noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, when speaking last night, said that he was going to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, but he also told us that it was a bad Bill. He then

569
turned round to noble Lords on this side of the House and charged us with being inconsistent. He said that we claimed on the one hand that there was no demand for Home Rule, and on the other hand that Home Rule meant complete separation. I am unaware, my Lords, that we have ever said that there is no demand for Home Rule in Ireland. But we do say, and say most emphatically and with conviction, that the demand for Home Rule in Ireland is far less insistent now than it has ever been before.
The noble Earl admitted that there were two forms of unrest in Ireland—an agrarian unrest and a political unrest. He admitted also that the agrarian unrest had been largely settled by the land legislation of the Unionist Government—that is, by the Land Purchase Act of 1903; and it is true enough. The whole driving force which Mr. Parnell had behind his Home Ruled movement was the fact that he was able to tell the people in Ireland that Home Rule meant land purchase, and the noble Earl admitted that that question is largely settled. Surely, then, it is reasonable for us to suppose also that those farmers who have I benefited by land purchase have ceased from agrarian unrest and from the demand for Home Rule. The fact of the matter is, my Lords, that many farmers are now terrified at the prospect of this Bill becoming law, for they fear that they may be subject to extra taxation, and they also fear the agitation of the landless men directed to appropriating their farms. But there is one thing by which we can gauge what is the real demand for anything —that is, what people are prepared to pay for it. Mr. Redmond has enlightened us on what the Irish people are prepared to pay for Home Rule, for he said in 1910, when the election was on, that the Nationalist Party would have been bankrupt if it had not been for the support that they had got from America. It may interest your Lordships to know that with the greatest difficulty £2,000 was obtained from Ireland for the Party funds. The Nationalist drink bill in Ireland is something like £13,000,000—just think of it, £13,000,000 for drink and £2,000 for national independence ! Or, let me put it in another way—£3 per head of the population for drink, and less than half-a-farthing for "Ireland a Nation." Yet we are told that Ireland is demanding Home Rule !
570
The noble Earl also referred to the political unrest. It is that political unrest to which we refer when we say that the demand for Home Rule in Ireland comes from the Ancient Order of Hibernians, which I am glad to hear the noble Earl holds in as much hatred as do, and from the Clan-na-Gael. He also stated that Ireland was one nation. All I can say, my Lords, is that if Ireland is one nation, it is destined to have a very early downfall, for we are told that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. Also it will require more than the words of the noble Earl to make the people of Ulster believe that they derive their origin from any other than the British nation, or that they are in any way connected with the Celtic race. Again, we are told that we have no right to disbelieve the statements that we are to be fairly treated under Home Rule. We have been told by Mr. Redmond that this Bill is a regular magician's wand, and that immediately on the passing of this Bill it will turn hatred into love, lawlessness and disorder into law and order, and discontent into content. Well, my Lords, we all know our Mr. Redmond, but we know him in very different ways. His Majesty's Government have good cause to know him, for the simple reason that he can turn them out of office at any moment if they do not do his bidding—a fact to which the production of this Bill is solely due. To the English electors he posed as the champion of loyalty and as the peacemaker of Ireland, and would have us believe that he is only too anxious to give fair-play and toleration to minorities. Yet we in Ireland know him as Chairman of a League which ever since its foundation has both practised and preached the doctrines of intolerance, boycotting, and intimidation; to say nothing of all the bitter speeches which he has made himself against British rule.
And we do not forget that Mr. Redmond has told us that Ulster is to be overborne with a strong hand. He tells us now that this Bill is to bring contentment to Ireland, loyalty to England, and toleration to minorities. My Lords, do you believe it? I dare say you do, but do you expect us on this side to believe it? Did not he tell us the same thing when t he Local Government Act was passed? Did not he tell us then that he believed in giving us a fair and even generous measure of representation under the Local Government Act, and what has been the result? In the Provinces of

571
Munster, Connaught, and Leinster, out of 719 representatives on county councils, 703 are Roman Catholics, and 16 are Protestants—a proportion of representatives for Roman Catholics of one for each 3,625 of the population, and for Protestants of one to 15,888. This contrasts very differently with the way in which Catholics are treated in the Province of Ulster, where the proportion of representation is one Roman Catholic to 162 of the population, and one Protestant for each 7,206. Is it fair to ask us to believe the man now whose only qualification to be believed is that if he is telling us what is right now he must have been telling us what was absolutely wrong for the last twenty five years? But for once, my Lords, Mr. Redmond has told the people of this country quite definitely and clearly what Protestants may expect under a Home Rule Government. In an article in the Review of Reviews he says this—
"They have been placed in a position of independence, and have been allowed almost without a break the privileges of ascendancy. They, perhaps, naturally cannot bear the thought of losing that ascendancy, and being put in a position of mere equality with the rest of their fellow-countrymen."
What does this mean? What can it mean? There is no Protestant ascendancy now. Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which has no Established Church, and therefore all sects are on a more equal footing in Ireland than they are in any other part of the United Kingdom. There is only one office in Ireland to which Roman Catholics cannot attain, and that is the office of Viceroy. Well, in England a Roman Catholic is not allowed to be Lord Chancellor. Therefore, my Lords, the English Roman Catholics have just as great a grievance as the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and yet we have no complaint of ascendancy in England; and I have already shown that the Roman Catholics have more than their fair share in the local government in Ireland.
What, then, is this ascendancy which Mr. Redmond admits he is going to take away from us? It is nothing more than this. It is the right that we Protestants in Ireland enjoy as being members of a Protestant Kingdom, and it is those rights which this Bill now proposes to take away from us. The utmost care has been taken that no Amendment has been allowed to be put into this Bill to preserve those rights, and every care has been taken that nothing has been inserted in the Bill which would in
572
any way weaken the domination of the Roman Catholic Church in a Home Rule Parliament. For how is that Parliament to be composed? There is to be a Lower Chamber of 162 Members, which it is admitted will be almost entirely Roman Catholic, and when it was proposed that they should be elected on a system of proportional representation Mr. Redmond would have nothing to say to it, although he accepted later a small scheme of proportional representation which has no other effect than the effect of saving Mr. Devlin's seat in West Belfast. Then we have a Senate which is composed, as Mr. Healy has told us, or which is likely to be composed, of forty lunatics. Now for that Senate of forty Members Mr. Redmond allows a system of proportional representation, but if there is a difference between the two Houses it is to be settled by a Joint Session, and you will have forty Members conferring with 162 Members. When it was pointed out that that was obviously unjust and an Amendment was proposed to increase the Members in the Irish Senate Mr. Redmond again would have nothing to say to it.
Then we also have, as the head of the Government in Ireland, a Viceroy, but for the first time, under this Bill, he is now allowed to be a Roman Catholic. This in itself is utterly inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, even if it is not a violation of that Bill, and it is to,this Government that it is now proposed to hand over the Protestants in Ireland. Have we Protestants in Ireland the right to be citizens of this Protestant Kingdom, or have we not? If we have not that right what, then, have we done that we are now to be cast off and handed over to a Roman Catholic Parliament? We remember, if you have forgotten it, that it was your ancestors who sent our ancestors over to Ireland to uphold Protestant interests there and to maintain English interests in that country. Have we betrayed that trust? What, I ask, would the Protestant supporters of the Government say if the Government were to announce that the Bill of Rights was now out of date and that the Protestant Succession was no longer necessary? We tell the Protestants of this country that we have as much right to protection under the Bill of Rights as they have, and even more so, for it was in Ireland that our ancestors held the field against James II and secured for ever for you the Bill of Rights, and broke the power of the Roman Catholic Church. What, then,

573
have we done since then that we should deserve now to be thrown out of this Protestant Parliament where we can be secure under that Bill of Rights, and the Protestant Succession placed, as Mr. Redmond admits, under the domination of an admittedly Roman Catholic Parliament.
Perhaps it is difficult for the people of this country to understand why we Protestants in Ireland dread so much being placed under a Parliament which is essentially a Roman Catholic one, for in this country religion and politics are not necessarily mixed up as they are in Ireland. This country also being predominantly Protestant, the Church of Rome does not hold the same power as she does in Ireland. Individually, Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ireland can live peaceably and contentedly side by side, and they do so, and they are the beat of friends, but only so long as they are ruled by a firm Government under an Imperial Parliament by Protestants, and I firmly believe many Roman Catholics dread the idea of the Church of Rome getting control of secular affairs. But so long as the doctrines of the Church of Rome are what they are, and so long as she continues to issue decrees such as the Ne temere decree and the Motu proprio decree, which have been fully discussed in this House on a previous occasion, so long will Protestants in Ireland decline to give up the rights they enjoy under the Bill of Rights. Would any Government dare to repeal the Bill of Rights and do away with the Protestant Succession in this country? Yet that is exactly the position which we Protestants in Ireland feel we have been placed in to-day, and we appeal to His Majesty's Government, at all events before such a step is taken, to ask the electors of this country whether it is their wish that we should be so treated. Should the electors decide that it should he so then it will become, as Mr. Bonar Law has told us in another place, Ulster's affair, and Ulster will say to these electors, "You may have a right to cast us out of your Parliament, bat having done so we will not allow you to dictate to us to what Parliament we are then to owe our allegiance; and should you attempt to do so it will have to be by using troops to shoot down men whose ancestors went to secure for you the Bill of Rights and the Protestant Succession two hundred years ago." The noble Marquess who leads this House wound up his speech by an appeal to the Opposition, especially to the repre-
574
sentatives from Ulster, to use the interval which must elapse before this Bill can become law in devising some scheme which would make this Bill less obnoxious. I will conclude by telling him that in Ulster, at all events, we decline to waste valuable time in working our a problem to get the Government out of its difficulties, but we shall use to our utmost the time that is at our disposal in preparing for eventualities which must occur should they attempt to force this Bill upon us.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I regret that I cannot believe that there is no danger of separation in ease of this Bill passing. On the contrary, I believe that the chief fault of this Bill is that there is no finality about it. It is a dangerous step on a slippery slope, and will ultimately make our position in war untenable. The step down that slippery slope can never be retraced, and I think there is imminent danger of separation eventually ensuing. What our position will be in time of war in case we reach separation, is what I want to take up your time with, for a few minutes. Naval officers have constantly been in the habit of discussing the probable trend of events in the case of our being at war with a first-class Power, but they have been chary of publishing their opinions on the probable effects of Home Rule on naval strategy, because they think that their doing so might be considered as savouring of politics. This is a mistake on their part. So far as England is concerned, it is chiefly a naval and military question, and the sooner war courses are commenced at our naval ports for the purpose of studying it, the better.
Naval strategy as affected by Home Rule was discussed last year in the November and December numbers of the United Service Magazine. General Sir Thomas Fraser has written a book on the military question. I myself think that there would be no difficulty about passing this Bill for Ireland if Ireland were thousands of miles away and not close to us, and provided that the Ulster question could be satisfactorily settled. If this semi-independence is granted to Ireland a new chapter of strategy must be studied by both naval and military men. For instance, this Bill gives the Irish Government jurisdiction over railways and the power to nationalise them. All transport would then be in their hands, and even if the Irish Government remained

575
loyal, there would be the disadvantage of a divided authority, or of having two Civil Governments in time of war. If during war the Civil authorities do not guard railways, tunnels, and bridges, in an efficient manner, they may be blown up.
The Russo-Japanese and the Balkan wars have recently shown us how absolutely necessary secrecy is to success in time of war. How will the British Government be able to ensure it when dealing with Ireland if this Bill passes? How will it be able to check the dissemination of war news? All telegraphs and wireless in Ireland would be in the power of the Irish. They could tap all the news and forge false orders to our Fleets. Recollect that the Atlantic cable ends in Ireland. Direct communication with America might be cut off. It is a rule in war that any man found tampering with telegraphs is hanged on the nearest tree. In case of war all our look-out stations and telegraph wires would be put under martial law, and any one unlawfully interfering with them would be instantly executed. This may sound rough to peaceful ears, but once our people are starving they will be quite as fierce as starving men of other nations. Would the Irish Government permit such proceedings in Ireland? To starve England, it would be necessary for our enemies to get sonic sort of command over the Atlantic, either by ships or by naval bases, and history shows that whenever our opponents thought that they had a chance of success they have endeavoured to establish a base in Ireland, whether they were Spaniards or Frenchmen.
The Government have not thought fit to ask their Committee of Imperial Defence what the effect of this Bill is likely to be on our naval and military situation. They certainly would have done so if they expected a favourable answer. Even if Ireland became loyal, the difficulty of getting two Civil Governments to work together would be immense. One of the chief secrets of the extraordinary successes of Frederick the Great and Napoleon was that in time of war they took complete charge of the Civil administration. So far I have assumed that Ireland, as a whole, would remain loyal to England during a war with a first-class Power. I regret to say that I do not think it at all likely that she would. A study of the speeches of some of the Irish leaders shows that they speak in three voices—one voice for the British electorate, a second voice when
576
begging for money in the United States, and a third voice when speaking to Irishmen in Ireland. Nothing less than complete independence has been insisted on in many of their speeches. Home Rule is looked upon as only a stepping stone to a separation. Can you expect loyalty from people who have received pay from Patrick Ford?
It is true that this Bill gives the Irish Government no control over troops or warships, but in six years time it is to have the control of the Police, a body which only requires artillery to complete it to become an efficient army. There is also no check on the numbers of those Police who could be enlisted, and if there was it would be probably evaded. If the Ulster men are subdued, either by British bayonets or by the threat of using British bayonets, they will look upon Englishmen as traitors, and they will hate us with a holy and well-deserved hatred for which you will have to go back to the history of the seventeenth century to find a parallel. When Belfast has been ruined by Dublin taxation the resources of that magnificent harbour, with its ship-building establishments, will be at the disposal of an enemy. If we pass the Home Rule Bill, England will incur the hostility of the whole of Ireland. It will be idle to look for help from Ulster or from t he Unionists in other parts of Ireland after we have bet rayed them.
It is assumed by the supporters of Home Rule that if this Bill passes. Ireland will be for ever contented, and that no disputes will arise between the two countries. They are living in a fool's paradise. Why, the Bill itself is full of points in dispute. It is asking too much of human nature to expect that a Home Rule Bill, if passed, will put an end for ever to all Irish claims on Great Britain. The maritime position of Ireland, when separated from us, would enable her to bring us to our knees by the mere threat of an alliance with a Foreign Power. Time after time we should be forced to submit to any demands the Irish might choose to put forward. However extravagant they might be, her claims would have to be satisfied. A neighbour of mine told me that an Irish workingman of his acquaintance boasted that, "If this Home Rule Bill passed, Ireland would become the richest country in the world." He was asked how he made that out. "Because England," he replied, "will be obliged to give us everything we ask for."

577
Major-General E. S. May, in a lecture on "Ireland and National Defence." which was printed in the January number of the Royal United Service Institution journal, stated that among other quaintly-worded aphorisms that were submitted to the Lords and Commons on the 12th of January, 1688–9, just after William III came over, there was one which said—
"Without the subjugation of Ireland, England cannot flourish, and perhaps not subsist. For every harbour in Munster would he more prejudicial to the trade of England than either Sally (in Morocco) or Algiers ever was, that island being so situated that England cannot trade with Spain, the Levant, Africa, the East Indies or West, without sailing almost in view of the Old Head of Kinsale, so that England must traffic at great disadvantages, hazardous and charge in armed and double-manned vessels, or with great convoys. Add to this that Ireland would be always in close touch with the enemies of England and yearly supply a vast number of able bodies to annoy it."
Every word contained in this quotation is as true now as it was 225 years ago. It has been pointed out that the commercial interests of Ireland are all in favour of continuing in close alliance with England. The Government have never got rid of the idea that politicians hold the same views as commercial men. Unfortunately, the interests of commercial men and politicians have not always been, and will not always be, in accord with one another. Theorists have assumed that because autonomy has worked well in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, it would work well in Ireland. But Ireland is only 12 miles off, while the centre of Canada is 3,000 miles, Australia is 11,000 miles, and New Zealand 12,000 miles off. There is no similarity in the conditions, either political or strategical.
When Mr. Gladstone brought in his Home Rule Bill he pointed to Norway and Sweden and Austria and Hungary as examples worthy of imitation. Norway has since claimed and obtained complete independence. To emphasise this they have elected a King of their own. In Austria-Hungary there are several nationalities, who are only restrained from flying at one another's throats by the tact and ability of the present Emperor. There is no union of hearts between Austria-Hungary; no love lost between the Austrians and the inhabitants of Bohemia, nor between Slays and Hungarians. Many students of the politics of Central Europe believe that the death of the Emperor will be the signal for war and political separation. Of late years all the small nationalities ant have had autonomy
578
granted to them by their more powerful neighbours have, if contiguous to one another, claimed and obtained complete independence. In 1898 Crete was granted autonomy under a nominal Turkish suzerainty, which was treated with contempt. Since the present war broke out, large numbers of Cretan volunteers have joined the Greek Army, and are now lighting the Turks. In 1866 there were Turkish garrisons in Belgrade. There were riots; the Servians agitated for the removal of the troops. They left. Since then Servia has been at war with Turkey on three different occasions. Their troops are now blockading Adrianople. Moldavia and Wallachia were made autonomous under the Sultan's suzerainty early in the last century. Later on they secured complete independence under the name of Roumania. In.1877 they went to war with Turkey, and the efficiency of their troops saved the Russian Army from destruction after its repulses at Plevna. Northern Bulgaria was constituted an autonomous principality by the Berlin Treaty of 1878. The Southern portion of the present Kingdom of Bulgaria was granted autonomy in the same year under the name of Eastern Roumelia. Both were to be under the suzerainty of the Sultan. Subsequently they declared themselves united. In 1908 they obtained complete independence. A Bulgarian Army is now holding Turkey by the throat in front of the lines at Tchatalja.
Autonomy has been a success in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and it may yet be a success in South Africa. But these countries are thousands of miles away. Ireland is only 12 miles distant, and is far more intimately connected with naval strategy. The question of home Rule should be studied not only in Bluebooks but in maps and charts. In the case of a war in the North Sea few merchant ships would dare to navigate it. It would be full of mines, torpedo boats, and submarines. Merchant ships would run the risk of being fired at at night or in a fog by any war-ships, friendly or hostile, that they might happen to come across. The warship, for her own safety, would open fire if in doubt. Site could not allow any vessel to approach her that might carry a hostile torpedo. There would be many repetitions of the Dogger Bank business between the Russian Fleet and the Hull trawlers. The result would be that all our

579
food would have to be landed at our Western ports, thereby greatly increasing the strategical importance of Ireland. In former wars Bristol always flourished because of the risk of navigating the Channel near to the enemy coasts of France and Holland. Had Ireland been hostile, Bristol commerce would have suffered as much as the Channel trade.
My own view is that our chief danger would be, that the enemy's merchant-ships, when converted, or when being converted, into hostile cruisers, would make use of the Irish ports for mounting their armaments, refilling their coal bunkers, and obtaining food, ammunition, and other necessaries. They would then sally forth to intercept our food supplies and the trade that is to pay for those food supplies. Ireland would not suffer if its food supplies were interrupted to the same extent that England would. They would only have to eat their own cattle, pigs, and potatoes instead of exporting them. A long war might affect them, but a short war would not do so to any great extent. If Home Rule is granted, a three-Power standard, instead of a two-Power standard, must be kept up. It would be cheaper to continue land purchase. The late Lord Cawdor, who won the affection and confidence of the Navy during his term of office as First Lord of the Admiralty and who must have discussed this question with many naval officers of distinction, warned the country of this danger in two speeches that he delivered at Leeds and Haverfordwest in December, 1909. He said—
"If you establish Home Rule, you will have to double the requirements of your Navy, which is quite as much as you can bear to-day."
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, in this debate I follow two noble Lords who are wholehearted opponents of this Bill. Lord Farnham made one remark which interested me a good deal. He said the real test was what a man was ready to pay for his belief, and he instanced and compared the amount that was spent on drink in Ireland with the amount that was subscribed for some organisation whose name I did not exactly catch, but which was, at any rate, a Home Rule organisation. But I think if he would compare the amount spent on drink in this country with the amount that has been subscribed for furthering the cause of Tariff Reform he would also find
580
that there was a very considerable discrepancy between the two sums. I was very sorry that the noble Lord raised the question of religious prejudice, but I do not intend to follow him into that part of his speech. I have listened with great interest to the first sustained debate in this House since I have had the honour of being a member of it, and it is with a great deal of diffidence that I take part in it. I cannot attempt to rival the eloquence, the distinction of phrasing, or the argumentative subtlety of many of the speeches which have preceded mine. I shall content myself to-night with stating, as simply and as plainly as possible, the reasons that make me, twenty-seven years after Home Rule was first—shall I say sprung upon this country?—a stronger Home Ruler than ever, and I will state why I am confident that whatever happens now in this House, or whatever happens to this Bill, Home Rule is not only advisable but must inevitably come.
As I have listened to speech after speech the impression has grown upon me that the main fundamental difference between the two sides of the House in regard to this matter is the question whether if the present condition of affairs in Ireland could only last the demand for Home Rule would disappear. And yet, my Lords, decade follows decade, General Election follows General Election, and von have the same return of four to one Members coming from Ireland to this Parliament in favour of Home Rule, and the one question which decides the fate of every election in Ireland is not our political controversies but the single question of Home Rule. Yet after that, noble Lords believe that if only a few more years are granted then the demand for Home Rule will disappear. But for that belief I cannot help thinking that your Lordships might have read this Bill a second time, and I honestly wish that you had read it a second time and proceeded to discuss the details in Committee. I venture to say, even from the standpoint of the Opposition, that noble Lords opposite have more to gain by taking that course. This year it is obvious that the Government must have every inducement to meet noble Lords on any point which is not fundamentally opposed to the principles of the Bill. When the Bill comes up here again the inducement to meet noble Lords opposite will be less, and if it conies up a third time it may be very small indeed.

581
The fact of the matter is, so far as I can judge public opinion in Great Britain, Great Britain no longer fears Home Rule. A good deal of complaint has been made of the apathy with which the electors of Great Britain have viewed the discussion of this measure. I do not think that in any single by-election in Great Britain since this Bill was before the House of Commons it has been stated in any paper that Home Rule has been the great subject on which the election has turned. I do not wonder that the people of this country should be accustomed to the idea of Hone Rule. With the recent example of the success of autonomy in South Africa with the threats of breaking every law with which this great campaign commenced, with the discovery that the loyalty of Ulster is contingent on Ulster still having her own way, the eyes of Great Britain have, I think, been opened. Great Britain no longer fears, if it does not indeed welcome, this Bill. I admit that it would he intensely difficult for noble Lords opposite to break away from the feelings of Ulster. As a moderate member of my own Party I have often deplored the influence and effect of small fanatical sections in the Party, and it must be the same in every Party.
If I may use a homely but no unexpressive phrase, I would say that Ulster relatively to the rest of the Unionist Party is always a little ahead of the band. It has been so in the past. Readers of that very interesting biography of Colonel Sanderson that was issued a year or two ago will remember how in the later years of his life he constantly spoke and insisted on, as I think he phrased it, the necessity for "gingering" the late Lord Salisbury, then the Leader of the Conservative Party. That means, of course, that he found it difficult to keep his Leaders up to his pitch of opinion in regard to Ireland. So I say that relatively to the bulk of the Unionist Party Ulster is always something above concert pitch. That has been shown in many ways. It is not an unfair statement, I think, to make that of the last three Unionist Chief Secretaries in Ireland two of them were vehemently distrusted by Ulster, and I am not quite sure that the utmost confidence was always placed even in the advice of the Lords-Lieutenant of the time. I remember in regard to sympathetic treatment of Ireland during the Unionist Administration an Ulster Member making use of the phrase, "This
582
rotten sickening policy of conciliation," and that phrase has stuck in my memory ever since. I admit that Unionist policy is very different now. The completion of land purchase is now its first plank. And may I say, in parenthesis, that before the Bill of 1903 was introduced I was strongly in favour of land purchase, and it was a real pleasure to me to do what I could to help pass that Bill through the House of Commons. I believe that the completion of land purchase is absolutely essential to the settlement of the Irish question.
In a book recently published, called "The Case against Home Rule," there is a very interesting introduction written by Sir Edward Carson. Sir Edward Carson is a perfectly sincere man; he is as sincere as he is courageous, and he is as courageous as he is able. I am quite sure that what he says he means, and he now says that completion of land purchase is to be the first plank in the Unionist programme for Ireland. But I think it is only fair to point out that that has not always been Sir Edward Carson's view. I remember years ago—and I have turned up the reference—that Sir Edward Carson went down to Oxford (the exact date was May 2, 1903) to take the place of Mr. Wyndham who, at that time, was Chief Secretary, and who was unable to go to some political function there. Speaking at the meeting Sir Edward Carson said—
"He wished Wyndham was there to explain to them the great benefits that Ireland was going to receive, or, at all events, thought it was going to receive, from the passage of the Irish Land Bill. He knew something of Irish Legislation; he lived through it fur some forty years. Indeed, he might say that for several years ho lived by it. Ho only desired to say this, that as regards the Irish Land. Bill lie should give it the minimum of his support."
And I presume the vehemence with which he used the word "minimum" is reflected in the fact that it is actually in italics in The Times. He said he should give it the minimum of his support, and he should do so because of his official position, and for the reason that he knew of no other alternative. I do not give that quotation because I want to raise the question of ally unhappy personal relationships that may have existed in the then Unionist Government, but I do raise it in order that I may point out the way in which the man who is now admitted to be the Leader of the Ulster Party received the Land Bill of his own colleague in 1903.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: May I interrupt, as I know the speech quite well, and what Sir Edward Carson then said. He was responsible for the sale of land belonging to Trinity College, and he had to see that they got the best advantage from the sale of that land in order that their income might not be reduced.
LORD EMMOTT: That may explain what was then in Sir Edward Carson's mind, but it does not do away with the fact that I am venturing to put to your Lordships, that Sir Edward Carson was not then a supporter of the measure of which he is now a strong supporter. Nor was he a supporter of the policy which he now says must be carried to its logical conclusion, and which he says is the very first item in the Unionist programme. That is the point that I am making.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I said he was speaking as trustee of the property of Trinity College at that time, and he was watching over their interests with regard to their income. I admit I am speaking from memory, and it is a long time ago.
LORD EMMOTT: I quite accept that from the noble Marquess; but may I remind him that Sir Edward Carson was at that time Solicitor-General.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: And Member for Trinity College.
LORD EMMOTT: I do not know which interest he ought to have placed first. But, at any rate, he was Solicitor-General, and the words, although I do not want to deal with them at length with regard to any question of personal relationship, were very remarkable words for any member of the Government to use with regard to a Government Bill. The whole of that incident is significant to me as to how unsafe a guide this Ulster spirit, if I may so term it, is to Unionists of a wider outlook and broader mind. It is true that their spirit is a little chastened and a very generous policy to Ireland is now advocated. First of all, there is the completion of land purchase, to which I think we are all agreed; secondly, generous subsidies for every purpose, and so long as Food Duties were not subject to the chance of a second election Food Duties were to be put in such a shape as to be most advantageous to Ireland.
584
I do not doubt the sincerity with which these offers are now made, but I want to say two things about them. First of all, Nationalist Ireland is convinced, and I am inclined to think rightly convinced, in spite of the attractions of the wealth that is to be hers if the Unionists win at this great contest, as to the real motive power which will dictate the Unionist policy if they should come into power. The second observation that I would venture to make on it is this. Money doles, however lavish, will not kill the soul of a people. The Irish people, with a genius for politics, have been kept in leading-strings for generations, and have been driven into an attitude of hostility and criticism of every Government, and have been deprived of the power which they ought to have enjoyed to work out their own salvation in their own way. Against this I believe honestly that the soul of the Irish people revolts. You cannot satisfy such a revolt either by resolute government or by the most lavish of subsidies. I venture to say also that even material prosperity, important as that is for Ireland, will be built on a much surer foundation if it arises from the fact that she is to have the management of her own internal affairs. I put it to you, my Lords, Is this Ulster spirit as we have known it in the past and as we have feared it may be in the future, a safe one to follow? It is now plain beyond all doubt that Great Britain is not alarmed at the Home Rule Bill. It looks with apathy on it, as you say; with acquiescence, if not with approval, as we say; and I frankly confess I wish the Party opposite had the courage and the statesmanship to emancipate themselves at this moment from this Ulster spirit, and to give this Bill a Second Reading and see what measure of agreement we might be able to obtain in future stages.
Now, my Lords, to turn to another point. The most rev. Prelate, whose remarkable speech we all listened to with such close and interested attention before dinner, made a very strong point of the question of whether there ought not to be another General Election before this Bill becomes law. He evidently thought that there was an element of unfairness in attempting to pass this Bill under the protection of the Parliament Act without another appeal to the country. I am not going, in referring to this argument, to make any use of the obvious tu quoque in

585
reference to 1902, because I think two blacks do not make a white. This is a serious matter, and I want to meet it as fully and fairly as possible. The real point is this. Did the constituencies understand that His Majesty's Government, if they were successful in passing the Parliament Act, intended to bring in a Home Rule Bill without a further appeal to the country? On that matter I have a very definite opinion. I venture to say—and I am going to give my reasons for this statement—that not one in 100,000 electors did not understand that Home Rule would immediately follow the Parliament Bill. I do not think a single member of your Lordships' House dare stand up in his place and say that he did not believe it was going to follow.
I am a new member of this House, so new a member that I took part as a successful candidate in the last General Election. In my election address, if you will pardon a personal reference for just one moment, I said that all questions differentiating the Liberal and Progressive and Conservative Parties depended on a settlement of the Parliament Bill. In enumerating those questions which depended upon it I mentioned Home Rule first. Not satisfied with that, I frequently argued it upon the platform. I am perfectly sure that my constituents understood it, and that nobody could say that they were deceived, or outraged, or hoodwinked, or betrayed by what has since taken place; and the proof of that is this, that when I had the honour of being made a member of your Lordships' House there was, of course, a by-election, and at that by-election, although a Conservative was returned, he was returned by 12,500 votes, which we may say were against Home Rule, as against 18,000 votes which were cast for the Liberal and the Labour candidates, who were both strong Home Rulers. I apologise for saying so much about myself, first of all because I am a very subordinate member of the Government; and, secondly, because at that time I was not a member of the Government at all. But I made my own position so clear that when this controversy that has arisen about the mandate for this Bill sprang up I was amazed that the point could even be raised.
I remember what occurred in 1910 when the Resolutions on which the Bill was founded were before the House of Commons. A specific Amendment was moved when
586
I was in the Chair in another place, excluding Home Rule from the operation of those Resolutions. The subject was debated; the Amendment was refused by Mr. Churchill, then Home Secretary, I think, on behalf of the Government, because of the fact that with the greatest success self-government had been granted to South Africa by administrative action with which your Lordships' House could not interfere. Sir Edward Carson followed him, and he said, "You mean to sneak this Bill through." Those are his actual words, and I quote the words because by using them he indicated that he expected at that time that this Bill would follow. In fact, the whole of the debate was carried out on that supposition, and the Division was taken under that impression. But in order to make assurance doubly sure, I myself conducted a search in the columns of The Times as to what was actually said. Of course, I could not go through all the speeches. The action of the Prime Minister in regard to this matter he stated himself at considerable length in another place. I do not want to weary your Lordships by quoting that here. But lie mentioned the matter at least four times in speeches in different parts of the country, and there was the fatuous heckling, reported in every newspaper throughout England, which made quite clear, I think, what the position was.
But when I turn to Mr. Balfour, whose speeches during that election were, I think, more fully reported than those of any other statesman of the time, I find that as reported in The Times—they are not always, of course, fully reported—at least three-fourths of Mr. Balfour's speeches were actually given up to arguing against the Parliament. Bill because under the protection of the Parliament Bill Home Rule could be put through without any appeal to the country. I have here a whole series of extracts, but, of course, I am not going to weary your Lordships by reading them. I went into the matter with some care, and I will venture to read this one, which seems to make the position clear. It is in the form of a letter, dated December 12, 1910, in The Times. The letter is to Mr. C. S. Parker, then a Unionist candidate, and in it Mr. Balfour said—
"The avowed intention of the Government is in substance to abolish the Second Chamber, and then without any reference to the electors to grant a sweeping measure of home Rule to Ireland, in obedience to the orders now dictated to them by the leader of the Irish Party."

587
Lord Lansdowne's observation on this matter was that Mr. Asquith made it perfectly clear that it was intended to deal first of all with the question of Irish Home Rule, and it is very well known to your Lordships that every hoarding was placarded with the Dollar Dictator placard, and if that placard had any meaning at all it meant that Home Rule depended on the Parliament Bill. It seems to me impossible, in face of this really considerable accumulation of evidence, to imagine that any of the voters cast their vote at the last General Election under any mistake as to what the Government meant in regard to Home Rule.
This is a Second Reading debate, and we are concerned more with the general principle of the measure than with any detail. There is, indeed, still less occasion to go into detail because this Bill is to be rejected. I do not want to occupy much of your Lordships' time, and I will content myself by showing why, with my recent experience, I am a stronger Home Ruler than I was. I have had a good deal of experience of the congestion of business in another place, for, of course, my old post brought me into close relation with that question, and I confess that serious as has been the language used in regard to this matter in your Lordships' House I do not think it has been at all too serious. My own view is that it is leading us into a very difficult situation. The House of Commons has ultimate control over, and would, had it time like to discuss, the various interests of a world-wide Empire; our relations with our Dominions, which are growing every day more important; the fiscal and commercial and general affairs of our Crown Colonies, which are situated all over the habitable globe; the finances of the United Kingdom and of its parts; the detailed administration of Government Departments of three, and in some cases of four, nations, for Wales has separate Departments already in regard to some questions; and the legislative requirements of four constituent portions of this realm, often diverse, and constantly increasing in complication. No other legislative Assembly in the world attempts to deal with half as much, and some method of lightening its work must be found, or there will be a Parliamentary breakdown or else a great increase in the already too great power of the Cabinet.
588
Every conceivable device to shorten debate has been resorted to, except, perhaps, the one of a time limit for speeches; and that I venture to say would not do very much, because speeches are already shortening themselves without any special provision. The "jumping kangaroo" has been invented, and the kangaroo is not so black as it has been painted. More important, of course, is the dreaded guillotine. Now as to the guillotine, I have often heard debates on the question, and what usually happens is that the Leader rises and makes a Motion for closure by compartments, making a statement that under the special circumstances of the time he has no alternative. The Leader of the Opposition follows him, and he generally takes the line that whatever has been the excuse in the past for the use of the guillotine there is no excuse on this occasion, and he says that it is an outrage on the liberty of the subject and an insult and degradation to the House. Presently, these two right hon. gentlemen change sides, and the one makes the speech of the other. That really is not an unfair statement of what takes place. I confess that my sympathies are invariably with the Opposition, but my reason usually with the Government. The guillotine seems to me to resemble the definition which the small rascal gave of a lie—an abomination to the Lord but a very present help in time of trouble. But, seriously, my Lords, I do not think that the House of Commons under present conditions can dispense with these methods. I wish it could. The country even now thinks that the House of Commons talks too much and does too little, and there is one thing that will never be forgiven by the electorate to the House of Commons, or, at any rate, the House of Commons with a Liberal majority, and that is that it should show itself impotent to pass legislation.
Let me say one word as to why I believe the guillotine to be necessary. There was a very excellent article in the Round Table Review of December, 1911, which is by general consent a great addition to our periodical literature of recent years, with a wealth of statistics, and written in a thoroughly impartial spirit, and therein is set out the whole question. From that article and from my own knowledge of procedure I have gathered this one fact, which is the all-sufficient fact—that the time occupied on other than Government

589
Bills is about eighty days in an ordinary session. In a session of seven months there are, allowing for a very moderate holiday at Whitsuntide and Eastertide, about 135 working days. The sessions from 1851 to 1874 were rather under 120 days, and those from 1875 to 1894 about 135 days in length. Now 135 days is a long enough session if there is no autumn session; and autumn sessions are very undesirable. If eighty days are required for business other than legislation, there are, obviously, only fifty-five days left for Government Bills. The Budget Act of 1909, of which I have some recollection, occupied sixty-nine days, and a great many of these days extended to 6 or 8 o'clock in the morning. That Budget was passed without any guillotine. The Education Bill of 1902 occupied fifty-two days, and that was passed with guillotine. The Home Rule Bill of this year took the same time—namely, fifty-two days, and was also under the guillotine. Without the guillotine not one bit, contentious measure could be passed through the House of Commons in a year. I admit it is unsatisfactory and undesirable. I should be glad to see it abolished. But it cannot be abolished until the method of criticism is altered. The difference between the old method of criticism and the new is this, that now in Committee every Second Reading point is debated over again, whilst in the old days when the Second Reading was passed the principle of the Bill was accepted, and Committee criticism was confined to questions of machinery.
In the face of this statement—and I do not think I have exaggerated it at any single point—what remedy is there for this state of things except the one remedy of devolution? What permanent remedy is there? It is because this Bill is in the direction of devolution that I am a strong supporter of it. I know the objections that may be made. It is said that there are reserved services, and there are many points in which Irish questions may still be discussed, even if this Bill is passed. Yes, my Lords, but the Bill will do something, and it goes in the right direction. I hope, further, that it is also a first step towards a greater devolution. In any case, we have this problem of an over-worked Parliament, and devolution is the only permanent remedy that can be adopted for that. I want to press this upon your Lordships, that, granted
590
those two points, with devolution you must have a measure giving at least this quantum of Home Rule to Ireland, and if that is the case Ulster's non possumus cannot be maintained against a measure which is necessary for the smooth and effective working of the Imperial Parliament.
My second reason in regard to Home Rule is this. When I held my last post in another place I learned a little better how Ireland suffers under the present system. She suffers in many ways. There is no time to discuss administrative affairs, for only three days are allowed to Supply, and when it comes to legislation Ireland suffers in the inevitable scramble for time in regard to legislation. In the introduction to the "Case against Horne Rule" Sir Edward Carson says that the way in which element education in Ireland has been neglected in Parliament by successive Administrations is a scandal. It is not only a question of time. In regard to the question of education, surely an Irish Parliament could manage the matter, probably with a good deal more sympathy and better than an Imperial Parliament, because in the Imperial Parliament there are after all, a great many members who are more or less necessarily out of sympathy with an entirely denominational education, and education in Ireland must, I think, be a purely denominational one. It has taken seventy or eighty years to bring about University reform, and I am afraid it may take a long time to bring about reform under present conditions in elementary education in Ireland. But I think perhaps the strongest reason of all is this, that in legislation common to all the kingdom, such questions as finance and social reform legislation, it is almost impossible to propose what is fair at the same time for England and for Ireland. That point was so well discussed by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack that I will not further detain your Lordships in regard to it. On account of want of time, lack of understanding and the difference of conditions making similarity of treatment unsatisfactory, I support this Bill as a means of leaving Ireland to work out her own salvation on her own lines.
I have one word to say about the effect of the Bill on the safety of the Empire. We who support this Bill are called optimists. If it does work successfully

591
certainly the Empire will be stronger under it. It is said that this measure of Home Rule does not resemble a measure of Home Rule in any other part of His Majesty's Dominions. That is quite true, and that is because the circumstances of Ireland do not resemble the circumstances in any other part of His Majesty's Dominions. But the main argument is this, that there is no instance of a breakdown in the grant of autonomy to a white population the majority of whom are in favour of the change, and with goodwill and good sense on both sides I believe that this Bill will work with great satisfaction to all concerned. I want to say one word about this very difficult Ulster question, for I do not desire to belittle its importance and I do not in any way scoff at the difficulties which it raises. The majority, I believe, of the Irish people are anxious to work on terms of harmony with Ulster, and it is quite clear that if Ulster agrees to so work there must be a new grouping of political questions, for Home Rule disappears as a dividing line. The second point I would like to make is that if Ulster is going to resist I think it must be before she is hurt, and I cannot believe that the hard-headed men of Ulster are going to run such a tremendous risk. Under these circumstances I deplore the incitement by men in responsible positions here which has been uttered to the people of Ulster.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Will the noble Lord tell me who has done it in this House? Can he name anybody?
LORD EMMOTT: I can send the noble Marquess a great many extracts.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: But in this House that you are addressing?
LORD EMMOTT: I was using the most general language, and I will send the noble Marquess any number of extracts showing that it has been done.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: But you said this House.
LORD EMMOTT: No, I beg your pardon. I said the incitements which have been in some quarters made to the people of Ulster. I did not say in this House.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: We are not Ulster. Will you kindly give the date, because you have no right to make these statements here unless you can verify them.
LORD EMMOTT: I will send the noble Marquess any number of extracts.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: But you cannot do it here.
LORD EMMOTT: I do beg your Lordships to look at this matter apart from prepossession. Why has Great Britain taken this matter so calmly, to come back to my old point. I believe the reason is that fair and open-minded people with some recollection of recent history find the threats now uttered by Ulster inconsistent with Ulster's past. They know that there will be a new Constitution sanctioned by Parliament if this Bill is passed. The Conservative Party who railed bitterly at disloyalty against the old Constitution are now declaring that they will support Ulster in any action against the new Constitution, however extreme that action may be. People who were ready enough to recommend shooting in regard to disloyal Nationalists now defy the Government to shoot if Ulstermen rebel against the new Constitution, and a plain Britisher with these facts before him is sorely puzzled as to why it has been in the past the quintessence of political depravity for a Nationalist to be disloyal to a Constitution which Ireland has tried for 100 years and which he dislikes, and why it will be a noble and patriotic action for Ulstermen to rebel against the new Constitution which has not been tried for 100 days.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: But in this House that you are addressing?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: When have they rebelled?
LORD EMMOTT: I am trying to put the case of the average straightforward Britisher. He is puzzled as to why it is such a wicked thing to have been disloyal in the past to the old Constitution, and yet that it will be a noble and patriotic thing to be disloyal to the new Constitution before it has been tried. That is really the question that Ulster must answer and answer satisfactorily if Great Britain is to be wakened out of her apathy. I apologise for detaining you so long, my Lords, but in conclusion I repeat my regret that this Bill has not been

593
allowed a Second Reading. I am consoled by the fact that failure to pass it at all here or under the Parliament Act can only he an episode in history. The rejection of this Bill will not kill the demand for Home Rule. It will not bring good government to Ireland; it will not give her people the responsibility which they ought to have; it will not relieve, but acid to the congestion of Parliamentary business here. I look forward with hope and confidence to a day, not far distant, when this Bill, or if by any chance this Bill disappears when another not less just and generous, will become law in Ireland, and Ireland will be able to work out her own internal problems in her own way as a loyal, prosperous, and contented portion of the British Empire.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am sure you will not think any apology is due from the noble Lord who has just sat down for his intervention in this debate, because he has certainly endeavoured to grapple with the many points of the Bill, which we are not always fortunate enough to find members willing to examine honestly. I hope he will not think me discourteous if I do not follow him into all the points which he cited as justifying pressing forward the Bill under existing conditions. I candidly confess that I can see no common ground between myself and the noble Lord in that respect. He has told us that this Bill was thought about and was mentioned on certain platforms, and he told us that this he was one of those who put it in the forefront of their programme at the General Election. If I may say so, that does not move me in the least. The fact remains that this measure was huddled amongst a mass of other measures which composed the Government programme, so numerous and so important that here we are almost in the month of February only completing the session of last year. When the noble Lord says he does not believe one in 100,000 electors was not aware that he was voting on Home Rule, I will undertake say, on behalf of the part of the country with which I am connected, that there was not one in 10,000 electors who contemplated Home Rule seriously. They were engaged in thinking about tariffs and churches and the House of Lords and other questions that were brought forward by Liberal candidates, and the Government were content to obscure the issue if they only could come forward without; making
594
Home Rule an item of their programme. I do not suppose there is one noble Lord on the Ministerial side of the House who does not believe that the most fatal thing that could happen to this Bill would be to send it to a referendum into which no other question entered.
There is another question which depends upon the same point. We all know that in 1892 the measure which was placed before the country—and nobody was more urgent in putting it forward than the noble Viscount, the Lord President—may be said to have been approved by a large majority of the constituencies. If the measure introduced in the following year was approved at all, what happened when it came before the country afterwards? The electors in 1892 did not know that the measure would involve the presence of the Irish Members to vote upon their affairs while Irish affairs were left entirely free to the Irish Parliament. They knew nothing of the finance, and very little of the position of the minority. The Bill was one of which if the electors ever considered it amongst themselves in principle they may be said to have approved, hut the measure when submitted to them was believed to be disastrous by the vast majority of the electors of this country. That is the position now, we believe. The two admirable speeches we have listened to from the Ministerial side shirked the main and vital points of the Bill. The Lord Chancellor went off on two points and discussed with great knowledge the veto which is given under the Bill. Nobody denies that there is a veto in letter. Is that veto effective? In spirit can it be used? The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was in his place a few minutes ago. Where is he in this matter? Will he be advised by his Irish Ministers or will he be the servant of the British Executive? The Lord Chancellor made an extraordinary admission to-night which the late Lord Chancellor for Ireland on this Bench, Lord Ashbourne, took note of at once. It appears that the English Ministry will have to give orders over the head of the Irish Ministry to the Irish Executive.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Viceroy in future will be in the position of the Viceroy of a Dominion. The Bill provides that instructions are to be given which will contain the delegation of the authority of the Crown to the Viceroy so appointed. If the noble Viscount considers

595
the grant of Parliamentary government to the Colonies he will see that there is always a large discretion allowed as to what is to be intimated from the Imperial Government on appropriate occasions. Of course when a Constitution works smoothly the occasions for interference are very few indeed, but at other times when necessary those powers have been freely used. But the point is that there is this power in the Bill, and the newly-appointed Viceroy of Ireland will be in the same position.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The power is there, but will the Viceroy ever be able to use it? Is it really supposed that the Viceroy, who is to act with regard to the Executive on the advice of the Irish Ministers, will suddenly turn round and say, "Power has been delegated to me by the Sovereign, and by that power I now order your Executive to do that which you, my Irish advisers, have advised me I am not to order"? I think it was made clear in the course of Lord St. Aldwyn 's speech that there is no occasion in which the absurd anomaly which is endeavoured to be put on the Irish Viceroy could be made effective, and we know as a matter of fact it never would be made effective. Though the power may be reserved, as the Lord Chancellor says, and the power is there, we have only to go to the evidence of the Foreign Secretary to know that it is not intended to be exercised. That is the language used in another place by the Foreign Secretary. They are not powers of practical application, without which the future position of the Government of Ireland will indeed be a dangerous one.
There is a second point that the Lord Chancellor put. I do not intend at this time to attempt to follow it in detail, but there is a difference between Lord St. Aldwyn and himself with regard to the finance clauses of the Bill; and I may be permitted to make this observation, that if the principle on which the Lord Chancellor expects finance to lie administered by the Irish Government becomes effective this Bill will be the most unpopular one which has ever been planted by the British Parliament upon the Irish people. I remember that in the year 1893 I had the honour of being followed in debate in another place by the Lord Chancellor, and he took exception then to a statement which I made in considerable detail to the effect that the finance of the Bill of 1893 was such
596
that it would cause immense restrictions of the possible activity of the Irish Government, and therefore would be a most unpopular Bill. The noble and learned Viscount was then on a different platform. He then said there would be a plethora of riches in Ireland under that Bill. That was his description of the Bill of 1893; yet that Bill was one which everybody, Radical or Conservative, Nationalist or Unionist, admits would have ruined Ireland and which speakers to-night admit, would have caused an extraordinary limitation of the development since found possible in Ireland. The Lord Chancellor now says what an education it will lie to the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer. How wise he will become when his wings are clipped. What a good fortune it is that Ireland should begin in this moderate manner, and not with a spendthrift idea such as he put before us but which would lead to a higher standard, the British standard, that is—the standard of the welfare of the nation. But would that be popular? Would it be acquiesced in by those forty-two Trish Members who will have nothing to do at Westminster except to see that Ireland got what she wanted I do not think the Lord Chancellor quite saw where his own argument carried him. I would commend him with great respect to what was the state of things twenty years ago. He should consider the advantages which lie expected in 1893, and, bearing them in mind, should see that we whose prophecies were then ignored have some right to be listened to to-clay when we prophesy that disaster and disorder would follow this Bill in a direction which he does not contemplate.
Both of the speeches we have heard tonight from noble Lords opposite fell short in one great point, and that is that they failed to grapple with the cardinal change in the position of Ireland. Lord St. Aldwyn put the point a great deal better than I can. It is remarkable that speakers have not thought it desirable to address themselves to the point which he made. Lord St. Aldwyn's point was that everything which made the desire for Home Rule a reality and not merely a sentiment has been destroyed by the measures of the last twenty or thirty years. The other night the Prime Minister in the House of Commons committed himself to the view that the work of the last thirty or forty years had been such as to "raise the Nationalist movement from the

597
stage of sentiment and aspiration to what it is to-day-an organised, a practical, and an inevitable reality." I think if he knew Ireland a little better, if he had had any experience Ireland thirty years ago, he would have said the exact opposite. If you go back into past history, as the noble Mat guess who moved the Bill did the other day, you may make any case you like. I am certainly not going to struggle over, what was done centuries ago, and for which neither we nor the other side of the House are responsible but if we are attacked on what was not done in Ireland in the first half of last century I wish that somebody would be pleased to turn on the RÖntgen rays of modern political science and see if he can justify the social conditions which were allowed to obtain during the first fifty years of the century in this country.
But, my Lords, progress since that period in Ireland has been remarkable. If I may look back I will trouble your Lordships with a quotation from the remarkable speech by Mr. Disraeli in 1845. After speaking then of the starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, he went on to say—
"If you have a strong Executive a just Administration, and ecclesiastical equality, you will have order in Ireland, and improvement of the physical condition of the people will follow. Not very readily perhaps. What are fifty years oven in the history of a nation? What is put is that if these recommendations are adopted then after fifty years the men who shall succeed the present generation in Parliament will find the people of Ireland a contented and thriving peasantry."
My Lords, we have not reached our goal yet. But there is not a man fifty years old in Ireland who can even remember the days of ecclesiastical inequality in Ireland. There is not a man fifty years old who has ever had to pay a rent unless he was content to do it, except by the settlement of the Judicial Court. Under the influence of the legislation of the last thirty years—it is really quite immaterial for us on this occasion to consider whether it came from one Government or the other, or whether it was due to your principle of fair rent, or our principle of land purchase, or whether it was the Liberal abolition of the Established Church or the Conservative advocacy of denominational education—whatever it has been, the facts are there. The Church difficulty is gone; the land war is dying; congestion is doomed. Ireland is the only country in the world that I know of which has less than 3,000,000 of an agricul-
598
tural people that has received either in remission of rent or old age pensions a sum in their pockets of £7,000,000 a year. The result of that we know in the oft quoted statistics of the savings banks and the other banks, which are the witness of prosperity.
Look at the growth of trade in the last seven years—25 per cent. Money is pouring into the country. I remember being placed on an Irish Commission when Lord Spencer was Lord Lieutenant to examine into the condition of the gaols, and I think I am right in saying that as the result of this prosperity two-thirds of the prisons of the Ireland of thirty years ago have been closed. Is there any case, my Lords, in the history of any nation in modern times, unless it be in Egypt under the administration of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Cromer), where you can show so great a progress? Happy is the people which is in such a case. Then may I put this one question, and I ask some member of the Government to answer it. Mr. Balfour, in the other House of Parliament, put five questions, all with the object of asking whether the extension of autonomy under these conditions had ever been successful; and I would ask quite a different question. I ask the noble Viscount opposite whether he can tell us any case in the history of the world where a nation which in thirty or forty years has shown such progress as Ireland has remained permanently disaffected, disturbed, and distempered, or even asking for autonomy. I should like to know the answer to that question. When we look back and see that the tale of years asked for by Mr. Disraeli is not complete, and when we know that even within ten years we may hope to see land purchase concluded, congestion dealt with, and education brought up to the British standard, are we not justified in retorting upon the noble Lord who has just sat down by asking whether we have not a right to ask for a few more years to see the completion of the policy for which Great Britain has made such gigantic sacrifices, and in which the minority of Ireland have so large a stake?
I know it will be said that if the state of Ireland has so much improved this is just the moment to show the spirit of generosity and to show yourselves ready to take advantage of the improved feeling which exists between the two parties. One would be glad to catch even at that straw

599
in this emergency, but what is the practical bearing of it? Can the Irish people be expected to unlearn in a few months the teaching which has been so liberally administered to them for the last thirty or forty years, and which has been continued even up to the present day? Taking each of the points with which the Irish Executive will start equipped, I ask, Will there be gratitude for any of these things which I will name? Take the land. The view which would be taken of that by the Irish Executive is that the landlords have disgorged something which they have enjoyed for a long period and that the money which is to lie paid to the State will bring the British nation into the unenviable position of mortgagors. Or take again the finance. The £100,000,000 may become £200,000,000. I see constantly that at Irish meetings this great financial boon is discussed simply as a tardy recognition in the twentieth century of the necessity to pay off a debt for all the disabilities which were put upon Ireland in the eighteenth century. Or take, again, the fact that Ireland will be the only Dependency which makes no contribution to the Army or the Navy. Lord Mac-Donnell did not repeat it, I think, in this House last night, but he wrote to the papers to explain that if Ireland was not going to pay a contribution we were only in reality repaying the debt we owe to her for overpayment of revenue during the greater part of last century. How can you expect gratitude when a man of that importance teaches doctrines of this kind? That furnishes every Irish association or politician with what is the matured reflection of a Minister of Lord MacDonnell's eminence. In the same way, on this question of representation at Westminster I have not heard anything in reply to what was said by Lord St. Aldwyn. Recollect that while these Irish representatives are free to interfere in our business here, in which they have no share, they will continue to carry on their own without interference from us. But whenever there is a question of dispute you will be told that the forty-two Members do not, as in fact they do not, represent the full weight of Ireland by population or even by contribution.
On the other hand, there has been hardly one word said in this debate as to the position of the minority under the
600
Bill. I know that we are asked to take on trust all that has been said, and kindly said, by some of the Irish Members and generously said by members of His Majesty's Government on this subject. Take the past. What did Mr. Redmond tell us in 1888? We were told when we gave the Irish their Local Government Bill that the Nationalists would use all their power and influence to see the Act worked in a spirit of generosity to all creeds and classes, and there were promises to the minority of a fair and even generous share of representation on the new bodies. I hardly like to weary your Lordships with the fact as to how that has been carried out, but let me give the figures. If only the Press would publish these figures throughout the United Kingdom I cannot think that at any public meeting it would be believed that the minority could expect generous treatment or even fair treatment under this Bill. What are the figures? In the Province of Munster there are two county councillors who are Unionists out of 223; in Connaught, one out of 143. On the boards of Guardians in Cork there is no Unionist out of the 102 members. In the rural district there is no Unionist out of 63 public representatives. On the Corporation of Cork there are 2 Unionists out of 56. None the less it has been computed that the Unionists pay one-half of the rates and taxes in the Province of Munster. This has gone on up to the other day. Lord Bandon, whom I saw in his place a short time ago, has been chairman of the Town Commissioners for a very long period at his own place at Bandon, and on Saturday last I saw in The Times that Lord Bandon was requested to state whether he would or would not support Home Rule in your Lordships' House, and on his saying that politics had never been brought into the proceedings of the Board, and that he would give no pledge, he was immediately dismissed from the chairmanship. That is the spirit which, notwithstanding any asseverations to the contrary that we have heard, will reign when this Bill is in operation. "In vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird." This method of treatment has had direct instigation by members of the Cabinet on the Bench opposite.
What is your proposal about the Senate? Knowing that throughout the South of Ireland there would not be a single Unionist representative the Govern-

601
ment proposed that the Senate, the one check on a Chamber in which it was well known no Unionist or Protestant in the South of Ireland could expect to be heard, was to be placed in the hands of the Nationalist Party for nomination. Such a proposal has never been made in any Act of Parliament before, and it could only have the result of making it perfectly certain that in the Second Chamber as in the First there would be no representation of Unionists. I wonder how men of fairness and impartiality brought themselves to put such a slur on the minority in Ireland—a minority who for their numbers can show an undue proportion of men who have served this country in the highest offices abroad and at home, in the field, at the Bar, and in the Senate, as compared with any body of men in these islands. You have no right to say to these men that they should pay half the rates and taxes, refuse them all representation in the Lower House, jerrymander them out of representation in the Upper House, and make them hewers of wood and drawers of water to men whose loyalty, if any, is of yesterday, and whose capacity for government is still unproved to-day. That is my protest for the minority.
What of the majority? It is supposed that the majority are at one about this Bill. You ask us to accept this majority of 110 in the House of Commons as conclusive. How was that majority made up? It was made up of all the men who think this is a final measure and who genuinely believe, as the Government profess to believe., that it will be accepted by all parties. It was made up also of all the men like the First Lord of the Admiralty, who has openly said that he looks upon Home Rule as a stepping-stone to federation. It also included men who had committed themselves to the doctrine that there are no bounds to the onward march of a nation, and men who, up to 1910, said they were not here to apologise for the Fenian movement, but believed in the separation of Ireland from England until Ireland was as free as the air we breathe; also the men who thought ample guarantees were wanted for the minority, and those who thought, like Mr. Dillon, that such safeguards could never be operative on behalf of those who put themselves against the will of their countrymen. We are asked to take this heterogeneous mass of men, bound by the temporary sentiment of
602
a Parliamentary crisis, and accept their hasty proposals as a clear and permanent solution of our difficulty in Ireland. I am afraid we cannot believe that this majority are at one in the work. There are some wonderful gaps in their ranks. Where are the heads of the Catholic Church who in 1886 and 1893 made so great a presentment at a time when their flocks were suffering what they are not suffering now, and when their minds were absolutely at one with the Government of the day? Where are all the great commercial men, many of whom spoke out and believed then there was more prosperity to be got from an Irish Executive than they found was to be got from an English one? Where are all the American paymasters? They are ominously silent. Is it supposed that all these classes believe the Bill is a final settlement? Not only these people but many more accepted the Bill of 1886 and the Bill of 1893, which, it is now admitted, would be absolutely ruinous to Ireland. The noble Viscount (Lord Morley) shakes his head. Let me have half-an-hour with him on the Finance Act, and I will show him, with the greatest respect, that he has no leg to stand on, and that Ireland would have been bankrupt many times over. There is not a man in Ireland who has gone into finance who does not think that the greatest friends to Ireland in 1893 were the members of your Lordships' House who threw out the Bill.
The Government misconceive the position in the present, and I think they have also forgotten the history of the past. What was the reason the Union in 1800 failed? It failed, as I think everybody will agree, because the British Government neglected to put into operation all the changes and amendments which had been earnestly hoped for and prophesied as the result of the Union. The recollection of the Union among the Irish people is a recollection of disappointed hopes and broken pledges, and it remained a sore for many years. The Government are sailing the ship of State into the same breakers to-day. They cannot believe that the hopes which have been held out will be carried into effect, or that the pledges which have been given can be made good. The noble Lord made one slight effort, but otherwise no supporter of the Bill has mentioned a single advantage from an Irish Parliament which she

603
could not and would not obtain from an Imperial Parliament. I will sit down now if anybody will mention one such advantage. Therefore all the hopes of a millennium, on which every Irish speech has been framed for the last thirty years, are doomed to disappointment, and the pledges which have been given obviously cannot be made good. I hope your Lordships will see that in that there lies perhaps the greatest danger, even if we accept the doctrines of the Lord Chancellor and the view that this is to be an education to the Irish from which they will emerge better and wiser men.
On the other hand you cannot get away from the fact that, in order to carry out the Bill, you are about to revive theological differences which have long been silent and raise animosities of race which have almost died out. You know what is the risk in Ulster. I confess I deeply regret that my noble friend behind me had to enter so closely into the question of differences between creeds. Those questions have been dying out in Ireland, and why? Because for the last forty or fifty years the old system, tried for a short time in the eighteenth century, in the time of James II, of putting Catholics over the heads of Protestants and which was terminated by the Protestants by the sword, has ceased. In the same way in the following century for a long period Protestants were allowed to rule Catholics under laws which are now considered obsolete and destructive, with deplorable results. That very prosperity which has been gained in the last half century by an absolutely impartial Administration, by an outside force which was not concerned to support either one creed or the other, you are now proposing to destroy, and to light again all the fires which have long died out. I think that is a destructive proposition.
I venture to submit that this Bill is not progressive but reactionary, and must lead to disorder and trouble. It has no precedent for the welding together of nations in any modern case which can be cited. All the countries on which Mr. Gladstone relied in introducing the Bill of 1893 have fallen apart. Norway and Sweden, on which he dealt for five minutes of his eloquent speech, have gone asunder. Austria and Hungary it is not for me to discuss, but certainly we do not see that that Union
604
is carried on with such an absolute absence of friction as we have been led to hope from this; and when the Lord Chancellor said to-night you will always have difficulties when you prefer the part to the whole, I wonder he did not think that was the whole essence of the case against this Bill. You are treating the interests of a part of the Empire against the interests of the whole. You are preferring the prejudices of the few to the welfare of the many. That was not the way in which Germany built up her great Empire in the last half-century. It was not the way in which Italy became a kingdom, but it is the way in which, 200 years ago, the Netherlands fell from being the greatest Power in Europe to a third-rate place. I cannot help thinking that, looking to the history of Europe alone, we may be assured that this great change, if it be carried out without regard to the unfortunate methods which have accompanied it, will be to the discredit of the British Parliament and the dishonour of the British nation.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, the unofficial supporters of the Government in this House are relatively few, and your Lordships opposite, I am sure, will not think it unnatural if some of us show a readiness to express our individual convictions on this matter which in my case, at any rate, might otherwise seem unbecoming. I need not say that I do not rise at this late hour to follow the weighty speech of the noble Viscount opposite. I wish, if I may, to speak not so much of the details of this Bill as of the problem which will remain when your Lordships have rejected the Bill, and to look at that problem chiefly from the point of view of the British Empire. Of course I do not know Ireland as do noble Lords opposite whose homes are there. There is one direction in which, perhaps, I have some peculiar knowledge of Ireland. I have had the honour for many years of friendship with a great many Irish Nationalists, and at one time some years ago I came into very close contact with Nationalist agitation in the disturbed districts of Ireland, seeing it on the sordid and brutal side and also upon that better side to which, I think, Englishmen sometimes are not too generous. If this were merely a question of justice to Ireland I should vote for the Bill with enthusiasm as a measure too long delayed, and with the conviction, which nothing I have heard in this debate has shaken,

605
that it will bring about a great appeasement of the existing state of feeling in Ireland, that sharp severance of religion from religion, and class from class, of which, I believe, the Union is not the remedy but one of the fundamental causes.
I think noble Lords opposite must feel conscious in this debate of the great change that has come over the aspect of this controversy since 1893. For one thing, the theory, if I may so call it, of the inveterate enmity of Ireland towards England is gone—gone at any rate from the minds of Englishmen, although, I believe, there are some Irishmen in whom it is still kept alive by bitter memories. The British Empire has prospered so much by a bold course of treating inveterate enemies as friends, and actually converting them into active friends. The Nationalist movement in.Ireland has changed during a generation from a hostile and rebellious movement, as it once was, into a claim on the part of Irishmen to take their place on terms of relative equality with Englishmen in a common civilisation, and in the same Empire of which they form part. Still more, I think what used to be the foundation of the Unionist creed has been greatly shaken. It used, I think, to be assumed by most Unionists, and by most Englishmen, almost as a self-evident proposition, that the Union of Parliaments was the best means of securing unity of feeling and of action between the two peoples for their common ends. Can we any longer think it is so, looking at the rapid growth and development of unity between different parts of the Empire, the political connection of which now consists of little more than a common loyalty to the person of the Sovereign?
There is one supreme test of the effective unity of a people for common purposes, and that is the measure in which they can be relied upon to act together in the event of war against a common enemy, and I do ask your Lordships' full consideration of this fact, which I have not heard Previously alluded to in this debate, that, whereas in this country we are able for purposes of defence from time to time to avail ourselves of the counsels of a General who twelve years ago was commanding an army in the field against us, yet within the boundaries of this so-called United Kingdom there is
606
one large part to which you dare not apply the provisions of Territorial Forces Act and to which, if it falls to the lot of some noble Lord opposite to introduce some larger and more far-reaching measure of national defence, he would not, I think, under present conditions apply that measure. Are there any of us who really doubt that under Home Rule, with whatever friction this new machinery may work in some respects, we should gain an immense accession of strength in that direction?
Let me turn to the legislative relations of the two countries. In a very short time your Lordships will, I presume, receive a Bill deeply affecting the constitution of the National Church of England—a Bill which you will complain, and be entitled to complain, has largely been made possible in the House of Commons by the votes of Irish Roman Catholics—votes given by men who can by no possibility have any real understanding of the English Church question. I think you will complain of it. But, my Lords, that is the Union, and that is the very principle of the system which applies to Irishmen in a way which from their smaller numbers is far more oppressive, and against, which Irishmen for generations have protested and are likely to continue to protest. But it is not only friction which the legislative union has produced. It has conduced surely a great deal to the exhaustion, almost the threatened collapse, of our Parliament here. That is a subject which has already been dwelt upon in this debate. Some noble Lords have spoken of it as a matter which has become noticeable in the last year only and under the present Government, but it is really an old story. Nearly thirty years ago Mr. Gladstone, in his emphatic way, exclaimed "Parliament is over-weighted, Parliament is overwhelmed," and the evil has gone on growing since that time. We have needed measures of social reform entirely neglected. We have other measures passed, such as the Insurance Act—passed when occasion offered, but without anything like the adequate discussion we should all have desired. We have great Imperial questions which can hardly be brought to the notice of the House of Commons. We have the House of Commons absolutely failing to discharge what used to be considered its primary, and still is its most important, function, the supervision of the expenditure of the country, passing large parts of the Estimates of the year at the rate sometimes

607
of millions a minute. We have the private Member of Parliament reduced to a position of the greatest impotence and insignificance. We have in our General Elections a welter of confusing issues which make the people's will at a General Election sometimes almost unmeaning. We have, lastly, as it seems, the task of administrative Government and legislation growing to such proportions that for the Cabinet as a whole or the Prime Minister to exercise the control once demanded of them has become a superhuman task.
I do not want to put too much stress upon a single cause, but undoubtedly the combination in a single Parliament of the highly different business of three countries, differing in their institutions, conditions, laws, and administrative systems, is beyond all question a powerful cause contributing to this immense strain upon our Parliamentary institutions, and a cause for which thinking men have long been feeling increasingly that a remedy must be found. Looking outside the United Kingdom there is surely pressing upon us, coming nearer and nearer, the problem that was once regarded as something academic and belonging almost to dreamland—the problem of how to create an Imperial Government which would really represent and be able to govern the British Empire. The last few months have brought that problem palpably nearer to us. Your Lordships must have noted with much interest the proceedings and the utterances of the present Government of Canada. How soon it will come upon us we cannot tell, but it is perfectly possible that in a very short space of time we may really be confronted with the problem of how the Governments of the different Dominions are to be enabled to work together with us by some effective common institutions, and that demand, whenever it comes, all of us in this country will be ready to meet to the best of our power. In the meantime there is this indispensable first step lacking. We do not possess in this country a real Imperial Parliament—a Parliament which can give adequate attention to the problems of Empire, which ought to bulk large in its deliberations. We have a Parliament the election to which and the proceedings of which at present serve only in a very inadequate degree to keep the British electors aware of, and in touch with, the problems of that Empire to whose greater union and efficiency we all look forward.
608
There has been a great deal of controversy as to the meaning of the last General Election in regard to this problem of Home Rule. It is undoubtedly true that Home Rule was not before the electors at the last General Election in the sense that it was much talked about or that the electors wished to hear much about it. I venture to think that many of them felt that twenty-seven years of discussion of Home Rule might suffice. It is, at any rate, unquestionably the fact, as my noble friend behind me insisted just now, that every intelligent elector in this country knew that a Home Rule Bill was bound to follow hard upon the Parliament Act, and in voting for the Government he at least acquiesced in its being so. I go further and say that very few felt any alarm or resentment at the prospect that it would be so. I believe that the people of this country, many of whom would not set much value upon their own individual judgments upon the question of Home Rule, regard it as a problem which has got to be set tied, and which they are content should be dealt with by statesmen whom they trust, and that, above all, they would desire to see it dealt with by the united statesmanship of this country in a conference in which all the great interests concerned were really represented, and in which the element of Party warfare was as far as possible eliminated. That I believe to be the position of the average elector to-day,
There are two alternative things which may happen. The Bill may be passed after all under the operation of the Parliament Act with or without the interposition of another General Election, in which, in all human probability, many other issues would be before the people—Tariff Reform, Women's Suffrage, and I know not what. The Bill may be passed under the Parliament Act with or without an election as a contested measure by the preponderating votes of a single Party. It would pass without the grace of general consent and without that improvement in detail which, to my mind, it would very conceivably gain if it were the joint product of the minds of many statesmen representing many different points of view; and it would pass, which to my mind is the most serious thing of all, as an isolated measure and not as the first part of a much greater whole of constitutional reform which is necessary to complete its opera-

609
tion. On the other hand, you may, in a General Election, defeat this Bill; but you will not then have got rid of this problem; you will only have delayed its solution.
I should like to refer to one other point— the problem of Ulster, a problem which I think no man who has not lived in Ulster ought to belittle, and which, I would add, with all respect to the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of York, no man who has not lived in Ulster ought to run the risk of over-emphasising. Put upon the ground of what I may call their separate national feeling the claim of Ulstermen to override altogether the corresponding feeling of the greater part of Ireland seems to me extravagant and indefensible, but put forward in relation to a measure the principles of which were accepted it would demand from us the most sympathetic consideration. But in any case this is one of those matters in which we have much to gain if on the rejection of this measure renewed conference on this whole problem were possible. I entertain a strong suspicion, further, that Home Rule would be regarded even by the people of Ulster in a very different light if it came before them, not in its isolation, but as part of a larger scheme for the government of the United Kingdom and of the Empire.
My Lords, I rose mainly because I wanted to add my single voice to the many
610
voices which I am glad to say now have expressed the feeling—strong, ham sure, among those of us who on this side are going without hesitation to vote for this Bill in all its stages, however many times it is repeated—how infinitely better it would be if the Opposition would express their willingness to consider this vast question in conference such as that to which I have alluded. We know that the Government are willing to meet them, and we are perfectly certain that the statesmen of Ireland would welcome far more readily that kind of solution of this question than that which now offers itself to them; and I think we may be perfectly certain that the whole country would welcome such a solution with unspeakable relief. Whether we can hope for that eventual solution or whether the matter is to be fought out on Party lines with the possible result of the defeat of this Bill, which can merely mean postponement of the issue and nothing more—however it is going to end, I shall myself gladly give my vote for this Bill as at least and at worst a long step forward.
Further debate adjourned until To-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock, till Tomorrow, Three o'clock.