Sitting of 29 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. G. Terrell, (43 petitions) containing 6,209 signatures from the Chippenham Division of Wiltshire.
Mr. W. G. Nicholson, (51 petitions) containing 7,365 signatures from the Peters-field Division of Hampshire.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks, (17 petitions) containing 3,711 signatures from the Brentford Division of Middlesex.
Mr. Mount, (10 petitions) containing 1,010 signatures from the City of Oxford; and (15 petitions), containing 2,183 signatures from the Lowestoft Division of Suffolk.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
Accounts presented for the year ended 31st March, 1912, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 479.]
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Return of Officers appointed to the Staff of the National Health Insurance Commission (Wales) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
Abstract Accounts presented for the year ended 31st March, 1912, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 480.]
PUBLIC OFFICES (ACQUISITION OF SITE) ACT, 1895, ETC.
Account presented showing the Moneys issued out of the Consolidated Fund, the Moneys borrowed and the Securities created in respect thereof, and the Expenditure, under the provisions of the Acts, to the 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. 481.]
PUBLIC OFFICES SITE (DUBLIN) ACT, 1903.
Account presented showing the Money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of The Public Offices Site (Dublin) Act, 1903, and of the Expenditure; the Money expended and borrowed and the Securities created under the said Act for the period ended the 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. 482.]
ARMY (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT).
Copy presented of the Appropriation Account for 1911-12, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon, and upon the Store Accounts of the Army [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 483.]

ARMY (CRDNANCE FACTORIES).
Annual Accounts presented for the year 1911–12, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 484.]
Copy presented of Appropriation Account of the sums granted by Parliament for the expense of the Ordnance Factories, the cost of the productions of which have been charged to the Army, Navy, and Indian and Colonial Governments, etc., and the Statement of the Surpluses and Deficits upon the Grants 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. 485.]

AEMY (CLOTHING FACTORY).
Annual Accounts presented of the Royal Army Clothing Factory for the year 1911-12, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 486.]
MILITARY WORKS ACTS.
Account presented for 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. 487.]
CHELSEA HOSPITAL (ARMY PRIZE MONEY AND LEGACY FUNDS).
Account presented of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital (for Services other than those voted by Parliament) in the year ended 31st March, 1912, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 488.]

MALAY STATES.
Copy presented of Reports for 1911 on the States of Kedah and Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Report for 1911 on the Federated Malay States [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 31st December, 1912, in terms of Section 4 of the Act, affecting the Shops of retail butchers and retail fruiterers in the burgh of Darvel [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906 (RULES).
Copy presented of Rules made by the Board of Trade under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    FLOGGING.
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty at what date flogging was abolished as a method of disciplinary correction in the Navy; whether any demands have since been received from admirals, captains, or others asking for its reintroduction; and whether, since the abolition of flogging, there has been observable any deterioration or improvement in the morale and discipline of the Navy?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Corporal punishment was finally suspended as regards the Navy in 1881. Without an exhaustive search it cannot be stated whether any demands have since been received for its reintroduction, but it is highly improbable that any officers who entertained such views would represent them officially to the Admiralty. There has been a gradual and very satisfactory improvement in the morale and discipline of the Navy during recent years, but it cannot be stated that this is due to the suspension of corporal punishment.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is not it most likely that it is due to that caused?

    COASTGUARD (RATES OF PAY).
    Mr. FELLasked if the question of an increase in the pay of the Coastguard can be considered in the case of those men who have no gardens with their cottages, but who have cottages only in cities and towns where the cost of provisions has increased in recent years, so that they are worse off now than they were ten years ago, and considerably worse off than they were forty years ago when the rate of pay was last settled?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that the wages of the Coastguard are insufficient, or that they have difficulty in paying their way, although some stations may be slightly better off than others. As indicated in previous replies, it is not proposed to increase the pay of the Coastguard. It is, perhaps, worth noting that a man, as a rule, does not serve for more than five years at the same station.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACT (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the firm of. Owen and Sons, Limited, of Liverpool, who supply capstan bars, black boards, and other articles to the Navy, are paying the workmen who make them from 4s. 6d. to 8s. per week less than the standard rate of wage, and that, although the firm were parties to an agreement entered into by the employers and workmen of the district, they refuse to comply with the terms of the agreement; and whether he will strike this firm off the list of those who are invited to supply articles of the kind mentioned to the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No complaint as to the rate of wages paid by Messrs. Owen has previously been received. I am making inquiry into the matter.

    SKILLED LABOURERS (BULL POINT).
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, although thirty-eight skilled labourers at Bull Point have been granted the maximum pay of 28s. during the last seven years, they were all placed on the progressive list previous to that period, and that during these last seven years no skilled labourer has been placed on the progressive list; whether he can explain this; and whether he is aware that, in consequence of this action, an ordinary labourer with twelve months' service is eligible to receive 1s. a week more than a skilled labourer with thirteen or fourteen years' service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The statement made in the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is correct, and the reasons why no skilled labourers have been placed on the progressive scale of pay during the last seven years are, in the first place, that from 1904 onward, reductions in the number of men employed in naval ordnance depots generally were being effected, and in the second, that from the 17th February, 1910, a system of working to the mean of the scale of pay was substituted for the previous method of a progressive scale. Since that date fifty-seven men have been advanced to the skilled grade. All skilled labourers on the minimum of the scale received an advance in pay of 1s. per week from the 1st August last. I have already explained in previous answers to the hon. and gallant Member how it arises that
    1306
    labourers in certain cases receive more than skilled men on the minimum of the scale.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Is it not the fact that the result of the action taken is that unskilled labourers are now able to get a shilling a week more than skilled labourers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have explained before that the flat rate for unskilled labourers is 22s., but people doing responsible work may for a short time get 1s. or 2s. a week more for that work, and therefore in some cases they would get 24s. The minimum for a skilled labourer is 23s. Therefore in that case the unskilled labourer is getting more than the skilled labourer for the time being, but the skilled labourer can go up to 28., and in special cases to 31s.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Is it not a fact that practically anybody can do the work which is performed by the unskilled labourer at the rates referred to, whereas it takes a skilled man to do the other work?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. For the time being the unskilled labourer is doing responsible work.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that it is the policy of the Government to put unskilled labourers to do skilled work?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. The labourers who were doing the special work for this short time are, in many cases, men who will be promoted to the rank of skilled labourers.

    HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION (HARWICH)
    Captain CLIVEasked (1) whether the temporary naval hospital accommodation at Harwich, which has been admitted to be unsuitable, is now closed; and (2) whether two cases of enteric fever in the Fleet at Harwich have recently had to be sent to Chatham owing to insufficient hospital accommodation on the spot; and whether a beginning has been made of making good this deficiency?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Harwich is one of those places on the East Coast which have only in recent years acquired a naval importance. The following arrangements are made for the treatment of sickness

    1307
    among the increasing numbers of sailors stationed there: All ordinary cases occurring in the flotillas are taken on board the parent ships, where there is the usual Service accommodation for sick, and are transferred to Chatham Naval Hospital at convenient opportunities; urgent and serious cases are accommodated at Shotley, opposite to Harwich and half a mile away, where there is a well-appointed naval hospital belonging to the Shotley training establishment. In ordinary times there is room in this hospital for treating such naval cases, but if there were to be an unusual amount of sickness among the boys at Shotley difficulties in providing accommodation might arise. My right hon. Friend is therefore making provision in the forthcoming Estimates for certain extensions at Shotley Hospital which will effectually provide against such a contingency. My right hon. Friend is not prepared, as at present advised, to ask Parliament to build a separate naval hospital on the Harwich side of the water, as that would involve duplication of services and heavy expenditure. A case of enteric fever was recently sent from Harwich to Chatham for treatment because the patient himself elected to be sent to Chatham Hospital, and his condition at the time is stated to have warranted that course.

    "DREADNOUGHTS"
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board adheres to the policy which provided for the maintenance of a 60 per cent, superiority over Germany in "Dreadnoughts" and for an increase in that margin as pre "Dreadnoughts" decline in relative fighting value; and, if so, what will be our percentage superiority over Germany in completed "Dreadnoughts" on 1st April, 1914?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: These argumentative questions are very suitable for discussion when Navy Estimates are presented.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to decline to answer that question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend must see that it is quite impossible to deal adequately with it within the time at the disposal of the House and by way of question and answer.

    PERSONNEL.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether, in view of the fact that it is the stated policy of the Board to maintain a greater superiority than 60 per cent, in armoured ships, cruisers, and destroyers over the next naval Power, the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that we maintain a greater superiority than 60 per cent, in the active list personnel?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The manning requirements of the Navy depend upon the fleets which it is necessary to maintain in commission, and no standard based on the numbers of a foreign navy would be applicable. As a matter of fact, however the margin of superiority in personnel which the hon. Member recommends has been, and continues to be, more than fully maintained.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if we are to maintain this superiority of trained men we shall require 23,500 men added to the personnel in 1915?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that he will be able to secure the necessary addition to the personnel after his action towards the shipwrights?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I really do not think that that arises out of the question.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It arises later on.

    BATTLESHIP "CONQUEROR"
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked on what date the battleship "Conqueror" was due for delivery from the contractors; whether she is shown in the Navy List as having been commissioned on 23rd November for service in the Second Battle Squadron; whether, as a matter of fact, 16th January was the date arranged for placing the ship in full commission; whether her commissioning has been again postponed and, if so, for what reason; and when it is expected that the vessel will be ready to join the Fleet?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The contract date for completion was the 31st March last. The reply to the second, third, and fourth-parts of the question is in the affirmative, the postponement being due to certain defects in connection with the turret gun

    1309
    machinery, which are being rectified. The vessel is expected to be ready to join the Fleet in three weeks' time.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS (NAVAL TRADERS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his decision with regard to the exclusion of naval traders from His Majesty's ships is final, and, if so, is he aware that, owing to the exclusion of these traders, distress exists amongst the persons directly and indirectly affected thereby; whether, since the exclusion of these traders, the canteens are selling uniform clothing; will he explain why officers are allowed to have their own tradesmen visit them on board ship and the men refused a similar advantage; and will he cause notices to be posted up in the ships informing the men that orders previously given to naval traders can be completed ashore?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: This is a matter to which great care and attention have been given, and the decision to exclude traders from His Majesty's ships must be regarded as final. There has been no representation from the Fleet that any inconvenience has been experienced in consequence of these orders, and presumably the only effect, so far as purchases are concerned, is that the men may have transferred their custom to other traders. Any inconvenience or, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, distress, which may have been caused will therefore only be of a temporary nature until matters have adjusted themselves to the new conditions. No tailor-made clothing is allowed to be sold in the canteens, and the articles of clothing which may be sold there are strictly limited. The object of the excluding Order is to put an end to the touting for orders, which has been a feature of the past. If there is any reason to apprehend that the visits of tradesmen to officers are accompanied by anything in the nature of touting for orders, then we shall certainly consider the further extension of the excluding Order.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he is pleased to call "touting" has been continued for years as part of the Admiralty machinery, and that the abrupt cessation of this touting, as he calls it, is causing great distress amongst women engaged in naval trading?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Both the statements of the hon. Gentleman are incorrect.
    1310
    It may have been the practice, but it was no part of the Admiralty regime, and there was no abrupt cessation of the practice. We gave due notice, and the men have leave at present to go ashore. We thought it better that the bluejackets should go ashore for their purchases.

    SERVICE BY PROCLAMATION'.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether seamen under fifty-five years of age, if called upon by the Admiralty for service, by proclamation or otherwise, are entitled to receive their travelling expenses, and, on re-entry, the same good conduct pay as when pensioned; whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that men having the rating of chief carpenter's mate were called up last year to attend the naval manœuvres for a month, that they were not given travelling expenses, and did not receive their badge money, being only paid 4s. 9d. as chief carpenter's mate, when they should have received 5s.; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the matter so that the men in question may be duly compensated?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Good conduct pay is payable to all pensioners when called out for service in the Fleet, but not when voluntarily serving, as at manœuvres, unless specially sanctioned. On the occasion of the last manœuvres certain pensioner artisan ratings were asked to volunteer for temporary service under conditions which were stated at the time, and did not include good conduct pay. The question of allowing good conduct pay on future occasions is under consideration. Travelling expenses are repayable under the Regulations to all seamen when called out for service in the Fleet or attendance at naval manœuvres. I am not aware of the particular cases referred to by the hon. Gentleman in which travelling expenses were disallowed, but if details are furnished I will cause the matter to be investigated.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (MEX DISCHARGED).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked how many men have been discharged from the Royal dockyards since 1st December, 1912; how many of these men had served five, seven, ten, and over ten years, respectively; what steps, if any, were taken to absorb the redundant men in any vacancies existing in other departments; and how many men were by this means: saved from discharge from the Works Department?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of men discharged from the Royal dockyards as being in excess of requirements—i.e.,excluding the discharges on account of age, invaliding, or at the men's own request —during the period referred to is 167. This figure includes forty-six men who were entered temporarily for a short period for specific work. Of those discharged, sixteen had served for five years, five for seven years, one for ten years, and eleven for over ten years. Inquiries were made locally at the time of the discharges to ascertain which of the redundant men could be absorbed in other departments, and twelve men were by this means saved from discharge from the Works Department. In addition to the twelve transferred, three men discharged have since been re-entered in other departments, and six are now being employed as casual workmen. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that as regards the discharges in question from the Devon-port Works Department, he has already been informed that these discharges were rendered necessary by the completion of the works in hand. I may also tell him, further, that as an act of consideration, we continued the engagement of a number of these men over the Christmas season.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that these long service men will be taken on again as soon as vacancies occur?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We discharged 167 men out of about 50,000 because there was not work. For those who have got over seven years' service there is a gratuity. As soon as there is work for them they shall certainly be considered. I do not know whether the hon. Member would keep them when there is no work to do.

    "How TO JOIN THE ROYAL NAVY."
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplates a new and revised edition of the pamphlet entitled "How to Join the Royal Navy," and, if so, when that edition will be available for distribution?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A new edition is now in the press, and a supply is expected very shortly.

    ROYAL FLYING COUPS (NAVAL WING).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty
    1312
    has selected a number of sites round the coast for hydroplane stations; and whether he is contemplaing any large extension of the Naval Wing of the Royal Flying Corps?
    Mr. FELLasked if several stations and garages for aeroplanes and dirigibles are to be established on the East Coast of England to accommodate the aircraft which may be employed by the Admiralty in the North Sea?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The establishment of aircraft bases on the East and South Coasts, as well as the general development of the Naval Wing of the Royal Flying Corps, are both questions that are receiving the close attention that their importance demands.
    Mr. FELL: Will another statement be made as to these stations?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot go beyond the answer I have given today.

    SHIPWIUGHTS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the Department has received any protest from the naval shipwrights relative to the new conditions of pay and service; whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that these new conditions deprive naval shipwrights of certain advantages promised to them on joining unless they are prepared to give up the right of reverting to the dockyards after completing twelve years' service; whether he is aware that a boy entering the Navy as a shipwright from the dockyard under the new agreement is practically in a worse position than a man joining from outside, seeing that on entering the outside man immediately becomes a petty officer, while it takes a naval apprentice from the age of eighteen one or two years in the yard and twelve months in the Navy as leading seaman, making two or three years altogether, before he can get first-class petty officer rating; and whether, in the circumstances, he will reconsider the recent changes in the naval shipwright ratings so as to bring them more into line with the traditions governing service in His Majesty's Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No protest has been received since the issue of the circular letter giving the conditions in detail, of which I sent the hon. Gentleman a copy,

    1313
    though I received a telegram alluding to one aspect of the question on the day of the issue of the circular. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As regards the third part, a man who enters the Navy as shipwright from outside will do so as petty officer. He must be over twenty-one. Boys who are trained for shipwrights in the dockyards enter between fourteen and sixteen, would be rated leading seaman between nineteen and twenty-one, and petty officer between twenty and twenty-two. The age for attaining petty officer rating averages the same in each case. The answer to the fourth part is in the negative. The changes made are very favourable to the men who accept them, as I have already explained. In fact, I may say that the amount spent on the shipwrights is proportionately greater than on any other class.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the alternative offered by the Admiralty to the shipwrights is to their disadvantage?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No; I do not know that I could accept that.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me a statement showing the incorrectness of his reply?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The reply I gave the hon. Gentleman on the 13th of this month was a detailed statement of the new pay, and I repeat that the changes made were very favourable to the men, and certainly of the money spent, this class, having regard to its numbers, received a greater proportion than any other class.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shipwrights regard the arrangement as very unfair, and that they were forced to sign a paper damaging to their future prospects, and, as they consider, against their original contract?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They were asked to choose the new scale and give up the right to go back to the yard or stick to the old scale. We have taken care to secure that if they do go back to the yard the establishment shall be open to them, over and above the existing establishment.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only about forty-six
    1314
    out of 600 shipwrights have been got to sign the paper, and will the right hon. Gentleman kindly deal with that question? I have carefully looked into the matter, and it looks as if it was really unfair to the men who are asked to sign against their original contract?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My expectation is that the circular letter which was issued will deal with all these matters of detail, and will remove all those misapprehensions. I certainly give an undertaking to look into the matter.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow a certain specified time to elapse before captains of vessels force the men to sign the paper?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Captains of vessels do not force the men at any time. It is at the men's option to sign or not to sign.

    West Africa (British Colonies).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say how many European and native doctors, respectively, are employed in the British Colonies of West Africa?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The numbers (including those employed in the British Protectorates) but exclusive of doctors not in the Government service, as to whose numbers I have no information, are respectively 214 and 7.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    HORSE AND FIELD ARTILLEHY.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREWasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to say how many cadres of Horse and Field Artillery are to be abolished, and how many batteries of either are to be absorbed?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I have nothing at present to add to the replies which I have already given to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on this subject.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Having regard to the fact that it is extremely difficult to form a cadre once it has been abolished, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to guarantee that this House shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter before Parliament rises?
    Colonel SEELY: I do not think it reasonable to suggest that the rearrangement of the Artillery rendered necessary by the return of the Artillery from South Africa, should be fully discussed here before the whole of the rearrangements are yet completed. I will give the fullest information on the point, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman may be assured that no steps will be taken which will in any way weaken the Artillery. The steps taken will be with a view to increasing the striking force.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that to abolish the cadres is to decrease the efficiency of the Artillery?
    Colonel SEELY: That is another question.

    CAVALRY REMOUNTS.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREWasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is yet in a position to say by what date approximately a complete complement of Cavalry remounts will be available for the 15th Hussars?
    Colonel SEELY: I am not yet in a position to give the required information.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to mobilise in a few weeks if he cannot mount one regiment?
    Colonel SEELY: The Army as a whole and this regiment in particular will be ready for mobilisation at once.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Without any horses?
    Colonel SEELY: No; with horses, and with a greater complement of horses than the Cavalry has ever had before in the history of the country.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: May I ask how it is he is obliged to take the Mounted Infantry cobs from one regiment to another?
    Colonel SEELY: It is very inconvenient to discuss this by question and answer, but it would have been a most ridiculous and extravagant proceeding to attempt to get rid of all these excellent horses, for the purposes of war as well as of peace, all at once in a hurry, just because we had a regiment returning home; the arrange-
    1316
    ment that has been made by the military authorities has been the best possible, and an excellent arrangement.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: What are the Mounted Infantry doing now?
    Colonel SEELY: I have mentioned the Mounted Infantry are being reduced in number and that the cobs available are excellent cobs, and I can imagine no commander in the field would be otherwise than delighted to have them at his disposal.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided that the majority of future orders to be given to independent aeroplane constructors shall be for machines to the B design; and, if so, whether, in fairness to the industry, he will take steps to announce this decision?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply is in the negative.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the right hon. Gentleman whether it is intended that any civilian aviator accepting a commission in the Reserve of the Royal Flying Corps can in no case be given a commission in that section of the Regular Forces comprised in the Military Wing; whether the nearest approach to permanent service is that he may volunteer for four years' continuous service with the Military Wing and remain during that period in the Reserve; and, if so, whether, in view of the pledges given, he will explain why these civilian aviators are so treated?
    Colonel SEELY: An officer of the Special Reserve Royal Flying Corps can compete for a commission in the Regular Forces subject to the usual conditions. If he is not a candidate for the Regular Army, his term of service in the Royal Flying Corps is four years, subject to extension.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether the motor vehicles, said to be capable of transporting the squadrons of the Royal Flying Corps by road, are designed to transport aeroplanes or merely the personnel of the squadrons; and, if so, whether there are sufficient wagons to act as transport for more than a single squadron on a war footing?
    Colonel SEELY: The answer to the first part of the question is that the motor vehicles mentioned are designed to carry aeroplanes, equipment, and stores, as well as personnel. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. Arrangements have already been completed for transport for the Military Wing of the Royal Flying Corps on mobilisation.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these motor transport vehicles are now ready?
    Colonel SEELY: I could not give the numbers without notice.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the fact that a number of different officers of the Royal Flying Corps habitually fly the same machine is due to the exercise of the discretion of the officer commanding the Military Wing and of the officers commanding squadrons, or whether it is due chiefly to the scarcity of machines; whether in time of war it would be necessary to have a number of aeroplanes for each officer's use instead of a number of officers for each aeroplane; and whether he has considered the advisability of establishing an aeroplane remount department?
    Colonel SEELY: I cannot at present add anything to previous answers on this subject.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether, of the thirteen monoplanes classed as being in flying order, in spite of possible alterations which may be considered necessary, eleven of them, namely, six Deperdussins, four Flanders, and one Bleriot, have ever been flown by Regular officers of the Royal Flying Corps, and, if so, how many of these have been so flown; whether, under these circumstances, there are at the moment more than fifteen aeroplanes, including monoplanes and biplanes, belonging to the Military Wing of the Royal Flying Corps immediately available for use in time of war; and whether this number is adequate?
    Colonel SEELY: Of the thirteen monoplanes mentioned only three have not been flown by officers of the Royal Flying Corps, namely, two Howard Flanders and one Martin Handasyde. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (VOLUNTEER DUTY).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the danger caused to other parts of the Metropolitan area by the concentration of large bodies of the police force for the protection of individuals occupying this building and the additional work thereby thrown on members of the force, he will authorise, if applied for, the services of such units of the Territorial Force as may volunteer for picket or sentry duty in the precincts of Westminster?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply is in the negative.

    ROYAL HOUSE ARTILLERY.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked what are the names of the officers now serving in AA and BB batteries of the Royal Horse Artillery?
    Colonel SEELY: At the present time Captain Curling and Lieutenant Lanyon are serving with AA battery, which is ordered home from India; and Major Monkhouse and Lieutenants Ward and Gifford with BB battery, which is ordered home from South Africa.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: What has happened to other officers who were serving in this regiment?
    Colonel SEELY: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will tell him, as I have not got the whole destinations in my head at the moment.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: How is it there are only two officers?
    Colonel SEELY: I have been asked a definite question as to the names of the officers in two batteries, and I have given a reply.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: How is it there are not more?
    Colonel SEELY: I would prefer a specific question on that point.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREWrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should really take the trouble to put down the question. If he thinks it is of sufficient importance to ask it is of sufficient importance to be put down.

    HORSE RUGS.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether the cost of providing horse rugs for the horses of their units is still borne by the officers of the mounted units of the Regular Army; whether there is any immediate prospect of the Army Council removing this charge from the officers; and how many mounted units have adopted the suggestion of the Army Council that horses standing in stables during the winter do not require rugs at all?
    Colonel SEELY: The question of making an allowance for the provision of horse rugs is now under consideration.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: How long do the War Office and Army Council intend to consider this question, which I asked a year ago, and to which I got the same answer?
    Colonel SEELY: We shall consider it until we have come to a conclusion. We shall come to a conclusion very soon in a sense which the hon. Gentleman will probably be pleased to see.
    Earl WINTERTON: In considering this question, will the right hon. Gentleman make investigation to discover if there is any other Army in the world in which the officers have to do this instead of the State?
    Colonel SEELY: The question is not so simple as the Noble Lord seems to think. I will send him a memorandum about it.
    Colonel YATE: Will the question be settled before next year's Estimates?
    Colonel SEELY: I hope so.

    OFFICERS' UNIFORMS.
    Colonel YATEasked whether, considering that it has not been found practicable to create a special branch of the Army Clothing Department to deal with officers' uniforms, and that though there is nothing in the Regulations to prevent a regiment from making an arrangement with a military outfitter regarding the supply of uniform and equipment, still little can be done in this respect when the supply required is only for one regiment, the War Office will undertake to make a general arrangement with some firm or firms to enable officers of all branches of the Service to purchase uniform, and equipment at a more reasonable
    1320
    rate than they can at present; and, if not, what steps the War Office propose to take in the matter?
    Colonel SEELY: Some few years ago an experiment was tried of supplying officers on appointment with lists of tailors willing to provide uniforms at certain cash prices; the experiment did not meet with success or with general approval in this House, and the practice was discontinued. The question of finding some other means of enabling officers to purchase uniforms at a less cost than that now prevailing is being considered.
    Colonel YATE: Will that be considered in time for inclusion in next year's Estimates?
    Colonel SEELY: I shall certainly keep on considering this difficult question. If the hon. and gallant Member can make me any suggestion I shall be glad to have it. Every proposal on this question has been found not to work well.
    Colonel YATE: Will the War Office try something to cheapen the cost of the uniforms of officers?
    Colonel SEELY: It is not very easy to arrive at that desirable result, and if, as I say, the hon. Gentleman has any suggestion I would be glad to have it.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that his predecessor gave a promise to the men at the Royal Arsenal that there should not be a reduction of piece rates unless an improved method of manufacture was introduced and that, notwithstanding this promise, young men of between eighteen and twenty years of age have been employed in the metal case factory, Royal Laboratory Department, Woolwich, at rates 33 per cent, less than the rates paid to the men; and if he will arrange that all work be paid at the same rate whether performed by old or new hands?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): I cannot agree that boys should be paid the full wages of men; and I cannot admit that the promise referred to contemplated anything of the kind.
    Mr. POINTER: May I ask whether the promise mentioned in the question was actually given?
    Mr. BAKER: Yes, the promise was given, but it does not cover this case, but the case of the men only.
    Mr. POINTER: Has that promise been carried out?
    Mr. BAKER: Yes, it will be observed.
    Mr. J. WARD: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it is there should be any alteration made seeing that it is piece rates that are under consideration?
    Mr. BAKER: I explained before that this work was very suitable for boys. We have often been pressed by hon. Members from the benches below the Gangway to retain boys, and having suitable work we thought it better to retain them.

    Food Taxes.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can indicate the nature of the taxation it is proposed to introduce to take the place of the present heavy taxes on food which the Government proposes to remove?
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am at present unable to make any statement with regard to the Budget proposals for the coming year.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask whether the House is to understand that notwithstanding statements that have been made, the present taxes on comestibles used on the breakfast-table are still to be continued?
    Mr. RAFFAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the fact that a tax of a penny in the pound on the capital value of land would result in a sufficient sum to meet all the revenue at present derived from food taxes and give a handsome surplus, and will he keep that fact before him?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot settle the Budget in a question.

    Land Value Duties.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the grounds on which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue claim payment of Increment Value Duty on fortuitous windfalls and other profits when there has been no rise in the value of the site since 30th April, 1909?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Where there has been a fortuitous windfall, and a price has been obtained in excess of the market value, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue can claim Increment Value Duty under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as interpreted by the recent judgment of the High Court.
    Mr. ROYDS: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that on the first Budget debates any statement was made by a Member of the Government that it was intended to tax fortuitous windfalls and other profits of the builder's business?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That question has been asked and answered repeatedly, and has been the subject of debate repeatedly, and I have no doubt it will be again, and we cannot discuss it by question and answer.
    Mr. ROYDS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it will encourage building enterprise?

    Building Trade Statistics.
    Mr. ROYDSasked whether the increase in the number of cottages and small houses in the year 1910–11, namely, 10,651, is the lowest on record for the past fifteen years?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the year 1910–11, which was a year of revised assessments, the increase in the number of cottages and small houses exempted from Inhabited House Duty was less than in the preceding fifteen years, but the figures are not the lowest on record, those for the last year of new assessment prior to the period selected by the hon. Member having shown a decrease. As I have previously stated, the figures for 1911–12 so far as they are available point to an increase for that year as large as in any of the four years prior to 1910–11, so that there is no evidence from these statistics of any general decline in the erection of cottages and small houses.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the misapprehension as to the Government's intentions with regard to free choice of doctors by insured persons, he will, in order to prevent a similar misunderstanding in future, give some kind of official

    1323
    form to the pledge given by him on the 2nd January to deal with any grievances which may arise as regards the working of medical benefit?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked which, if any, insurance committees have permitted doctors to join the panel and limit, by their agreements, the number of insured persons to be treated by them to those whom they agree to treat without having others assigned to them?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The conditions under which insured persons in each area may be allotted to the doctors on the panel are laid down in Section 15 (2) (d) of the National Insurance Act, and the Regulations of the Commissioners. It is within the discretion of the insurance committee, subject to those conditions, to make such arrangements as will limit the number of insured persons for whose treatment any particular doctor will be responsible. I am not aware which insurance committee have made arrangements with doctors on the panel granting such limitations.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether any insurance committees have made these arrangements? Will he also notify insurance committees that they can act in this way?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think my answer will be quite sufficient notification. I have no knowledge that they are in ignorance on the subject.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked whether local insurance committees are entitled to fix a limit of five days in which insured persons desirous of making their own arrangements for medical benefit have to apply for the form, thus excluding a large number of persons who had not received the medical benefit ticket, which in certain cases it has been stated must be brought when application is made, from availing themselves of the provisions of Section 16 (3) of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of any case in 'which such a time limit has been fixed. If the hon. Member has any case in mind, and will supply me with the particulars, I will make inquiries.
    Mr. GWYNNE: I will send the right hon. Gentleman particulars.
    Mr.WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked where Messrs. Morgan and Dimmock practised as doctors prior to their appointment under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Dr. Morgan practised in London. Dr. Dimmock has held important hospital appointments in London and the provinces.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has either of these doctors practised in the district in which he now resides?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In the districts in which they have now taken up residence? I do not think that either of them has.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked (1) upon what terms Messrs. Morgan and Dimmock have been engaged as doctors for the purpose of the National Insurance Act to work in the Isle of Ely, and whether they have been assured that they shall have a monopoly of practice among insured persons in that district; and (2) whether the insurance committee having jurisdiction in the Isle of Ely have allowed insured persons to make their own arrangements with doctors not on the panel in that district, or is the right of free choice of doctor limited to Messrs. Morgan and Dimmock?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Insurance Commissioners, upon the application of the Isle of Ely insurance committee, and after inquiry, have satisfied themselves that the number of doctors on the list in two districts was not such as to secure an adequate medical service, and have, therefore, authorised the committee to make special arrangements for the attendance of insured persons in these districts. Under these arrangements one doctor in Chatteris and three in Wisbech have undertaken complete responsibility for all the insured persons in these districts.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has the panel system been superseded in this district? If so, was it by the insurance committee or by the Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The ordinary system—the list system, if I may so describe it—under Section 15 of the Act, has been suspended, and a scheme suggested by the insurance committee has been accepted by the Commissioners.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has the panel been closed? If so, for how long? Is it true that it is closed for two years?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot tell for how long the special arrangements are entered into.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the clock?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I was asking for an answer to the question on the Paper. I submit that it has not been answered.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has already asked four supplementary questions.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have not yet got the answer.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I really think that that is enough, considering the number of other Members who have questions on the Paper.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the interests of insured persons, he will arrange that the names of all doctors willing to serve on the panels shall be placed on the public lists immediately on receipt of the knowledge of their willingness to serve?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Names of additional doctors joining the panels are kept at the offices of the insurance committees. Revised lists are published by the insurance committees at convenient intervals, but it would not be practicable for each committee to print and distribute a new list upon the receipt of each additional name.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: Would it not be possible, without much trouble, to put the names of the additional doctors down in handwriting?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The list goes round to many hundreds of places, and it would be difficult to arrange that.
    Mr. FELLasked if the Insurance Commissioners have received complaints from doctors on the panels that an excessive and unnecessary amount of their time is taken up in filling up forms and
    1326
    returns and doing other clerical work to the detriment of their useful medical work; and if steps will be taken to diminish this clerical work and arrange for it to be carried out in some other manner?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Insurance Commissioners are anxious to receive any suggestions from doctors on the panel for simplification or improvement of the methods of keeping records and returns which their experience may show to be desirable and inquiries are being made by officials of the Commission from doctors on the panel in various districts as to their experience of work under the Act. Such suggestions as are being obtained, either by inquiry or correspondence, are receiving the careful consideration of the Commissioners.
    Colonel YATE: Why was this work which was formerly carried out by club secretaries ever put upon the doctors at all?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The work of keeping the records of illnesses when the Bill was being passed through this House was regarded by both sides as being a most important piece of work.
    Mr. FELL: Is there any necessity for the doctors to take three copies of the record of illnesses?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think there is, as at present advised, but that may be a point for consideration.

    INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS AND MINISTERS.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the Prime Minister how long a period is likely to elapse before the National Health Insurance Commissioners will be in a position as regards departmental matters to act independently and to come to decisions on their own initiative and without oversight by and on instructions from Ministers?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE (for the Prime Minister): The relation of the Commissioners to Ministers is as explained more than once by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and defined in a Treasury minute of which I will send a copy to the hon. Gentleman. It will be impossible for the Commissioners or any other Government Department at any time to act without oversight or instructions of Ministers, who are responsible to Parliament for the expenditure by those Departments of money which Parliament votes for the purpose.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Are not the Insurance Commissioners, who have this matter particularly under their care, more conversant than Ministers with what is most for the benefit of the insured persons?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member must know that the constitutional responsibility of Ministers means the responsibility of Parliament. If you allowed anybody else to act instead of Ministers, you would infringe the authority of Parliament.

    INSURED PERSONS (NUMBER).
    Mr. FRED HALLasked what are the numbers of insured persons under the National Insurance Act who are members of approved societies and deposit contributors, respectively, and the proportion in each case of single and married women?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The approximate numbers of members of approved societies and of deposit contributors are 13 ¼ millions and 480,000, respectively. The numbers of men and women are about 10 millions and 3 ¾ millions, respectively. The numbers of single and married women are not available at present, as the distinction is not required for immediate administrative purposes.
    Mr. F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the necessary steps to see if it is possible to obtain the numbers both of single and married women?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think as soon as I have the full particulars I shall be able to get at that.
    Mr. F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the doctors themselves attribute importance to this information as regard the two different sections?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not understand that.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I put it this way—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member put a question on the Paper.

    BRICKLAYERS AND JOINERS (WIDNES).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked (1) whether the bricklayers and joiners employed at the Vine Works, Orr's Zinc White Paint Works, Widnes, are insured under Part II. of the National Insurance Act; and, if not, whether the Umpire has given any decisions in these cases; what is the name of the firm or company employ-
    1328
    ing these men; and have any letters or communications passed between the Board of Trade and the employers concerning the inclusion or exclusion of these men; and (2) whether the boilermakers, blacksmiths, bricklayers, and stonemasons employed at Deacon's Works, Widnes, are insured under Part II. of the National Insurance Act; and, if not, whether the Umpire has given decisions in the cases of these men and what is the name of the firm or company employing these men; and have any letters or communications passed between the Board of Trade and the employers concerning the inclusion or exclusion of these men?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): I am making inquiries into the points raised in the hon. Member's two questions, and will communicate the results to him as soon as they are available.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any communications have taken place between the employers and the Board of Trade already, and what are the names of the employers?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I cannot answer that without further inquiry.

    CONTRIBUTORS' CARDS.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Postmaster-General if he will give facilities for persons insured under the National Insurance Act to return their cards through the post without a stamp, as is the case in Income Tax matters?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to questions on this subject asked by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury on 31st October last and by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon on 6th December last.

    Agriculture Statistics.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) what is the average yield per acre in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, the United States, Canada, and any other country having official Returns, of hay, cereal corn, and root crops, respectively; and (2) what is the average number of horses, bovine cattle, sheep, and pigs per acre in the United Kingdom;

    1329
    and what is the average number of the same live stock in France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, the United States, Canada, and any other countries making official Returns?
    The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runclman): The information for which the hon. Member asks in these two questions is contained in Part V. of the Board's Agricultural Statistics, which is now in the press. I shall be pleased to send him an advance copy.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether any county councils, other than the Cheshire County Council, have constituted small holdings on the colony system; whether this system is developing; and whether the Board, through the Small Holdings Commissioners, advise its adoption by county councils wherever practicable?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Several county councils besides Cheshire have acquired large estates for the purpose of small holdings and may therefore be said to have established small holdings on the colony system. The Board are certainly in favour of the purchase of land in large blocks whenever possible, and county councils are usually of the same opinion. But, owing to the fact that applicants for small holdings are often not in a position to move from their present homes, it is not possible to satisfy the whole of the demand by means of the establishment of colonies.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Could the right hon. Gentleman give in a written answer the county councils other than the Cheshire County Council which have adopted the system?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes. If the hon. Gentleman will put down an unstarred question I will arrange to have full information circulated with the Votes.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in consequence of the bad harvest season and floods of last year, any applications have, to the knowledge of the Board, been made to county councils by statutory small holders for remissions of rent; and whether, in conformity with the practice of private landowners in the locality, such applications have been acceded to in any and, if any, which counties, and at whose expense have such remissions been made?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No official communications on the subject have been made to the Board, but I understand that in some cases county councils have received applications from small holders for remission of rents in consequence of the losses caused by floods last year. If a remission is made, the deficiency falls upon the small holdings account of the council, and, if that account cannot meet the deficiency, the Board may pay one-half of the loss in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Treasury Minute of the 31st December, 1907, a copy of which I shall be pleased to send to the hon. Member.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Have any applications been made for half to be paid out of the small holdings accounts of the Board?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that any applications have actually been received, but I understand that one or two are coming forward.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is not the difficulty of the small holders more due to high rents and rates?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. The difficulty is entirely due to a flood which destroyed the whole of their produce.

    Irish Hay and Straw (Removal of Restrictions).
    Mr. STANLEY WILSONasked whether it is intended to remove on 1st February the restrictions that have been imposed on the importation of hay and straw from Ireland; and, if so, what steps will be taken to prevent hay and straw coming from districts still affected by disease?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: An Order has been issued, and will come into operation tomorrow, removing the restrictions at present imposed upon the importation of Irish hay and straw into Great Britain. I have no reason to believe that any part of Ireland is now affected with foot-and-mouth disease.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: In view of the very grave danger that, at such a short distance of time, infection may still be lurking in hay and straw from infected districts, would it not be far wiser to put off the removal of restrictions for a considerably longer period?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The last confirmed case in Ireland was on 2nd November. I am advised that there is no risk of the conveyance of infection by hay and straw, considering the long lapse of time, and particularly the fact that no hay or straw is coming forward or is likely to come forward from that particular district.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will this arrangement include hay and straw which has been used for packing abroad, and subsequently transhipped from Ireland to this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There are no restrictions on hay and straw used for packing, as the hon. Member, having been a Member of the Departmental Committee which considered the matter, knows.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    REDISTRIBUTION.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether any measure for the redistribution of electoral areas in the forthcoming Session of Parliament will be consequent to and depending on the Government of Ireland Bill being made operative?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can add nothing to the replies given by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, on this subject on the 16th and 20th instant.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Does the so-called right of Ireland to have a hundred Members terminate when the Government of Ireland Bill becomes a Statute?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

    Registration and Election (Expenses).
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether, in view of the fact that a Bill may be introduced next Session which, if placed on the Statute Book, may add to the roll of electors over eleven million names, it is the intention of the Government in any franchise, registration, or electoral reform which they may introduce to deal with the expenses of registration and election now thrown on candidates for a seat in Parliament, and which will be increased with any addition to the present electorate?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a question on 23rd January by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.

    Women Suffrage.
    Mr. KINGasked whether the promise of facilities for a Women Suffrage Bill next Session will be given to a Bill for adult female suffrage, or to a Bill for female suffrage on the Norwegian system, or to a Bill to enfranchise female house holders?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As was explained on Monday, this is a matter for the supporters of the movement to decide amongst themselves.

    Admiralty Arch (Approach).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the hon. Member for St. George' s-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his Department is responsible for the unsightly condition of the Charing Cross approach to the Admiralty Arch; and, if not, whether he can take steps to induce the responsible authorities speedily to amend what is at present a disfigurement of one of the finest sites in London?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): This is a matter outside the jurisdiction of the Office of Works, and one for the London County Council to deal with.

    Underground Tramways (Metropolis).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, with a view to diminishing the existing congestion of London streets, his Department has at any time discussed with the London County Council the possibility of allowing underground tramways to be made under thoroughfares and land within the jurisdiction of the Office of Works in such a manner as not to interfere with the amenities of any street or path beneath whose surface such tramways might be run?
    Mr. W. BENN: The possibility of allowing subways for tramways under land, etc., in the control of the Department was discussed with the London County Council in 1906. The First Commissioner is prepared to consider any further representations which the council may make on the subject.

    House of Commons (Tape Machine).
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether the First Commissioner is able to comply with

    1333
    the request made by the signatories to a memorial to him asking that an additional tape machine may be obtained for the convenience of Members; and, if so, where has he decided to put it?
    Mr. W. BENN: In response to the request received from the hon. Member, the First Commissioner has given instructions that an Exchange Telegraph tape machine shall be installed. He would be glad to receive the views of hon. Members as to where the machine should be placed.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a meeting of the Kerry old age pension committee in reference to the resignation of the Ardfert pension committee; whether he agrees with the views of pension officers as therein stated regarding means of applicants for old age pensions; whether officers have been given any instruction from headquarters as to the manner in which they are to estimate means; and whether, in view of the conduct of pension officers in this matter, he will have a sworn inquiry with a view to ascertaining the real facts?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings of a meeting of the Kerry old age pension committee on the 13th instant, to which the hon. Member no doubt refers. I understand that the Local Government Board, whose decision is final, agreed with the pension officers in the cases in question that the value of maintenance and other privilege enjoyed by the claimants exceeded £31 10s. per annum. There does not appear to me to be any necessity for an inquiry of the kind suggested.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report by which these officers arrived at their estimate?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, I asked the hon. Member to furnish me with figures when he put a similar question a few weeks ago, and he has not yet furnished them.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman hold with these officers, who appear to think that a farmer in Ireland has no right to give his farm to his son when he is about to die?
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Irish Members any information as to the basis—the cost of living and so on—on which this estimate was based, and whether it was made by the pension officers or the Local Government Board?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would ask my 3 hon. Friend to put that question down.
    Mr. FLAVIN: I have asked that supplementary question a dozen times.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I did not ask the hon. Member for a supplementary question, but to put it on the Paper.
    Mr. FLAVIN: I will do so.

    Timber Deck-Loads.
    Mr. MARK SYKESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will lay upon the Table of the House copies of any regulations now in force in Holland, Belgium, France, and Germany, respectively, as to the carriage of deck-loads of heavy or other timber by sea going vessels owned by the subjects or entering the ports of those countries?
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: So far as my present information goes, I am not aware of any specific regulations with regard to-the carriage of deck-loads of timber in ships in force in the countries named, but I will make further inquiries as to the present position of the question abroad and inform the hon. Member of the result.

    Locomotive Drivers (Eyesight Test).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in respect to the tube system of railways in the case of accidents caused by disregard of signals, it is the practice of the Board of Trade to examine the drivers for colour vision; whether, if so, he can state what method of testing is adopted; whether it has proved entirely satisfactory; whether the colour vision of the driver who ran past the danger signal at Caledonian Road on 4th September was found to be normal; whether more than one method of testing was employed; and, if so, whether the results obtained were consistent?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The only accident of this kind on a tube railway into which an inquiry has been held on behalf of the Board of Trade was the collision at Caledonian Road station in September last.

    1335
    The inspecting officer who held the inquiry did not consider it necessary -to have the colour vision of the motor man concerned specially tested, but it appeared from the evidence that the man's eyesight had been tested by the company in the previous March, and been found to be satisfactory.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these men are tested for colour; if so, whether they are tested by the ordinary skein or by lamp?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: As regards the railway companies I cannot answer, but I will make inquiries.

    Labour Exchanges.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is a Labour Exchange at Brixton and, if not, if he will state how far the Brixton Town Hall is from the nearest Exchange?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The nearest Exchange to the Brixton Town Hall is at Camberwell, 1½ miles distant.

    Emigration (Building Trade).
    Mr. FELLasked if there is any information among the Emigration Returns showing that an excessive number of persons connected with the building trade have left this country during the past three years?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The entries in the passenger lists of passengers' occupations are in many cases so vague and unsatisfactory that ten years ago the attempt to tabulate these entries by separate trades was abandoned. I regret, therefore, that I am not able to give the information desired.

    School Children (Medical Inspection).
    Captain CLIVEasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that not only do local authorities have to pay the whole cost of the medical inspection of school children, but if, on the advice of the medical officer, they exclude children from school or compel their attendance at centres for remedial treatment they suffer a further loss of Grants owing to their absence; and if he proposes, by legislation or otherwise, to remove this burden from the ratepayers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Tre-velyan): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend has received no evidence to show that the reduction of Grant due to exclusion of children from school for the reasons mentioned in the question has, in fact, been substantial. He is considering how far it is possible to effect a reconstruction of the system of Grants, but he is not in a position to make any statement on the matter.

    School Buildings (Model Plans).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the increased demand throughout the country for instruction in handicraft and domestic economy, and the tendency of local education authorities to construct buildings for these purposes of creosoted timber, corrugated iron, match-boarding, and other inexpensive materials, the Board can supply authorities with model plans and elevations of such buildings, and advice as to their construction and materials?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The Board are always ready to place at the disposal of local authorities all the information they have in regard to materials and buildings suitable for classes in special subjects. Experiment and development in the use of quasi-permanent material and the internal arrangement of the buildings are to be encouraged. The issue of model plans and specifications would, my right hon. Friend is afraid, tend to stereotype one particular kind of building, and would, therefore, be undesirable.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: The hon. Gentleman has not quite answered my question; it was as to any information of this sort that the Board could supply to the Local Education Authorities.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Yes, certainly, if personal application is made.

    Glasgow Coach Builders (Fair-Wages Clause).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General if he is yet in a position to make a statement in respect to the Board of Trade inquiry into the wages paid by Messrs. J. Hendersons, coach builders, of Glasgow, before the recent strike of the men employed by the firm?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have inquired into this matter very fully, and have received from the Board of Trade particulars of the wages paid by a number of firms in Glasgow. There does not appear to be any standard rate for this kind of work, and the facts now before me show that the average weekly wages paid by Messrs. J. Henderson, before the recent strike, to coach bodymakers and painters were almost precisely the same as those paid by other employers of men performing work of a similar kind.

    Overseas Cables.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether a code word costs more to transmit by cable than a plain-language word; and, if not, whether he can give to the plain man the advantage that comes to the commercial man, who has raised coding to such a fine art that he can transfer, by cabling one word, the contents of a business letter requesting detailed quotations for an extensive waterworks plant; (2) whether he can give an accurate estimate of the cost of completing the last link in the All-Red cable; and (3) whether, from his experience of deferred cables to Australasia, he could give an estimate of the increased business that would accrue to the Pacific cable if he altered deferreds to include codes at 1s. 6d. a word, and ordinary plain language at 1s. a word?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The cost of dealing with a code word is undoubtedly greater on the average than that of dealing with a plain-language word, and this was one of the considerations which induced the cable companies to accept the system of half rates for deferred telegrams in plain language which came into operation last January. In the case of the Pacific cable, regarding which alone I have definite information, such deferred telegrams during the first half of last year constituted about 17 per cent, of the total traffic (other than Press traffic) passing over that cable between the United Kingdom and Australasia. This appears to have been largely new traffic; but I fear that I cannot from these data estimate the effect of the reductions suggested by the hon. Member. No recent estimate has been obtained of the cost of an Anglo-Canadian cable, but I understand that the cost of a cable laid in 1910 between this country and Newfoundland was about £450,000.

    Telephone Service (Dublin).
    Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked whether many applicants for telephones in the city of Dublin have had to wait for six months and more before being provided with instruments and numbers, and that old subscribers who remove to new premises are no better treated; and whether any steps are being taken to supply the citizens of Dublin with telephone facilities adequate to their growing needs and to reduce the present delay in installing instruments?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I regret that there is considerable delay in providing telephone installations in Dublin owing to the fact that, on the transfer of the National Telephone Company's system, it was found that in that city, as in many other places in the United Kingdom, there were no spare wires available for meeting the demand. Special steps have been taken to provide additional underground plant and everything possible is being done to expedite the completion of the work, which will then provide for future requirements for a considerable period.

    West London School (Infectious Illnesses).
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Local Government Board the number of infectious illnesses which have visited the young children at the Park School, Harwell, since its control by the West London school managers; the number of children affected in each instance; and the duration of the illness?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I am sending the Noble Lord a statement giving particulars with regard to this matter. As to the last part of the question, precise information as to the duration of illness in each individual case could not readily be obtained.

    Kent Water Supply.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the inadequate provision of water supplies in the rural districts of Kent, and whether he has any official information as to the number of rural parishes depending wholly or in part on open ponds for their supply of drinking water?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: My attention has been called to deficiency of water supply in a few localities in rural districts in Kent, and in several cases I am in communication with the local authority. With regard to the last part of the question, I hope shortly to be in a position to publish a return of the sources of water supply in the various districts.

    Vaccination (Kirkcaldy).
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the vaccination of Andrew Nicholson, of Kirkcaldy, aged eighty-six, was imposed upon him by a public officer without his request; and, if so, can he give some explanation of this action?
    the SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I cannot add anything t) the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Dundee on 7th January. The medical practitioner adheres to the statement which I then quoted.

    Milk and Dairies.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary for Scotland if it is proposed to introduce next Session a Milk and Dairies Bill for the prevention of the production and sale of diseased and dirty milk on the same lines as that recently introduced and applicable to England and Wales and the similar Bill already promised for Ireland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, a, Milk and Dairies Bill was introduced in another place by my predecessor in 1909, and was passed through Committee and Report stages. I cannot at this time pledge the Government as to next Session's legislation, but there is every intention of introducing a Scottish Bill at the earliest practicable date.

    Limehouse Cut.
    Mr. NIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that damage has been recently caused to the property of Messrs. H. L. Raphael, adjoining the Limehouse Cut, by stone throwing and robbery; whether he will institute a searching inquiry as to the continued state of affairs by which portions of the Metropolitan boroughs of Stepney and Poplar are left wholly un protected and without security for life and property; and will he take steps to remedy the same?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Commissioner of Police reports that he is not aware that any damage has been done to the property of Messrs. H. L. Raphael. No complaint to that effect has been made to the police. It is not the case that any public portions of the boroughs referred to are left unprotected. The protection of private property is a matter for the owners, who in the case of Limehouse Cut possess statutory powers for this purpose; but the Metropolitan police would deal with offences occurring on Limehouse Cut in the same manner as elsewhere on their being brought to notice.
    Mr. NIELDasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the condition of the waterway or navigation and towing paths adjoining known as the Limehouse Cut, whereby robberies have been committed from barges navigating in the Cut" and from premises adjacent to the Cut, and to the fact that the condition of the neighbourhood has been described as under a reign of terror owing to the conduct of a number of persons of the criminal class, and that the towing path of the Cut is a rendezvous for gamblers; whether he is aware that, upon complaint, the Metropolitan police have, notwithstanding the invitation of the Lee Conservancy Board that the police should patrol the Cut at the cost of the Board and take such steps as might be necessary for the proper protection of merchandise and premises, declined to take any steps on the ground that it was contrary to established practice for the police to patrol the towing path and banks of the navigation; and whether, notwithstanding the fact that the Board are themselves large ratepayers, this attitude on the part of the police has his sanction?
    Mr. McKENNA: Limehouse Cut is private property, and is policed by constables appointed by the Lee Conservancy Board under the provisions of the Canals and Rivers Police Act, 1840. The Metropolitan police do not patrol private property, save in exceptional circumstances; and though the Commissioner would have been glad to assist the Lee Conservancy Board, if possible, by supplying police at the cost of the Board, he found that the towing path which he was asked to patrol was so dangerous owing to its defective condition that he was compelled to decline.

    Magistracy (Ireland).
    Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will furnish the hon. Member for West Cavan with the names of the eighty-six Catholic magistrates for Cavan as set out in the Return to the hon. Member for South Down, No. 369; will he say from what source the figures set out in the said Return were procured; and, if the figures in this Return for county Cavan be wrong, will he state what are the true figures?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Lord Chancellor informs me that it is not the practice to identify the magistrates belonging to any religious denomination by giving their names; but of the eighty-six magistrates of the county Cavan who were stated in the Return referred to as belonging to the Roman Catholic religion, the information in that respect was in seventy-seven cases obtained from the magistrates themselves, and in the other nine cases from personal knowledge or official sources.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only public record available to Members of this House shows there are only sixty-seven, and not eighty-six?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know. If seventy-seven gentlemen say they are Roman Catholics I cannot help them.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask what business will be taken in the early days of next week?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On Monday and Tuesday, we will take the Report stage of the Established Church (Wales) Bill, and on Wednesday the Third Reading.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask why it is that the Guillotine Resolution for the Report stage of the Welsh Bill which, I understand is the first Order to-morrow, is not on the Paper; and when it will be?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was under the impression it was on the Paper; it was an oversight and the Government will repair it as soon as possible.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: When will the Lords Amendments to the Scottish Temperance Bill be taken?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps my hon. Friend would give me notice.
  Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that it will not be taken after eleven o'clock?
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Is it too early to tell us when the holidays will begin?
  Mr. C. BATHURST: When does the Government propose to take the Railways (No. 2) Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think I could say now. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me notice.
  Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman say it will not be before Wednesday of next week?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think I can give an undertaking to that effect now.
  Lord BALCARRES: Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore mean to take the Second Reading after eleven o'clock?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I understand that is not the case.

  TRADE UNIONS (No. 2) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  TRADE UNIONS (No. 2) BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Definition of Trade Union.)
    (1) The expression "trade union" for the purpose of the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1906, and this Act, means any combination, whether temporary or permanent, the principal objects of which are under its constitution statutory objects: Provided that any combination which is for the time being registered as a trade union shall be deemed to be a trade union as defined by this Act so long as it continues to be so registered.
    (2) The Registrar of Friendly Societies shall not register any combination as a trade union unless in his opinion, having regard to the constitution of the combination, the principal objects of the combination are statutory objects, and may withdraw the certificate of registration of any such registered trade union if the constitution of the union has been altered in such a manner that, in his opinion, the principal objects of the union are no longer statutory objects, or if in his opinion the principal objects for which the union is actually carried on are not statutory objects.
    (3) Any unregistered trade union may, if they think fit, at any time without registering the union apply to the Registrar of Friendly Societies for a certificate that the union is a trade union within the meaning of this Act, and the Registrar, if satisfied, having regard to the constitution of the union and the mode in which the union is being carried on, that the principal objects of the union are statutory objects, and that the union is actually carried on for those objects, shall grant such a certificate, but the Registrar may, on an application made by any person to him for the purpose, withdraw any such certificate if satisfied, after giving the union an opportunity of being heard, that the certificate is no longer justified.
    (4) Any person aggrieved by any refusal of the Registrar to register a combination as a trade union, or to give a certificate that an unregistered trade union is a trade union within the meaning of this Act, or by the withdrawal under this Section of a certificate of registration, or of a certificate that an unregistered union is a trade union within the meaning of this Act, may appeal to the High Court, or in Scotland to the Court of Session, within

    1351
    the time and in the manner and on the conditions directed by rules of Court.
    (5) A certificate of the Registrar that a trade union is a trade union within the meaning of this Act shall, so long as it is in force, be conclusive for all purposes.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "any" ["aggrieved by any refusal of the Registrar"], to insert the words "consent or."
    This is a mere formal or verbal Amendment, and I am sure the Attorney-General will accept it. I think probably the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that if it is right in one case that there should be a right of objection to consent there should also be a right of objection to withdrawal of consent. This Amendment is clearly in the interests of hon. Members on the Labour Benches, who especially represent trade union politics in this House, because obviously if the consent of the Registrar is already given in such cases as are contemplated in Sub-section (3) of Clause 2, it is only right that if there is anyone objecting to that consent there should also be the right to object to the action of the Registrar in withdrawing consent already given. This Amendment ought to be accepted; it is clearly what is known as the converse of the proposition. If it is right that there should be an opportunity of objection to the Registrar's consent there ought to be an opportunity for objection to the Registrar's withdrawal of consent. This Amendment cannot possibly do any member of any trade union harm, and it mainly concerns the members of trade unions, and in the interests of members of trade unions we want this amount of latitude and liberty of action. This is only a small point, but I feel confident that the Attorney-General will see, as I have already explained, that if there is a light of objection to consent there also ought to be a right of objection to the withdrawal of a certificate already granted.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: I beg to second this Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I think I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Member that there is a good reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. The two cases do not stand exactly in the same position. The registration, such as it is, which has been the custom of the Registrar to perform does not injure anybody. Nobody can be hurt
    1352
    by a union being registered. If a union is registered and the constitution is altered application can be made to the Registrar, who would when satisfied that the facts were as stated, withdraw the certificate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up."] Consequently there is a right of appeal, and that is the only right of appeal.
    Earl WINTERTON: It is not often that I agree with the Attorney-General in the discussions we have had at the various stages of this Bill, but I think there is a good deal in what he has said. To pass this Amendment might lead to trade unions being subjected to vexatious litigation. Those who wish to safeguard the rights of the minority wish to be careful to avoid any possibility of trade unions being subjected to vexatious litigation. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. PETO: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Earl WINTERTON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5), to insert the following new Sub-section:—
    (6) If the Registrar of Friendly Societies is of opinion that it is expedient that public notice should be given of any application to register a combination as a trade union, or for a certificate that an unregistered trade union is a trade union within the meaning of this Act, he may require the application to be advertised in the "Labour Gazette."
    This is a very simple Amendment, and I do not think it will be objected to by any hon. Gentleman opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do object to it."] There is no proposal which we have proposed from this side of the House on this question which has not been objected to by the hon. Member opposite. The intention of the Amendment is to enable everyone concerned to know that a trade union wishes to be registered, and it has been suggested to us that it is extremely difficult to acquaint the members of a trade union with what is going to be done. When the question of balloting the members of trade unions was under consideration it was pointed out how difficult it was to reach trade unionists in order to have a ballot. If it is difficult to reach trade unionists for the purpose of a ballot, it will be equally difficult in this case, because many members of a trade union may live

    1353
    a long distance from the centre of the trade union, or from the district where there is much political activity, and they may be unaware that it is the intention of the trade union to be registered. Therefore, by an Amendment, power is given to the Registrar of Friendly Societies to give public notice of any application to register a combination as a trade union, or for any certificate that an unregistered trade union is a trade union, should be advertised in the "Labour Gazette." The only objection I conceive which can be raised to this Amendment is that the effect might be to cause some person to object to the combination being registered who would not otherwise have done so. I do not think that that is ah argument against the Amendment. Although this is not an Amendment of prime importance, I think it is desirable that notice should be given to all those whom it may concern that a certain combination is going to be registered as a trade union. I have acquainted myself with the probable cost of such an advertisement in the "Labour Gazette," and I find that it is trifling. The "Labour Gazette" is widely circulated, and for these reasons I hope the Government will accept my Amendment.
    Viscount WOLMER: I beg leave to second the Amendment.
    Mr. GILL: May I point out to the Committee that trade unions have been registered for the last forty or fifty years, and it has never been found difficult to let the members know when they are going to be registered? As a matter of fact, before a trade union can be registered, all the members must decide the point at a general meeting, or in some other way, and they must agree that registration should take place. The suggestion has been made that it is difficult to get the opinion of the members, but there is a Clause in the Bill which provides that it must be done in a certain way, and it has to be announced in the monthly reports and the circulars issued by the society. Inasmuch as members must first of all decide, at various branch meetings and at general meetings, that the registration must take place, there can be nothing in the point raised by the Noble Lord about the members not knowing of this fact. With regard to advertising in the "Labour Gazette," I am glad hon. Members opposite have learned something from the discussion upstairs, because there it was argued that it was necessary
    1354
    to advertise in nearly the whole of the papers in the country, and now it has been brought down simply to advertising in the "Labour Gazette." In our view, this expense is entirely unnecessary. I know the expense will not be so great, but it will cause a considerable amount of delay. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because the "Labour Gazette" is only published every month, and if a union decides to make an application just after that journal has been issued, it cannot appear for another three weeks. From the arguments used by the Noble Lord, one would think that the "Labour Gazette" was a good medium for the workmen, but may I point out that that journal is seldom read by the rank and file of trade unions, and it is mostly read by the officials. In my opinion, this Amendment would serve only as a means of delay, and I hope the Government will not accept it.
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the Noble Lord was quite right when he said this is not a very important Amendment. It is the result of a good deal of discussion in Committee, and is the minimum demand put forward by the Noble Lord and those associated with him upstairs. I cannot help thinking it would be far better that this Amendment should not be inserted, and I am very hopeful the Noble Lord will come to the same conclusion when I have explained the effect of it to him. You would by this Amendment fetter the discretion of the Registrar, and I think that is undesirable. The Registrar should have the right of calling for notice by advertisement wherever he thinks it is necessary, and in any form he thinks necessary. He might be of opinion the "Labour Gazette" would not be the proper means in a particular application; and, if this Amendment were passed, we should really be limiting the right of the Registrar, which I am sure is not what the Noble Lord wants. He wants the Registrar to have the power to require advertisement if he thinks it right.
    Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid I do not quite follow the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman. Does he suggest it might be more desirable that the Registrar should have the power to advertise in any publication? I thought that was specifically objected to by the Labour party, and that was why the Amendment was put down in this form.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Registrar has the power now. He is the person who can determine what should happen, and, if he thinks there is not sufficient notice, he can say, "I should like notice given in a particular way." I agree with the Noble Lord that in certain cases this Amendment would operate to the advantage of the trade unions inasmuch as it limits it to one particular form of advertisement in the "Labour Gazette," but it would operate for all kinds of trade unions which come under this Bill, and I do not think that desirable. I can conceive cases in which it would be desirable to advertise in some other papers and not in the "Labour Gazette," or it may be in the "Labour Gazette" and some other paper. It is better, therefore, the Registrar's discretion should be unfettered. The Noble Lord's point is met by my telling him there is a discretion vested in the Registrar, and the only effect of passing this Amendment would be to limit it. That is why I cannot accept it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Restriction on Application of Funds for certain Political Purposes.)
    (1) The funds of a trade union shall not be applied, either directly or in conjunction with any other trade union, association, or body, or otherwise indirectly, in the furtherance of the political objects to which this Section applies (without prejudice to the furtherance of any other political objects), unless rules, to be approved, whether the union is registered or not, by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, are in force providing—

    (a) That the funds of the union are only to be applied in the furtherance of any such political objects if the furtherance of those objects has been approved as an object of the union by a resolution for the time being in force passed on a ballot of the members of the union taken in accordance with this Act for the purpose by a majority of the members voting; and

    (b) That any payments in the furtherance of those objects are to be made out of a separate fund (in this Act referred to as the political fund of the union), and for the exemption in accordance with this Act of any member of the union from any obligation to contribute to such a fund if he gives notice in accordance
    1356
    with this Act that he is unwilling to contribute; and

    (c) That a member who is exempt from the obligation to contribute to the political fund of the union shall not be excluded from any benefits of the union, or placed in any respect either directly or indirectly under any disability or at any disadvantage as compared with other members of the union (except in relation to the control or management of the political fund) by reason of his being so exempt, and that contribution to the political fund of the union shall not be made a condition for admission to the union.

    (2) The political objects to which this Section applies are the expenditure of money—

    (a) on the payment of any expenses incurred either directly or indirectly by a candidate or prospective candidate for election to Parliament or to any public office, before, during, or after the election in connection with his candidature or election; or

    (b) on the holding of any meeting or the distribution of any literature or documents in support of any such candidate or prospective candidate; or

    (c) on the maintenance of any person who is a Member of Parliament or who holds a public office; or

    (d) in connection with the registration of electors or the selection of a candidate for Parliament or any public office; or

    (e) on the holding of political meetings of any kind, or on the distribution of political literature or political documents of any kind, unless the main purpose of the meetings or of the distribution of the literature or documents is the furtherance of statutory objects within the meaning of this Act.

    The expression "public office" in this Section means the office of member of any county, county borough, district, or parish council, or board of guardians, or of any public body who have power to raise money, either directly or indirectly, by means of a rate.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "rules, to be approved, whether the union is registered or not, by the Registrar of

    1357
    Friendly Societies, are in force, providing—
    (a) That the funds of the union are only to be applied in the furtherance of any such political objects if."
    This Amendment deals with an important point which was raised in Committee which I said I would consider, and in respect of which I pledged myself to bring up words on Report for the consideration of the House. I feel quite confident when the House appreciates the object of the Amendment we shall all agree it should be made. We impose upon the trade unions, as the Bill stands, the obligation, first of all, to pass rules, and, secondly, as a necessary consequence of one of the rules they wall have to pass, to take a ballot. It was pointed out in Committee, and I think it was a very pertinent criticism upon the Bill, that we are first of all asking the trade unions to go to the expense of calling a meeting to pass rules and then asking them to take a ballot on the question whether the union should engage in political objects. It would undoubtedly be better that they should first of all take a ballot as to whether they were in favour of extending their sphere of operations to political objects, and then, if they were of that opinion, that they should pass rules. The whole object of this Amendment therefore is to save expense by enabling them to take a ballot on the main principle and then, if they are agreed, rules will necessarily be passed afterwards. I intimated that was my view and that T would bring up words to carry it out, and I think the whole of the Committee were agreed it would be the right course to pursue.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that the horse should be put before the cart, and that it will be less expensive than putting the cart before the horse.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the word "voting" ["majority of the members voting"], and to insert instead thereof the word "union."
    This is only the alteration of a word, but I frankly admit it involves a very considerable principle. Trade unions up to a certain time considered, and apparently rightly considered, they wore entitled to
    1358
    take any political action they saw fit in furtherance of their general objects. We all know that position was successfully challenged in the Courts of Law, and the object of this Bill now is to allow trade unions to embark on a legalised and legitimate career of political activity. It appears to me that makes a very marked change in the position of trade unions, a change which will undoubtedly be very far-reaching. It is not a change which is unanimously agreed to by all the existing members of trade unions, and there is no reason to suppose it will be agreed to unanimously by all future members of the wage-earning classes who may earnestly desire to seek the protection of trade unionism in all matters of their daily life and to obtain the benefits to be derived from trade unions and the advantage of the power of corporate action when they think fit to take corporate action in the advancement of their rights, or in the endeavour to improve their position. It is not by any means clear that all those who would desire to join a trade union would agree to one particular form of political action or to one particular form of politics, which is really what it amounts to. It therefore seems essential we should be satisfied there is some large body of trade union opinion in favour of taking that action, particularly as we know that action has-been successfully challenged, and as we believe there is no unanimity as to engagement in politics being one of the necessary weapons of trade union armoury.

    The view of hon. Gentlemen opposite is really that in certain contingencies they should be able to take from their armoury one weapon, the weapon of a strike, and that in other conditions they should be able to use a more refined weapon of warfare and take political action. They say those two weapons are part of one policy, and that all good trade union members should be prepared to forward trade union interests by whatever method their leaders think is likely to be the most efficacious. That is what I understood to be really the position. There was a general opinion on the part of hon. Members opposite that it was really quite superfluous to have any right of choice in the matter at all. They went, in fact, so far as to move an Amendment to omit the words, "And that contribution to the political fund of the union shall not be made a condition for admission to the union," in Clause 3. They desired, even if any right of exemption was to be given

    1359
    to existing members, that it should certainly not extend to any future members who might join. I want to put the case perfectly clearly and perfectly fairly. If political action is only one of the weapons in the trade union armoury, one they can use just when it best suits the circumstances of the case, then there is a great deal to be said for the view that all trade unionists should conform to this exact form of political action; but it docs not seem to me the matter can possibly be left I there. There is no doubt this particular form of political action means the inclusion of a large number of Members in this House, and, if certain members of the community, not a few, but millions, are to be practically compelled as a condition of their entering a trade union which they enter for the purpose of mutual protection and advancement to support by a weekly or monthly levy a particular form of politics with which a large number of them are not in agreement, then I say we alter the whole system of representation in this House, and the question cannot be confined to the supposed interests of trade union members. We create a position in which a large number will be enabled to enter the House owing to their expenses being paid, and will be able to maintain themselves here in so far as they are not maintained by an unwilling public paying them £400 a year for their services. If that is to be the position, then I say we alter the whole system of representation in this House.
    Members are supposed to be returned by people who agree with them or by the majority in their constituencies who agree with the policy and the politics they advocate. If people are to contribute to the return of Members of Parliament with whom they are not in agreement, then I think it is very necessary we should at least ascertain there is a majority of the members of the trade unions who have taken the trouble to vote one way or the other on this all-important subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith), speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, quoted a large number of cases in which only 5,000 out of 100,000 members had taken the trouble to vote upon some important question in the trade union. One can multiply these instances over and over again. The contention underlying this Amendment is that this goes far beyond what is the legitimate object of
    1360
    a trade union or what is in the interests of trade union members. On this subject, at least, the public at large and the community in general have a right to expect that if a trade union wishes to enter into this legalised field of political action they should at least ask that something over one-half of the members—in fact, a majority of the members of the union—should decide in favour of that all-important policy. Surely that is not putting the question very high. We asked in Committee that there should be some substantial majority in favour of it. We were met with no line of argument against the principle of the Amendment; we were only told it would be difficult to carry into effect. We want to put no difficulties in the way of trade unions. On the' other hand, we say that it is in the interests of trade unions, if they are going to take this action, action which undoubtedly will be strongly criticised by those who are not in entire agreement, perhaps, with them, or with their methods or with their aims and objects, that, at any rate, the community at large should have the satisfaction of knowing that at least a majority of the people immediately concerned are either in favour of taking the action in question or at least take sufficient interest in it to register their vote when a duly advertised ballot is called for. It seems to be amazing that one should have to speak for a moment on such a question as this.
    Here we have a veritable revolution in our politics. Hitherto, with the exception, I admit, of action that may have been taken under a misinterpretation of what was the actual effect of the law as it then stood, with that exception Members returned to this House have been returned to represent their individual constituencies. We know when this change is made there will be two methods of representation. There will be a legalised form of contribution which will be practically compulsory under the provisions of this Bill, and we are making essential changes by which individual members of the community will have the right, by means of a small committee, of practically controlling the contributions of an enormous membership, the vast majority of whom joined for purely trade purposes, and without any direct intention of entering into politics. It is surely an extraordinary state of affairs that we should have to argue that before taking such a departure at least one-half of the members of the trade union concerned

    1361
    should take enough interest in the subject to vote "Aye" or "Nay" on the question of policy. I confidently commend the Amendment to all Members who are in favour of free politics and of liberty of action on the part of the individual in whatever political action he may chose to take. I would only add this: I feel perfectly certain, whatever rules may be incorporated in the Act as laid down and prescribed as being the rules that ought to be adopted by trade unionists, whatever may be done in that direction, once this departure is taken as a matter of practice and as a practical question, it will be incumbent upon every member of a trade union, whether he agrees or not, to contribute to the political fund of his union. I am certain that, not in the long run, but very soon, that will be the state of affairs, and I give hon. Members opposite credit for knowing that. It is one of the reasons why they are ready to accept this Bill with what are, from their point of view, certain imperfections which deny them complete liberty of action, because they know, as practical men of the world, that in the working out it will prove practically obligatory on every member of a trade union to contribute to the political fund.
    The amount may be small; it is said it is so small in most cases as to be not worth while making a fuss about or to emphasise any difference of opinion. But if we leave in a provision of this kind we shall find it will become a matter of course, and we shall have a large body of people in this country who joined for one purpose, a great organisation of trade unions, and who find that in practice it is to their interest not to make themselves peculiar but to go with the accepted custom and pay whatever the contribution may be, perhaps a shilling a year, to the political fund. From the point of view of the actual money involved, it is not a matter of very great importance; it would not rob anyone. But I want to point out that this is a question of principle. Are we to establish this system which will, in future, deprive the people of their liberty and will practically impose a political test, if not in regard to political opinion, but a test which will go thus far that unless a man holds very strong principles and is willing to make himself an exception to his fellow workers he must do something which may be against his inclination, or, in some extreme cases, against his
    1362
    conscience? I say this is not an ordinary question at all. If it were a question whether trade unions should authorise a strike or terminate one, or take any other action in the course of everyday business, it might be held that it did not matter much whether many or few chose to vote; that would be the business of the members of the trade union. But I say that the community at large have an interest in this question; they have a right to know if a majority of the trade union members are either in favour or against this new departure, and that they take a sufficient amount of interest in it to fill up their ballot papers. That is all we ask for by this Amendment, and it is with the utmost confidence, from that point of view, that I put this matter before the House.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I am a strong believer in organisation; I am a strong supporter of trade unions. Trade unions in the past—in the days when they had scant experience and sometimes inefficient officials to run their business on good, sound, business lines—met with great opposition. But they are a necessity, not only for workmen, but for the proper working of business. Therefore, I want to see workmen join trade unions, and it is for that reason that I second this Amendment to-day. Men who have common interests, who work together in trade, join their trade union, and you are bound to find among such men Conservatives, Radicals, Socialists, and even men who have no politics at all, men who, in the ordinary administration of their union, are willing to leave the work to their political leaders or to those who take an active part in the organisation. But when it conies to getting power from the State, surely the State ought to know if the majority of the men of these unions want that power to be given to them. After the power has been given by the State, then it will be a matter for the union; it will be a matter for the official responsible to the members in accordance with the rules. But it certainly must be right for the State to ask to be informed whether a majority of members, including all shades of political opinion, wish to have power given to them to enter into the political arena. It is for that reason I second the Amendment. I believe it will strengthen and not weaken trade unions.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The speech of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment

    1363
    went very far in the direction of a Second Reading speech. I do not complain of that. It opened up a very large question, and I want to point out to the House that what we are really considering is the point whether or not it shall be necessary under this Bill that there shall be a majority of the members of the union in favour of extending its political objects, or whether it is sufficient to have a majority of those who take part in the ballot. I was struck by one observation of the hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech. He said "we want to put no difficulty in the way of the unions." I cannot conceive anything which would put a greater difficulty in their way than the passing of this Amendment, and I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member can seriously suggest otherwise. It would mean taking a union with a membership of 100,000, that over 50,000 would have to declare themselves in favour of the proposal before they could take, advantage of the privileges given by this Bill.
    Mr. PETO: I said a majority of members of the union.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: As the Bill stands, it is a majority of the members voting, but the hon. Gentleman by his Amendment wishes to leave out the word "voting," and insert the words "of the union." I think, therefore, I am correct in my definition of the position.
    Mr. PETO: It must be 50,000 one way or the other.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I could understand the argument if it were to the effect that it is unsatisfactory to have a very small number of members of the trade union voting. But the proposal of the hon. Gentleman goes very much farther, and if his Amendment be carried, it would certainly spoil the benefits which the unions would be entitled to obtain under this Bill. You never get a majority of more than half the members of the union voting in favour of a proposal. Under the proposal of the hon. Gentleman there might be such a thing as legalised compulsion. But this Bill prevents compulsion; it gives a man the right of exemption; it also takes care that when there is a ballot there shall be secrecy; that there shall be the right to vote given to every single member, and a fair and reasonable opportunity of voting. That is how the Bill stands as it emerged from
    1364
    Committee. I submit to the House that they could not have a more satisfactory proposal in regard to the ballot, and that it really provides all that is necessary. I quite appreciate it being said that the ballot must be secret. For that purpose we have introduced words into the Bill. I can understand it being said there must be a fair opportunity given to every man to vote. We have given that.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is qualified by the words "if reasonably possible."
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, and does not understand why those words were inserted. I will tell him in one moment. All these matters, the right to vote, fair and reasonable opportunity to vote, and the secrecy of the ballot are fully provided for. The only reason for introducing the words referred to by the hon. Member was that it was pointed out that in the Sailors' and Firemen's Union the men were not always able to vote. I submit that we have done all that we ought to have done when we have given a man all these opportunities. If he does not choose to avail himself of the right given to him by the ballot, surely he has no right to complain. He is not even penalised when we have done that. We do not say that if he does not choose to vote he shall lose his rights, but we say that if he does not choose to take part in the ballot he must let the majority decide it. After the majority has decided it, then it is still open to a member of the union, who objects to paying, to claim exemption. Then he does not have to pay into the political funds. I ask the House not to accept this Amendment, and I submit that, having regard to what has happened in Committee and to the framework of the Bill as it has emerged from Committee, there is no need for any such Amendment as this, and that the only effect of the Amendment must be to cripple and paralyse the trade unions in their activities. I do not think that that is the hon. Gentleman's desire. He disclaimed any such wish, and I accept his statement. It amounts to this: If you have a ballot taken of the members of the union who, I will assume, are in greater part indifferent—that is an assumption against the views of those who represent trade unions—assuming that the majority do not care one way or the other, if that is the case, why should not the matter be decided by the majority? It in

    1365
    no way imposes upon them the obligation to pay a penny, but merely says that those who do care to vote may vote for or against it, and can by the ballot come to the conclusion, by a majority of those voting, that there shall be this activity in the particular trade union. If that is to take place, I submit there is no ground for any of the fears which the hon. Member has put forward. He seemed at one time to be travelling very far indeed, and suggested what would happen in this House, as if it mattered in the slightest degree to the House except, of course, as to the powers the House confers on a trade union by its legislation. I think it is an important Amendment. If it is passed it will destroy the value of the Bill to members of trade unions, and I hope the hon. Member will not persist in it.
    Captain CLAY: I cannot agree with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I cannot see that the difficulties he describes will be so great as he would lead us to believe. In ordinary elections we have something like 95 per cent, voting upon the issues, and if members of trade unions are genuine in their desire for political action, surely they would take the trouble of registering their votes in the ballot. I will not go into the details of how few have voted in the past on this particular question. I would point out that if two unions wish to amalagamate they have to obtain a two-third's majority in order to secure amalgamation. If they are able to get a two-third's majority in order to do that, as they have done for years past, it is not asking too much that half the members of a union should vote on the question whether or not they wish to pursue political objects. A large number of these men join their union not for political, but for industrial purposes. They are practically forced to join their union in many trades or else have no living whatever. Therefore I think it is necessary that they should have the additional safeguard provided by this Amendment. It is one of the vital principles of the Bill that the question of political representation should be thoroughly gone into by the unions before they adopt it. It is a good thing for the members of the unions themselves that they should be forced to take some intelligent interest in political questions. If they think it really does not matter and they are perfectly content to allow perhaps 5 per cent, of the union to vote, it is a very bad thing indeed, and I think that the members of a union had far better vote
    1366
    in larger numbers in order that they should secure the representation they wish. As we have said on many occasions, we have no wish whatever to delay this Bill in any way, but we do wish to secure every possible protection for the minority who are forced to be members of a union. For these reasons, among others, and because this is one of the Amendments I regard as most important, I sincerely hope it will be carried.
    Mr. BRACE: I think the Attorney-General was much more generous to the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) than he deserved, when he said that he thought the hon. Member sincerely did not wish to injure the unions in their political activities. I have not the slightest hesitation in declaring that the hon. Member intends, if possible, to prevent trade unions exercising political activities.
    Mr. PETO: On a point of Order, Sir. Is the hon. Member entitled to impute motives to hon. Members for what they say in their speeches?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to impute motives. I do not think he is quite doing that, but is judging the Amendment by its effect.
    Mr. BRACE: I hope I have not trespassed upon the well established traditions of the House by imputing motives, but I do resent, and very strongly resent, the insulting language that is being used, and the offensive reference that is invariably made to the salary of £400 a year in every kind of speech that the hon. Member makes, and other hon. Members make, who engage in these attacks upon ourselves as representing trade unions.
    Earl WINTERTON: Who has made insulting remarks?
    Mr. BRACE: It is not our fault that we have not wealthy parents, and that we are unable to depend upon the resources of the family rather than upon our own resources.
    Mr. A. LYTTELTON: On a point of Order. The hon. Member began by imputing insincerity to my hon. Friend. He is now going on to discuss the payment of Members. I submit that both are irregular.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I certainly deprecate discussion on the payment of Members. It is true the subject was not very sufficiently discussed when it was brought in, but that

    1367
    is no reason for discussing it on every possible occasion now. Perhaps the hon. Member will drop that topic.
    Mr. BRACE: I apologise to Mr. Speaker and to the House, and I hope that other hon. Members who take part in this discussion will try to realise that there is a feeling that it is not quite fairly playing the game with us to make such references to the £400 a year. Turning to the Amendment, if the hon. Member who moved it had not been a member of the Grand Committee I should have been disposed to think that he had not read the Bill, but inasmuch as he was a member of the Grand Committee, and took a considerable part and much of our time there in speaking upon Amendments and moving them, he really must know that this Bill does not give us power to compel any man, against his will, to pay the Parliamentary levy or contribute toward the maintenance of a Member of this House. As a matter of fact, that is my great complaint against the Bill. I think we ought to have the power, but inasmuch as we are not given the power, we are entitled to ask hon. Members not to declare publicly that we have in this Bill an instrument by which men, whether they like it or not, will be compelled to contribute for political purposes.
    Mr. PETO: What I said was that whatever the Bill might say, I appealed to hon. Members opposite whether, as practical men, they did not know that it would become the rule that all members of trade unions would, as a matter of fact, in future contribute to this political fund.
    Mr. BRACE: I can only say that I have no confidence that the Bill will enable us to do that. If I had, I should welcome the Bill much more enthusiastically than I do. The Amendment is intended to cripple, if possible, trade unions from taking part in political activities. The Bill as at present constructed gives first the non-political man the power to vote down the project. When the ballot is called he may, if he likes, take part in it, and endeavour to prevent his union taking part in political activities altogether. But if he fails in his effort to prevent the union taking part in political activities, then the Bill gives him the protection of allowing him to contract out or to be exempted. One would have thought that every principle of equity was met in such a proposal. First, the regulations under the Bill create the opportu-
    1368
    nity for every man to cast his vote. Secondly, having cast his vote, although doing so against the project, if the majority of the Members voting decide for political activities, then there is a further protection to the man who is not in favour of political activities—he may contract himself out. The hon. Member now comes along with a further Amendment, which says that it must be a majority, not of the men voting, but of the union that is to determine whether that particular society shall or shall not engage in political activities. The hon. Member is a great protagonist of individual liberty. By what right does he say that we must compel every man to take part in voting? We do not want that liberty. We say that in a free country like this the question whether a man will cast a vote or not is a matter for him to decide, but if he refuses to exercise his right as a member of the community to cast his vote, assuredly that ought not to be used as a reason for preventing other people who want to engage in political activities from partaking of that opportunity. I do not want to put it offensively. A Noble Lord earlier this afternoon interposed an interjection that I am never very ready to accept anything that he proposes. I wish hon. Members would give us a chance to accept something worth having. It is because all their proposals are intended to weaken the power of the unions for political representation that, against our wish, we are placed in opposition to them, and it is because we think that upon no critical or fair argument or fair treatment ought this Amendment to be accepted that we welcome the declaration of the Attorney-General that the Government do not see their way to accept this. Why are trade unions always to be treated, and why are the members of trade unions always to be treated as if they were not entitled to the same recognition as other people? In Parliamentary Elections you would not declare an Election void because the majority of the people entitled to vote had not taken part in it. After all, all that we ask is the same principle as is in operation in connection with the public life of this nation, and neither hon. Members opposite nor anyone else ought to ask us to take anything less.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: The hon. Member is so frank upon this subject that he almost disarms criticism. He repeatedly made it clear in Committee, and he has made it perfectly explicit to-day, that if he

    1369
    had his way the position of the union and the workers would be that every man should be compelled to join a union, and having joined a union should be compelled to contribute to political funds whether he approved or disapproved of the manner in which they were expended.
    Mr. BRACE: If the majority decide.
    Mr. CRAIG: In other words, that the rights of the minority should be callously ignored. The position is perfectly frank, and it would be a useful thing that the workers of the country who are invited to become members of unions should appreciate that that is the measure of liberty which, in the opinion of one of the leaders, should be attributed to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have never disguised it."] Do I understand, then, that there is not a Member below the Gangway opposite who does not think that the workers of the country should be compelled to join the unions, and, having joined the unions, should be compelled to contribute money to political purposes, independent of their approval or disapproval? Is that assented to by the whole of the Labour party in this House? I hear no word of dissent, so I assume it is so. I am quite sure that hon. Members, who are in full force to-day, would have the honesty and the courage to get up and say so if they dissented from the statement which their interruption invited me to make. That being so, it is good that the workers of this country should know that not merely the hon. Member (Mr. Brace), but the whole of the Labour party in the House, think that they should be forced into the unions, and that, having been forced into them, they should be forced to contribute money for political purposes. I am quite certain some of the workers of the country would be surprised to know that the whole of the Labour party in the House of Commons takes that view. The hon. Member suggests that we want to force men to vote. I assure him he is mistaken. We want them to be at liberty to vote whether they want it or not. It is the hon. Member who wants to bring pressure upon the workers of the country. We want the workers of the country to have the same freedom that the greatest individualist would claim for himself. It is because we are in favour of the freedom of the worker that this Amendment has been proposed. It is because the hon. Member is opposed to the freedom of the workers that he has expressed the views with which he has favoured the House.
    1370
    As regards the observations of the Attorney-General, he made us the concession that he did not believe we desired to cripple the unions. It is perfectly right. We owe the right hon. Gentleman our thanks for attributing to us somewhat fairer motives than have recently been attributed by certain less distinguished Members of the party opposite. But while he is quite right in saying we do not want to cripple the activity of the unions this Amendment is not designed to that end. We are dealing here, not with the primary objects of trade unions, but with secondary and subsidiary objects. The primary object of trade unions is to improve the industrial position in this country in relation to wages and conditions of employment. The object which we are now discussing—the political object—is subsidiary and does not form part of the original trade union movement. It is just because it did not do so that the necessity for the introduction of this Bill has arisen. It is because of the real objection of trade unions being industrial, that the Osborne Judgment was declared. Things have marched fast since then, I agree, and the conditions are different now, and it is probably true, at any rate as regards the operations of individual trade unions, that they have done so much that there is little for them to do to-day in the matter of pure industrial trade unionism.
    It is developing in two directions—a national, and an international movement—that is one phase, and the other is the political phase. The political phase has been in existence for many years. When you are taking a ballot to ascertain whether or not a trade union shall embark upon political purposes, you are in fact asking the members of the union whether they are going to add to their primary purposes secondary and subsidiary objects, and that is why we think the members of the unions should not be entitled to embark upon these secondary and comparatively subsidiary purposes unless it is the real opinion of the union that it is desirable to do so. I do not understand the observations of the Attorney-General. He says if the majority are indifferent, why should not the minority decide for them? Is not the fairer inference from inactivity that they care so little about it that they do not trouble to attend or to vote, and if that is the fair interpretation, why should the minority who are desirous of the acquisition of political purposes to

    1371
    impose the right to exercise those powers upon the majority who are too indifferent to claim it? It appears to me that this is neither logical nor sound. These things ought to be pointed out. It is not the majority of the union holding Radical or Socialist or Conservative views, or no views at all. All that the Amendment asks is that there should be 50 per cent, of the people in the union of any or no political colour, all added together, who are sufficiently interested to vote that the union shall embark upon political purposes without regard to what those political purposes may be, and it seems to me a most moderate demand having regard to the step that is being taken, and to the fact that the step is a novelty from the point of view of a union which has not indulged in political purposes before.
    The Standing Committee which considered this Bill was careful, when it was considering a similar question of majorities and safeguards for minorities under the Shops Bill—and the House adopted the view of the Committee when the Bill came back—to insert not merely a percentage of voters but a percentage upon the percentage of voters, to make sure that the Bill should not be brought into operation unless there was a real demand for it. You have under the Shops Act to have a percentage of those entitled to vote and then you must have a percentage of those voting, and it is only if you get the prescribed percentage of those voting and of those entitled to vote that you are able to bring the Act into operation. Now, when you come to this Bill, no sort of assurance is deemed desirable by the Government or by hon. Members below the Gangway that there is any real demand in any particular union for the enlarging of the area of its activities. No one has ever heard of a Parliamentary election where there was not a far bigger percentage than 50 per cent, voting. If so, what does it mean if you get less than 50 per cent., and what does the Attorney-General mean by saying you will destroy the Bill if you insist on it? It means that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members below the Gangway do not believe that they could evoke in the general circles of the unions even a half of the active interest which the general population of this country entitled to consider political matters does take. I see no reason why, if politics are to be embarked upon, something like a true reflex of opinion should not be ascer-
    1372
    tained, and I see no reason why politics should be embarked upon unless there is a real demand, within the limits of any particular union, that that step should be taken.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I am not in favour of the restricted conditions imposed by this Clause upon the freedom of action of trade unions. I have always regarded trade unions as being entitled to as much freedom of action, no matter what their policy or action might be, so long as it was within the confines of the law, as any other association. I entirely differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman when he suggested that political objects were not, and historically had not been, the primary objects of trade unions. If he had studied the history very carefully of the rise of trade unions in this country, he would have found that one of the earliest enterprises upon which they embarked in the distant' forties, and even going beyond that period to wards the end of the eighteenth century, was to obtain Parliamentary representation. It is wholly a misconception to believe that the idea of Parliamentary representation is a modern invention on their part. If the hon. Member who moved this Amendment reflects that all political, and I think nearly all commercial institutions in this country are governed by the principle of the majority of those voting, and that in this House itself it is not a majority of the Members of the House, but a majority of the persons who take part in the vote, who decide great questions of policy, international as well as national—
    Viscount WOLMER: The quorum is forty.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: Forty out of 670. Only the other day we saw hon. Members opposite gladly availing themselves of that principle of voting in this House by attempting by a snap Division to upset the Government against the will of the majority.
    Earl WINTERTON: Two-thirds of the Members of the House voted.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: But we are governed here by the principle laid down by the wisdom of our ancestors, and, indeed, so much was the justice of that principle recognised a short time ago that we abolished proxies in the other place. As the Noble Lord well knows, we had a very anomalous and anachronistic system

    1373
    of voting by proxy in the other House, and people who never attended debates, and who took no part in politics were enabled by proxy to vote on questions which came before the other House. There is, therefore, nothing in principle against deciding by a majority of those voting. Look at it from the point of view of detail. My hon. Friend has pointed out how an artificial majority might be obtained against a proposition that a trade union might embark in politics. Take another great practical difficulty. It may interest the Attorney-General to be informed that I talked to one of his constituents, I believe a supporter, who told me that on a very important question, namely, whether the Borough of Reading should incur large expenditure involving, with the approbation of the Local Government Board, the negotiation of a heavy loan, and involving perhaps an increase of twopence or twopence-halfpenny in the rates, the ratepayers of that municipality were invited to declare their opinion on the matter which had been under discussion for two years, and was in everybody's thoughts, and yet only 20 per cent, of those competent to vote for that proposition among the burgesses and ratepayers voted upon the question. I believe the result was in favour of the proposal for incurring this heavy additional expenditure for great public improvements. That is a clear case. To assume for one moment that the 20 per cent, did not represent the feeling of the ratepayers would be wrong. Undoubtedly, if there had been a strong feeling against making these improvements and obtaining the loan, the ratepayers would have voted against the proposal.
    Let us pursue it a little further. If the miners of Durham were invited to vote I do not think there would be any difficulty in getting an actual majority—I do not say which way—one way or the other, because it is a homogeneous trade. The people are all living together, but that is not true of many trades. The members of these trade unions are scattered all over the country. Unhappily, the working population of this country are largely migratory in character. Men engaged in the building trades and other trades are here to-day and away to-morrow, and there would be great difficulty in getting the absolute majority which would be required. But where is the harm? You have hedged this Bill most unreasonably, I think, with restrictions. I believe in the absolute free will of the majority of the
    1374
    people. I have never regarded it as in law ultra vires for a trade union to embark in politics, but the Osborne Judgment has prevented that view being taken, and, therefore, I, as a lawyer, accept the proposition Where is the harm if a man is against a union embarking on what are termed in the Bill political objects? He is not to be damnified if they do engage in political objects. He is taken care of in this Bill. If that man says, "I shall not subscribe for that purpose," he is not to suffer in his status as a member of the union, and he has not to contribute a penny towards the political objects which the union has in view. I think this Amendment, with all due respect, is futile. I think it would cause a considerable amount of embarrassment and difficulty to many trade unions, and would be most unjust. Therefore I shall vote against it.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: It is rather difficult for anyone who has not been present at the Debates in the Grand Committee to be perfectly certain of his ground, especially as you may say something in this House which strikes some vein of passion which has been awakened in the Grand Committee of which you were totally unaware. Dr. Johnson said it is indiscreet for a sober man to enter the company and take part in the conversation of those who are drunk. It does seem that some such debate must have taken place in the Grand Committee when this question has so much excited the usually courteous Member for South Glamorgan (Mr. Brace). I have listened most carefully to this Debate with the object of informing myself on what really is the crux of it. I confess not only as a lawyer, but as a man who has lived among his fellows, that there seems to be nothing more reasonable than that when a great change is suggested to a body which has been acting together the change should be approved by a majority of the members when it takes place. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, that principle is already on the Statute Book with respect to trade unions themselves. They require a two-thirds majority for amalgamation, and ordinarily speaking I think any man of common sense and ordinary views would say that it was only natural and proper that before a fresh adventure is taken a bare majority should vote for the change. It is quite true that, as the Attorney-General pointed out, in the very clear speech he made at the beginning, that after this ballot has been taken the

    1375
    dissenters from the view have machinery prescribed by the Bill by which—though not to protest—to absolve themselves from all expense which is the result of that decision. That is a perfectly fair observation, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not tell us, nor did the hon. Member for South Glamorgan tell us, what is the reason for saying that if this Amendment was accepted it would absolutely defeat the whole object of the Bill. In other words, both of them affirm, but neither of them gave any reason for stating, that if the Amendment was inserted not a single trade union would be able to embark on political activities.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In most cases.
    Mr. A. LYTTELTON: Inmost cases. They say it would practically wreck the Bill in the vast majority of cases. I must do the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Atherley-Jones), who is a lawyer, the credit of having given a really substantial reason which was not given by his predecessors in the Debate, and which I think is certainly worthy of the consideration of the House. If those who speak for trade unions were to assure me that it is as a matter of fact in very many cases impossible to get at the members, and that this is the best you can do in the way of establishing that the majority are in favour of a certain course, I should hesitate which way I should cast my vote. But we have had no such authoritative pronouncement on the question.
    Mr. WARDLE: Certainly that is the reason why we oppose this Amendment so strongly. It is exceedingly difficult in most of the unions to get a majority to vote, and that for the very reason given by the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones).
    Mr. A. LYTTELTON: Speaking for myself, I think that is really the point of this case. I think those who ask us not to vote for the Amendment ought to bring forward evidence to show that they are doing all that reasonably can be done. Certainly to anyone like myself it does appear a strange paradox that, while there is a desire in many quarters that trade unions should be allowed to engage in political activities, such great apathy should be shown by those who constitute the majority. I confess I have some doubt in the matter, but perhaps we might have some further light in the course of the Debate.
    Mr. BARNES: Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that as a simple matter of fact we never do get a majority of members of any union to vote on anything, not even on strikes. Sometimes in extreme cases, where a vote is taken locally, you may get a majority, but taking unions of a national character whose members are spread from one end of the country to the other, in such cases you never do, and never can, get an actual majority of the members to vote on anything. The most extreme case which I have in mind was on one occasion when a very large percentage, at least 40 or 50 per cent., of the engineers were involved in a dispute, and when, after a lock-out of some six months, the question of settling that dispute one way or the other came up to be decided, and even then we did not get more than about 37 per cent, of the union to vote. And there is a good reason. The railway men will deal with their own case. Theirs is a fairly obvious case—Sunday work and things of that kind. But take the engineers. We vote only in the branches. Those branches meet about once a fortnight. A man joins a branch in a particular place, and does not care about leaving it. Take my own case. I have been a member of a branch of engineers in Chelsea for thirty years. I have never lived in Chelsea during the whole of that time. I do not go more than three or four times a year to my branch. Consequently it seems that even in normal conditions the average member does not go to a branch except on some extreme occasion, but sends his contribution either through the agency of his wife or one of his children. This applies to all the others as well as to the engineers. But here is something which applies specially to engineers. We have between 9,000 and 10,000 of our members at sea. Those men pay their contributions. They are included in the total roll of members, yet not one in twenty of them ever has a chance of voting at all on anything. Consequently you may take off these nine or ten thousand men.
    Another thing is that members are not always at home. Trade union membership is largely made up of the best of the working people, the most skilful of the mechanics of the country in various trades. Therefore these men are being constantly sent out by the various firms for which they work. It is impossible to give the figures in regard to that as in regard to the sea-going men. One never khows. But it is likely that there is even

    1377
    a larger number of engineers working out at any particular time putting up machinery in Germany, France and all over the world, so that you may knock off no less than another ten thousand or may be up to twenty thousand for them. Then another point is that very often we have to work overtime, not because we like it but because of the pressure of trade. Probably, if the right hon. Gentleman will take a bird's-eye view of the trade and industry of the country at present, he would find that owing to the pressure of the trade boom a very large number of the rank and file of trade unionists are working overtime, and therefore are not in a position to get to their branches. If the right hon. Gentleman only knew the trade union movement as we do, he would see from the facts we have given that when it comes down to actual members who have a chance of voting, you do not get a majority of voters in the average trade union. Taking the builders and engineers, who largely work out or away, and the people at sea, and take the railway men doing long journeys, some working night work one week and day work the next, taking all the unions together, probably he would find that not a majority has a chance of voting, let alone getting a majority in favour of any particular object. I think that I have answered the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not need to say anything more than this, that if you get a majority of those voting on any particular proposition, you may fairly take that majority as representing a majority of the trade union.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: This question was fully discussed in Committee upstairs and discussed in all its aspects. As a member of the Committee I listened very attentively to the arguments adduced by the learned Attorney-General and by many members of the Labour party. I must own that while I felt that some Amendment of this Clause was necessary I could not then and cannot now bring myself to accept the Amendment before the House to the effect that at least half of the total number of members of the union must vote in favour of any particular proposition in order that that proposition may be carried. The arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) seemed to me to be conclusive in showing that undoubtedly that is too large a proportion of the total number of members of the union to be expected to vote even on so important a matter as the extension of the
    1378
    powers of the union to political objects. On the other hand, I certainly would have been glad if some Amendment had been brought forward similar to the Amendments that were proposed in Committee, that a certain number of the members of the union should vote on the matter in order that the opinion of the majority should prevail. In all other matters, certainly commercial and industrial, even in this House, a quorum is required to vote in order that the opinion of the majority should prevail, and I should have been glad if an Amendment of that kind had been put down, and if the Members of the Labour party would have agreed to it. But no such Amendment is on the Paper, and I am not certain whether the Labour party would assent to any such Amendment if it were put down. I very much doubt whether they would. I should be very sorry if it should be thought that those Members of this House who are not in any way associated with trade unions, like myself, and who look at this question from a purely outside point of view, were doing anything to prevent the Members of the Labour party from enlarging their sphere of their activity by entering into political work. Therefore, I should be glad personally if the Mover and Seconder of this proposal would be willing to withdraw. Whether they will do so or not I cannot say, but if they do not, I shall not be able to vote in favour of the Amendment.
    Mr. LYNCH: As one who is not a member of a trade union, but followed very closely the Debate, I may say a few words on this important question. These arguments were advanced at great length again and again before the Committee, and I was particularly struck by this fact, that very often when we were unable to form even the very small quorum demanded for a Committee, yet it was left to our vote to decide the question, which had its influence on the whole of the population of this country. I wondered how any hon. Gentleman who supports this Amendment could seriously propose in Committee that about nine Members should definitely pass into law something which would prevent the majority of those voting in trade unions from having their way in their own union. To-day I have listened to the various arguments, and that same impression was again and again borne in on my mind. I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Thanet (Mr. Norman Craig), who after delivering

    1379
    his brief left the House without waiting for an answer. He said, that the trade unions of this country had been continually enlarging their sphere of activity, that they had broken with their primary objects and become political. It is very necessary for them to become political. We have heard of those who are born to greatness, those who achieve greatness, and those who have greatness thrust upon them. Trade unions, without seeking it, have had politics absolutely thrust upon them, because we in this House undertake the management of their concerns, possibly—because there is no check whatever upon us—in dense ignorance of the administration of the law behind them, of their objects, of their mode of work, but we presume—no doubt rightly so—to interfere even in the smallest details of their organisation; yet, on the other hand, we hold up the reproach to them that they are becoming political. For my part, I hope that they will not only develop in this way, but that they will develop on the international side and develop in the sense of cohesion among trade unions.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Those observations hardly seem to be relevant to the Amendment which we are now discussing.
    Mr. LYNCH: I bow to your ruling, but I was simply following the objections raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Thanet. The main point, however; is this: The hon. and learned Member for Hanover Square said that if one good reason was put forward he would be inclined favourably to consider the position of trade unions, and give his opinion against this Amendment. I ask him now, after having heard the hon. Member for Blackfriars, whether he is still prepared to vote for this Amendment, because Members of this House very often form an opinion, not upon the reasons for it, but because they belong to one side or the other? Personally, whether those arguments so forcibly put forward from his intimate knowledge by the hon. Member for Blackfriars held good or not, I would still be opposed to this Amendment. I quite recognise that those arguments in themselves are unanswerable, but suppose the members of a trade union have ample opportunity for voting on any matter put before them, and that, with ample time for deliberation, they still, either through carelessness or indifference, or some other
    1380
    cause, refrain from voting, why should their abstention of ignorance prevail against those who have taken an active part in the organisation and endeavoured, by their activity, to further its ends? I dare say the strongest reason even for their abstention, would not be indifference or ignorance, but because they had by a careful mode of election, placed in a position of power those who are best fitted to govern the trade unions and guide those who in a great majority of cases are content to leave the decision of matters in their hands. I feel that is a perfectly sound principle, and I think it is quite possible to have conciliation of democracy on a broad basis with an aristocracy. I am delighted to see before me what I may call the aristocrats of the Labour party, using the word aristocrats in the true sense of the word—I mean aristocrats not through privilege or accident, but by hard work and by approbation of their fellows in the task put before them. On all grounds I think it is simply bringing it to a reductio ad absurdum, if we in this Parliament, being only a very small proportion at the present time of Parliament itself, and Parliament being only a very small proportion of the nation, were to decide that, having the right of determining legislation by the majority of our own vote, that those votes, when we bring them to bear on the question of developing trade unions, should say that their leaders and those who have taken an active interest in their work, should be unable to carry out their own will.
    Earl WINTERTON: I wish to deal with a point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend, and to which the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division replied. Before dealing with that point, I wish to say, with regard to the whole attitude of those who sit on this side of the House on this and similar Amendments, that I take it to mean that we consider the safeguards proposed by us for insertion in this Bill are necessary if the minority are to be protected. We have endeavoured to get those safeguards accepted, but they have been invariably refused. Our position is perfectly intelligible. We accept the principle of the Bill fully, but we do not accept the way in which the Bill is to be carried out, and all the responsibility for that must rest on the shoulders of the Government. So far from what the hon. Member for Glamorgan said being the fact, I would point out that during this Session trade

    1381
    unions have been treated as the spoiled child of the Legislature, and if that be persisted in the effect will only be to injure trade unions themselves. I know the argument will be brought against me that I have not many trade unionists in my Constituency, but I submit that in many towns of the country I see a great, danger arising from the undue power given to trade unions, just as we have seen it arise from the undue power given to corporations elsewhere.
    I ask Members of the House who have not made up their minds on this Amendment to recognise that danger, and I can not think that anyone on the other side of the House will disagree with me when I say that no one can assert that the Legislature has been hard on trade unions during the last six years. I think it is not going too far to say that trade unions have been the spoiled child in regard to legislation. What we have got to recognise is that this question of Parliamentary action has not yet been settled in the trade unions themselves. If we took a canvas of every trade unionist in the country, I am not at all sure that you would not find a large majority against the proposal of the Bill. The hon. Member for Bradford, in the course of a legitimate interruption, said that trade unionists had received great benefits from political action. I differ from the hon. Gentleman, and I doubt if many trade unionists hold that point of view at all. I think a great many of them are very dissatisfied with what their Parliamentary representatives have done. The Government are asking Parliament to give the trade unionists an exceptional privilege. It was observed by an hon. Member that nothing is being done here which has not been done for commercial or political corporations, but you are really asking Parliament to do much more than that. What is the position of trade unionists upon this matter? If there were a unanimous vote, if there were any means open to us of ascertaining what the real view of individual members of trade unions is on this matter, and if trade unionists, by an overwhelming majority, sought to be allowed to take political action, then the safeguards which Parliament imposed would naturally be much less than are necessary in the case of the present Bill.
    But that fight has not yet been fought out, and the Government in refusing this Amendment are, I submit, weighting one
    1382
    of the clubs in the fight. As regards the point that if the Amendment were accepted it would make it impossible for any trade union to carry on political action, owing to the difficulty, for example, of getting hold of the individual members, I would submit that there is a greatly exaggerated fear in regard to that difficulty on the part of Labour Members opposite. On another stage of the Bill the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill) said it was impossible to get hold of individual members in order to obtain a ballot with regard to any proposed legislation of the Government. I hope the House will allow me to read an extract from a letter on the very point relating to the taking of the ballot. The letter is from a member of a trade union. [The Noble Lord read an extract to the effect that secretaries of a trade union in the Lancashire cotton trade had distributed the papers to the individual members of the unions in the mills where they worked.]
    Mr. GILL: What the Noble Lord has read is exactly what I stated. We have a different system from other trade unions, and we got at the individual members through the secretaries.
    Earl WINTERTON: The point here is that you have an instance in which you have got hold of the names and addresses of the individual members, and why could not that be done in every trade union?
    Mr. GILL: I absolutely deny that the general secretary has the power to get the names of the whole of the members in the mills. The only addresses we ask for are those of the secretaries in each mill, who get at the men in the mills.
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman himself shows that the union officials were able to obtain the names, and my correspondent in his last sentence said those secretaries are paid officers of the union and are in the respective mills where they distribute to every member the ballot paper or card as the case may be. The point I wish to make is that forty or fifty paid officers of the union have obtained the names of members of the union, and I assert with confidence that it is possible for a trade union through its paid officers to get hold of the name and address of every member of the union. That has been denied again and again by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I submit that if it has been possible to get hold of these

    1383
    names in one instance, it should be possible in others, and, that being so, the objection to the Amendment falls to the ground. If there be machinery through paid officers to reach the individual members, then I say there is not the slightest reason why this Amendment should not be passed. If you inform every member as to the ballot which is to be taken, and if you cannot get 51 per cent, of the members to vote, then it may be fairly assumed that the desire of that union for political action cannot be very strong. I do not know whether the House is aware that the figures in an ordinary General Election show that something like 84 per cent, of the people on the average vote in a Parliamentary Election. If that be so, surely it should be possible to get 51 per cent, to vote in an election of this kind. My own impression is, and it has certainly been strengthened by what I have observed, that hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that, there is no wide desire among trade union members for political action, and, therefore, they desire that the Bill should stand in such a way as to make it possible for the minority to undertake political action. Otherwise, I cannot see, for the life of me, after listening to the Debate, what can be the objection to this Amendment. There is one other point, which is a matter showing how little interest is taken at the present time by many trade unions as to the question of political action, and the reason why the Labour party are opposing this Amendment. I have here the report of the Labour party, as well as the report of the Trade Union Congress for last year. Looking through them, I observe extraordinary discrepancies in the contributions of the different unions to that party. Some unions, with memberships totalling as many as 30,000, sent small contributions of £30 to the Labour party, while unions with a membership of perhaps seven or eight thousand sent contributions of £100. Two most important unions, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and the Iron and Brass Founders' Union, sent no contribution at all, although they have a total membership of 100,000.
    Mr. JOWETT: They were "injuncted."
    Earl WINTERTON: There may have been an injunction against one of them.
    Mr. JOWETT: Against both of them.
    Earl WINTERTON: That does not affect the matter of my argument. [Laughter.]
    1384
    Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but it does not affect the value of my argument. The real point is as to the discrepancies. It is not suggested that some of those societies, which, with a membership of 10,000, made a contribution of £2, or one which made a contribution of 10s., had been injuncted, although they are so keen about political action.
    Mr. BARNES: Can you give us the name of that society?
    Earl WINTERTON: I am not sure that I have the name now, but it is in this book. There may be a reason for it, and I have no doubt there is a reason; but I call the attention of my hon. Friends to this, that no argument has been brought forward to show that there is this widespread desire on the part of the members of trade unions for political action, and because there is not that desire, and because hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite know that their position is insecure, and that their party is insecure, they are demanding this provision in order to make it possible for a minority of the members of trade unions to force the unions into political action. The House may refuse this Amendment and other Amendments of the kind, and I have no doubt they will do so, but all I can say is that I think the day will come when the House will very much regret that it came to that decision. I believe the only result of giving this absolutely unguarded privilege to trade unions, which I do not believe the members of those unions desire, and which I do not believe they would express themselves in favour of on a ballot, will be to do harm to the trade unions themselves and gross injustice to the community.
    Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSON: The Noble Lord has taken on himself the rôle of a strong advocate of the interests of the members of trade unions. He has put forward as one of his very strong pleas that in the attitude which he and his Friends have taken up on this particular question they are particularly interested in the welfare of the members of the trade unions of this country. I am sure that the Noble Lord will not be surprised if we on these benches and those we represent in this House refuse to accept with enthusiasm or sincerity the professed friendship of the Noble Lord and his immediate Friends for the trade unions of this country. He has endeavoured to make Certain references to the financial state-

    1385
    ment, which I imagine he has quoted from the report of the Labour party. I want to submit to the House that the Noble Lord has demonstrated his incapacity and inability and therefore has forfeited any right to take the floor of this House and speak in the interests of the trade unions of this country. If he was informed as to the elementary facts appertaining to the constitution of the Labour party, I am certain he would not have made the mistakes he made during the course of the speech he has just delivered. During the course of that speech he ventured to say to the House that Parliament was treating the trade unionists of this country very much as a spoiled child, having before his mind the very point at issue in this Debate, which is the right of the trade unions of this country, if a majority of their members by ballot-vote decide in favour of political action, that they should be allowed to take that course. May I remind the Noble Lord that on a previous occasion when a similar discussion took place in this House the Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss), I think in a maiden speech, made a very interesting statement which we have repeated on Labour platforms hundreds of times? The statement was to the effect that he admitted that the right of trade unionists to take part in political action had never been questioned for at least forty years, and that it was only questioned the moment the trade unionists of the country decided on independent labour lines to fight their own political battles. We had a more recent contribution when we entered on this stage of the Bill from the hon. Member who moved the first Amendment (Mr. Leslie Scott), and who said:—
    "I do not in any way wish to raise any controversy relating to that question—"
    that is, the question of political action—
    "I accept the historical facts that trade unions did, to a great extent, carry on political activities in a growing degree down to the time of the Osborne Judgment, particularly during the year that preceded the Osborne Judgment."
    When the Noble Lord suggested to the House that because of our demands in the name of the industrial toilers of this country to be allowed to exercise and to enjoy the rights that for forty years we enjoyed without molestation trade unions are being treated by Parliament as a spoiled child, then I submit he is adding insult to the intelligence of this House. The hon. and learned Member who moved this Amendment emphasised
    1386
    as one of his main points that political action was a subsidiary purpose of the trade union movement. Let me give another quotation from the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) in his speech on the first Amendment, and I think it will be proof positive that that suggestion of the hon. and learned Member is hardly in harmony with the views of the hon. Member for Liverpool, who said:—
    "There is one reason which seems to me to be paramount on that question, namely, that the solution of industrial difficulties, the solution of the great question of industrial unrest which has been so much before us recently, must lie more and more as years go on in the action of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1913, col. 1093.]
    I think that we who sit on these benches are entitled to claim that we are able to speak, not only with larger authority, but certainly with more well-informed minds as to the opinions and aspirations and desires of the industrial toilers of this country than are hon. Gentlemen opposite. I desire to repudiate, and I think the whole of my colleagues will associate themselves with me in that repudiation, the suggestion that we are asking for favours from Parliament. We are demanding as an act of elementary justice in view of the elementary fact that industrial and economic fights of the future, even on the authority of some Members opposite, are to be fought on the floor of this House, that the industrial toilers shall be allowed to enter the arena of practical politics, and in the name of the workers of this country continue to occupy their rightful place in the council of the nation.
    Viscount WOLMER: I am very much disposed to agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken, that this Amendment does not propose to take away any special privilege that is claimed by the leaders of the trade unions, and, furthermore, I would be prepared to concede to the hon. Member for South Glamorgan and to several other hon. Members who have spoken that if the great majority of trade unionists do not vote, and are too slack to vote on these ballots, then they have nobody to thank but themselves for any ill consequences that may arise. I am perfectly prepared to concede that to hon. Members opposite. I am also prepared to admit the strength of the consideration that was adduced by the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes), who made by far the most powerful speech against this Amendment that we have heard on the subject. I am perfectly prepared to admit that in the case

    1387
    of men who are at sea or out of the country, or who are engaged in certain occupations, that it is impossible for them to record their votes in the ballot. Those difficulties could perfectly well be overcome by arrangements. They are not insuperable difficulties, and if the principle for which we are contending was agreeable to hon. Members opposite, the difficulties of men who are not able to vote by reason of living far away from their lodges would be very easily surmounted. The question I want to ask hon. Members of the Labour party is, why should it be assumed because members of trade unions do not vote at the ballots that therefore they approve of the policy which has been adopted by the leaders of the union.
    Mr. GILL: Why should the opposite be assumed?
    6.0 P.M.
    Viscount WOLMER: Why should it be assumed that silence gives consent? The hon. Member for Bolton asked me why should the opposite be assumed. I put it to him in this way, that this Bill as it emerged from the Committee stage lays it down that once this ballot has been taken, and a resolution has been carried in favour of taking political action, that every member of the union shall be obliged to contribute to the political fund unless he makes personal application for exemption. That is to say, this Bill places the onus of application on those who dissent from political contribution. Therefore, I argue that it is unreasonable that the onus of making application should be placed upon the great bulk of trade unionists by a small vote which only represents 4 or 5 per cent, of the members of the union. If the Bill was drafted differently, and the onus of application was put upon those members of the union who wanted to contribute towards the political fund, there would be a great deal in the contention of the hon. Member for Bolton that those members who did not care to vote should be assumed as endorsing the policy of the leaders of the union. But if we are to take it that all those who do not make application are in favour of the political levy, I think it is unreasonable to assume, if the vast majority of members do not vote at all, that therefore they are in favour of that course. If hon. Members opposite were willing to agree to its being necessary to secure a majority of the members of the union before political
    1388
    action could be taken, they would be on far stronger grounds in demanding that the onus of application for exemption should be upon those who do not wish to contribute to the political funds.
    We have been told by the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones), that we, in this House, have no right to interfere with the internal management of trade unions. That is a very important consideration. Neither this House nor any other has a right to prevent people from spending their own money in the way they want to, provided it is their own money. Therefore, if the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham can prove to me that this is an unwarrantable interference with the internal management of trade unions, he will have gone a long way to prove his case. But I do not think he is able to do that in the slightest degree. In the first place, the whole of this Bill can be said to be to a certain extent an interference with the internal management of trade unions. You cannot get away from that. Therefore, the principle of State supervision, if I may put it in those terms, has been accepted by hon. Members opposite in voting for this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] One of the fundamental principles on which the Bill is based is that the Registrar of Friendly Societies should have certain effective powers of investigation and control in regard to the internal working of the unions. How-do we justify that? Nobody has shown the justification more clearly than the hon. Member for Glamorgan who made a lucid and frank speech, as he always does, when speaking on this or any other question. He put forward the claim, which he has put forward on other occasions, that every working man shall, if possible, be forced to join a trade union, whether he wishes to or not, and he said that he himself will adopt every honourable means in his power to bring about that result.
    As long as it is the claim of trade union leaders—and I can quite appreciate that for the purposes of collective bargaining it is very advantageous to them to have as many men in the unions as possible— that they shall be able to coerce men into trade unions against their will, either by strikes, or by inducing employers like the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) to dismiss every non-unionist, this House must exercise some sort of supervision over the internal management of the unions. If the

    1389
    minority are to be forced into joining trade unions against their will, this House has a responsibility to see that their interests are not prejudiced thereby. It is for these reasons that I justify the insertion in this Bill of such a provision as we are attempting in this Amendment and the other regulations that have been imposed upon the unions by different Clauses of the Bill. The whole necessity for any interference with the internal management of trade unions arises from the fact that they claim and exercise the right of forcing men against their wishes to enter into membership with them. I wish to ask hon. Members opposite one final question. I am quite prepared to admit that there may be practical difficulties in the matter of getting members to vote at the ballot; but surely those technical difficulties do not account for the extraordinary results which have been often quoted in these Debates, such, for instance, as that of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Engineers, when, on a ballot being taken as to whether or not there should be a political levy, out of 107,000 members only 5,000 voted in favour and 2,000 against. There are other figures equally strong. No adequate explanation has been given of the disparity between the establishment of trade unions and their voting strength. Surely the fundamental reason why hon. Members opposite cannot get more men to vote in favour of a political levy is that they really have not got the support of the vast majority of trade unionists in the political policy which they advocate. If the vast bulk of trade unionists really believed in the political principles advocated by hon. Members opposite, there would not be the slightest difficulty in getting those men to vote at the ballot in favour of a political levy. After all, these men vote at Parliamentary elections. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do they?"] The hon. Member who interrupts knows perfectly well that in an industrial district at a Parliamentary election generally about 90 per cent, of the electorate poll. It is therefore obvious that the trade unionists who vote must vote to the number, roughly speaking, of about 90 per cent. How comes it, then, that in the ballots connected with the internal management of their own unions only 5 or 6 per cent, vote? Surely it is that whereas the leaders of the trade unions have the support of the vast majority of trade unionists on industrial matters—they would not be in their present positions if they had not—they have not that support on political matters.
    1390
    That, to my mind, is the reason why they have failed to get a majority of the members of the unions to vote in favour of a political levy. Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that if they once conceded the principle that a majority of the members should be required to vote before political action could be taken, they would in fact be prevented from taking such action. I do not wish to press the matter so far that the effect would be to prevent trade unions and Socialism from being adequately represented in this House; but I say that before this Bill lays it down that every trade unionist shall be considered as willing to pay a political levy, unless he has the courage and enterprise to apply for special exemption, you ought, at any rate, to insist on some form of quorum at the ballot by which it is decided to have a political levy. The hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham said that we in this House decide questions by a simple majority. That is true. So does every other assembly. But every assembly recognises the necessity of having a quorum. What we ask for is that if trade unions are to take part in politics there should be some quorum of the electorate required to vote at the ballot. We think that that demand is a reasonable one. Not only does it not cut against the interests of the political action of trade unions, but it really places their leaders in this House on a firmer foundation and in a more authoritative position than they could possibly hope to have when they are here only by virtue of something in the nature of a snap Division.
    Mr. NEWTON: I was very much impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes). I am sorry he is not in the House now, because I should have liked to ask him a question, his answer to which, no doubt, would have still further strengthened me in the view I take. I understood him to say that at a moment of great crisis in the union with which he is particularly concerned they were able to secure the attendance of only some 39 per cent, of the enrolled members of the union. We are here dealing with a practical question, and that statement of the hon. Member seems to me to have been a most practical contribution to the Debate. I do not propose to go into the merits of the general question. With much that was said by the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) I agree, but it does not seem to me to be entirely relevant to the question under discussion.

    1391
    In my view, the majority of trade unionists do not approve of the political policy of the trade unionist party. I am confident that that is so in my own Division. None the less, seeing that according to the information given to us by hon. Members opposite, who on this point should be in the best position to describe the realities of trade union life, it is impossible to secure the attendance of 51 per cent, of the enrolled members of the unions, I think we should be doing wrong if we insisted upon the Amendment now before the House. Therefore, with very little hesitation indeed, I, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, will have no difficulty in withholding my vote from this Amendment if it goes to a Division.
    Sir W. BYLES: The last two speakers, it seems to me, have both maintained a most extraordinary position: that the majority of trade unionists do not agree with the political policy of the men whom they send here to represent them. To me that is quite incredible. I do not believe it for one moment. I do not in the least think that any considerable number of persons, or an appreciable number of trade unionists, are being coerced as suggested by the speakers who have just addressed us. If it be that there is really a majority of trade unionists who disagree with the political action of their union, all I can say is that they are not entitled to much respect either from us or from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Surely they can get their way. They have perfect freedom to make such rules as would embody the policy they do believe in. The Noble Lord the Member for Newton is obsessed by the idea that men are being forced into trade unions. I have had some considerable experience of trade unions and I do not believe such a thing. There is no such forcing. There are a large number of workmen who are not in trade unions. They are free labourers, and they are perfectly at liberty to form themselves into whatever body they like. There is no compulsion upon them at all. There may be individual places—Newton may be one— where almost the entire population of working men are in the unions, and where the few exceptions may feel a little uncomfortable. It was so I remember in the days of the Land League in Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—where the whole of the tenants—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is wandering rather far from the Amendment, which has now been narrowed down to a very small question.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS Mr. C. EDWARDS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
    Question, "That the word 'voting' stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the end of paragraph (a) to add the words
    "where such a resolution is in force, unless rules to be approved, whether the union is registered or not, by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, are in force providing"—
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Attorney-General's proposed Amendment, to leave out the words, "whether the union is registered or not."
    Mr. SANDYS: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: This Amendment I think will probably command the assent of the House. I think it is in accordance with the spirit and the intention of the Bill as drawn. The point is this: by Clause 1 of the Bill the unions are entitled to carry on any lawful object. Under Clause 2 trade unions are defined as unions which have for their principal objects statutory objects under their constitution, within the meaning of Clause 1, Sub-section (2). The latter part of Clause 2, Sub-sections (2), (3). (4), and (5) deals with the registration of unions, or as an alternative to registration the granting to a trade union which is not registered and which docs not wish to be registered, a certificate that it is a trade union under this Act. I apprehend that in the Act which confers upon trade union the new right—I mean new from the point of view of the law—of carrying on political business, that the provisions in Clause 2 as to registration or certificates are two alternative modes of giving effective publicity to a trade union which the Bill intends shall be the conditions, principally, of the Bill to carry on political business. I apprehend that at the present day for all practical purposes there is no trade union which is not registered or which would not

    1393
    have a certificate under this Act if not registered, which at the same time is not going to carry on political business. All great unions will be registered, or at any rate they will have a certificate under this Act. It is simply in order to have it clear in the Act that this is the intention of the Act that I move the omission of these words. They will be followed as a matter of necessary consequence by adding at the end of Clause 3, Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), a further "unless" Clause—that is, that the trade union funds shall not be applied to political objects "unless" there has been a resolution, "unless" there are rules, and then the further words, "unless the union is registered or has a certificate in accordance with the provisions of this Act." I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if this view of the Bill is consonant with the intention of the Government. Secondly, I ask whether he agrees with me as a mere matter of law—I think it is obviously a matter of law—that without this alternative I am proposing the Bill would not carry out the intention which I apprehend is the intention of the Government, and at any rate which I suggest is the right course to take. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would answer me before I say anything on the merits of the question. If he agrees with my view, then it will be unnecessary to say anything on the merits. My question is whether it is the intention of the framers of the Bill that the right to carry on political business should attach to unions only if they are either registered or in possession of a certificate?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACSindicated dissent.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: It is not the intention, then? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman says that it is not the intention of the Government to attach these conditions to the right to carry on political business. I am rather surprised at the answer, because I should have thought it manifestly right that where political powers of this kind are being conferred, which are a very great practical power, that there some degree of publicity should be required of the bodies to which the powers are to be entrusted. It is not much publicity. It is simply merely for the registration or the granting of a certificate by the Registrar that the body is a trade union. That is all the publicity necessary. The public may then know what the public body is that has these political powers. I submit that the proposal is one which is self-evident, that
    1394
    the course I propose should be adopted by the House, and that we should ask that the unions which are to receive these powers should be known to the public by registration or by a certificate.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: With regard to the provisions in the Bill as to the registration of unions, of course, as a matter of fact, it is optional upon trade unions under present circumstances. If a trade union does register, it is under the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. In order that the Registrar should have further powers in regard to it we have made a certain provision in Clause 2. Another object in view is to prevent litigation as to whether or not the combination is a trade union within the meaning of the Bill. In order that there should be no doubt about that, and to prevent expensive and very often protracted litigation, we say that an application may be made for a certificate. That application may be made by either a registered society or an unregistered society. It is not necessary to register under the Act in order to get a certificate. Once the certificate has been granted, it is conclusive for all purposes. Any trade union that has got this certificate, so long as it holds it, can never have the question raised against it that it is not a trade union within the meaning of this Act. That is the whole point.
    At the same time, we have no intention of saying that no combination which otherwise conforms to the definition of a trade union in this Bill shall be entitled to carry on unless it either registers or gets a certificate. If it does not choose to register and remains an unregistered society no objection would be taken to that—my hon. Friend does not take objection. What he says is, then it must apply for a certificate. I think what he omits to notice is that the object in granting a certificate is to avoid litigation. It is not meant to do any more. All that it means is that that combination would not have to prove, if it goes into Court, that it is a trade union within the meaning of the Act. There is a definition of a trade union which begins at the first part of Clause 2. It is quite clear, and really incorporates the definitions which are already in existence under the Trade Union Acts of 1871 and 1906. It means "any combination whether temporary or permanent, the principal objects of which are under its constitution statutory objects." That is the definition of a trade union. Any combination which conforms to these conditions is a trade union, whether it

    1395
    chooses to register or whether it chooses to remain unregistered, or apply for a certificate or not. It is entirely a matter which is optional upon the trade union. We do not intend—I do not think it would be right—to insist either upon a trade union registering or obtaining a certificate. Though I quite appreciate the reason of my hon. Friend opposite in calling attention to the matter, I cannot accept the Amendment, because I think it would be going a great deal further than any intention in the Bill, and would necessitate further alterations.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the words, "from any obligation to," and to insert instead thereof the word "may."
    My Amendment does not entirely show its importance upon the face of it, but the the effect of it is to put the onus and obligation to the lodge secretary of the union on those members of the union who desire to contribute to the political funds instead of putting it, as the Bill does, on those members of the union who do not desire to contribute to the political fund. I should have thought after the arguments we heard in Committee upstairs, that it would be quite evident to the House that the course I am now recommending is a reasonable and proper one. It seems to me absurd to say that because a man makes no application to his union officials that therefore he is to be assumed to be in favour of contributing his money towards the support of the Labour party in the House of Commons. This Amendment is indeed a very important one, and is thoroughly consistent with the whole principle upon which the Bill is founded. That principle is, that whereas the unions should be allowed to take part in politics, there shall be no sort of pressure put upon any member of the union who disagrees with the policy of the Labour party to contribute his money towards the funds of that party, and with that object the Bill has made careful provision for the secrecy of the ballot, and for safeguarding, as the Government are always pointing out, of the rights of the minority. But if the ballot is to be secret it must be so in fact as well as in name, and what the Govern-
    1396
    ment are asking us to do in leaving the Bill as it is drafted at the present moment, is this: They say that if a ballot is taken it ought to be secret, so that it shall not be known how any of the men vote, so that any man may vote against a political levy without its being known; and in the next paragraph they say that if a man disapproves of a political levy and wishes to avail himself of the provisions of the Bill, he has to send up his name to the lodge secretary or the officials of the union for exemption. That is forcing him at once to show which way he voted in the ballot which is supposed to be secret, therefore this provision entirely invalidates the safeguard and the guarantee of secrecy which the Government have set out in the fourth Clause.
    My first reason for moving this Amendment is, that the guarantees of secrecy are not really operative if a man who did not wish to contribute to the funds of the Labour party has got to make application for exemption; and in support of that I would like to remind the House of what happened to Mr. Osborne and those men who have objected to pay the Parliamentary levy in their trade unions, and I must also remind the House of the claims put forward from the benches opposite this afternoon, in order that the House may see exactly the importance of the Amendment I am now proposing. Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that Mr. Osborne, who objected to pay the levy of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, was a lifelong member of his union; he was secretary to his lodge, and was a typical representative of trade unionism. Mr. Osborne objected to pay this levy; he did exactly what the Attorney-General is now inviting those who think like him in trade unions to do when the Bill becomes law; he objected to pay the levy, and of course the officials of his union resisted, and he took the case into the Law Courts, and the Law Courts decided he was right. The hon. Member for Stockport disputes the accuracy of my statement apparently.
    Mr. WARDLE: I do indeed.
    Viscount WOLMER: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that anything I said was inaccurate, let him afterwards give the House his view of what he conceives to be the true account of what actually happened.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: On a point of Order. The Noble Lord is

    1397
    moving to substitute in paragraph (b) the word "willing" for "unwilling."
    Mr. SPEAKER: No; that is not the Amendment.
    Viscount WOLMER: If the hon. Member would pay some slight attention to the proceedings of this House, he would then raise proper points of Order. What I was pointing out was that Mr. Osborne, in taking the action he did in the famous Osborne case, was simply doing what the Government are now requesting the minority of trade union bodies to avail themselves of under this Bill. I would like the House to remember how Mr. Osborne was treated. He was expelled from his union although he contributed to that union for nineteen years. He was turned out of the union although he had every right to be regarded as as good a trade unionist as hon. Members opposite. I believe it is true Mr. Osborne received £12 10s. compensation for the contributions he made. That is true, and I think it should be stated, but we know that other men expelled from trade unions for the same reason as Mr. Osborne was expelled did not receive a penny piece of compensation.
    Mr. WARDLE: Who are they?
    Viscount WOLMER: I give the case of Mr. Joseph Park, who refused to pay the political levy of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation. He was expelled from the union and has been subjected to every sort of persecution and indignity, and has not received a single penny in compensation for the contributions he paid last year. I bring forward these cases to show the necessity for my Amendment. I venture to assert that if a member of a trade union is asked to go to the officials of his union and say, "I object to pay for political purposes with which I do not agree," that man will be immediately regarded as a blackleg and an enemy of the trade union, and will receive the same sort of treatment that was meted out to Mr. Osborne and Mr. Park and many others, although, of course, it would not be possible to do it so openly after this Bill as heretofore.
    Mr. GILL: Not at all.
    Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member for Bolton says "Not at all," but I will tell him why I think so. This is what was said upstairs and in this House this afternoon by the hon. Member for South Glamorgan and others. The hon. Member
    1398
    for South Glamorgan laid down the principle very frankly that members of trade unions ought to have no possible objection towards contributing to the political funds of the Labour party, and his reason was this: He said the trade unionist who accepts the benefits which have been secured for trade unions by the Labour party in the House of Commons, with their Eight Hours Act and the Minimum Wage Act, and yet refuse to pay towards the election expenses of those Members, is getting something which he has never paid for, and has no right to, and is really sponging on his colleagues. That is the attitude of the Labour party; that is what they conscientiously believe to be right, and I think it represents the general view of trade unionists. That being so, how-can they possibly regard the privileges of this Bill as sincere and honourable towards trade unionists? The hon. Member for South Glamorgan has again and again said he has the utmost possible contempt for any trade unionist who is willing to take the benefits conferred by the Labour party, but who is unwilling to pay for their presence in the House of Commons. That to my mind accounts for the way Mr. Osborne and others have been treated by the executive of the trade unions.
    Mr. SPEAKER: These arguments are really all arguments upon Second Reading. Will the Noble Lord address himself to the particular Amendment?
    Viscount WOLMER: I apologise if I have travelled wide.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have been nearly twenty minutes listening to the Noble Lord's preliminary arguments.
    Viscount WOLMER: I would point out, if I may, why I thought what I said was perfectly relevant to the Amendment, and it is because the effect of my Amendment would be that those members who do not desire to contribute to the political funds of the union should not be obliged to make formal application, and thereby expose their identity to the trade union executive. The whole point is that the men who have dared to make formal application for exemption from paying to the political funds of their unions have been victimised in the past, and we have heard from the Labour Benches this afternoon that that victimisation is approved and would, presumably, be continued in the future. That is the sole reason why I am

    1399
    proposing this Amendment; otherwise it might seem to people a very small matter, whether the onus of application should be on the one side or the other. To my mind it is a very important question. If a man—let us say he is a Conservative trade unionist, and there are many such —is obliged to go to the leaders of his union, who are his political opponents, and say, "I object to paying the Parliamentary levy in support of the Labour party in the House of Commons," that man would be exposing himself to the treatment which I have described to the House.
    Sir W. BYLES: The vast majority of them.
    Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member for Salford is mistaken. I said the vast majority of the trade unionists did not approve of the policy of the Labour party, but I never said the vast majority of the trade unionists were political antagonists of the Labour party. A vast majority of them are neutral, or they are not enthusiastic supporters of the Labour party or of any other political party. If a man is forced to declare which way he has voted in a ballot by making personal application for exemption under this Section, then he will be exposing himself to all the dangers which I have dwelt upon. Supposing this Amendment is carried, we shall be told that if a man refuses to make an application to be allowed to contribute to the funds of the Labour party, it will be said he is showing which way he voted in the ballot. We shall be told that the mere fact of allowing a man to withhold his application will not enable him to preserve secret the manner in which he voted at the ballot. That is what was said on the Standing Committee. I submit that that would not be so. A man might desire to refuse to contribute to the Labour party for a variety of reasons. He might wish to refuse because he was too poor, or because he had some personal reasons against a particular representative, or because he disapproved of the general policy of the Labour party. Therefore, by simply remaining silent, he would not be exposing himself to the same obloquy as he would if he had to go forward and take the same steps which Mr. Osborne had to take. I contend that this Amendment is consistent with the principle of the Bill. If the Labour party think they represent the opinion of the great majority of trade unionists, then they have nothing to fear
    1400
    from this Amendment Finally, if this Amendment is rejected, it will make it very difficult for any trade unionist to withhold his financial support from the Labour party without being considered what is known as a blackleg and an opponent of trade unionism.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg leave to second this Amendment. My Noble Friend has adduced every possible argument that can be urged in favour of it. The Amendment is one of very great importance, and I think the Attorney-General will be ready to admit that that is the case. It was discussed in Committee, but it was not accepted. I think it is a proposal well worthy of reconsideration, and having regard to the fact that very few, if any, of the substantial Amendments brought forward in Grand Committee have been accepted by the Government, and that this Bill will go through the House practically in the form in which it was originally introduced, but somewhat strengthened from the labour point of view, I appeal to the Government to accept this particular Amendment which does not in any way alter the principle of the Bill. It is merely a question of procedure. The principle has been accepted that anyone who objects to contribute towards the Parliamentary fund shall have an opportunity of being exempted from such contribution. Therefore the only difference between us and hon. Members opposite is the simple question whether a member shall announce his intention and his desire to be exempted from the contribution, or whether failing to announce that intention he may be required to contribute. May I read the Clause as it will read after the Amendment is inserted?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am afraid it will not read.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: It will read as follows:
    "That any payments in furtherance of these objects are to be made out of a separate fund, in this Act referred to as the political fund of the union, and that any member of the union may contribute to such a fund if he gives notice in accordance with this Act that he is willing to contribute."
    The Amendment simply suggests that any one who is willing to contribute to this fund shall give notice to that effect, and I do think, after the previous Clause has been adopted by the House, that this Amendment might be accepted by the

    1401
    Labour party. Nearly every argument used in favour of not requiring a majority of the members of a trade union to signify their desire to contribute to the fund for political purposes applies to this case. The argument has been used that members of a trade union are often very unwilling to express their opinion, and it is difficult to get at the members who do not desire to express their views in writing. Ought it to be assumed for one moment that because the members of a union fail to indicate in writing or in any other way that they are unwilling to contribute towards the political fund, that therefore they are willing to contribute. That is a contention which cannot for one moment be maintained. Take any other case. Suppose one is a member, as I am, of the Unionist party, and they desire a contribution towards Tariff Reform or anything else, and they write asking me for such a contribution, and I do not reply. Ought it to be assumed that I am willing to contribute. It is assumed as the Bill stands that anyone who does not ask for exemption from this particular Clause shall be obliged to contribute, and it is only with a view to altering that procedure that this Amendment has been moved. This really is an Amendment which is absolutely necessary to protect the minority of members of a trade union, and I trust the Members of the Labour party themselves will see the necessity of accepting it. The Amendment will also considerably simplify this Bill. It will be seen that one or two Clauses can be left out if we do not adopt the artificial procedure of this measure, which requires everyone who does not desire to contribute to this political fund to express in some way his wish to be exempted.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Noble Lord who moved this Amendment said it was an important matter. That is quite true; in fact, it is so important that we could not accept it because it would change the Bill completely. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is what they want."] It follows from what the hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus) has said, that once you adopt this Amendment you will have to leave out one or two Clauses, and that is quite true. It would necessarily follow, if we accepted this proposal, that we should have to change our Bill completely. The principle which was affirmed on the Second Reading was that you should give the right to trade unions of engaging in political operations provided you made certain
    1402
    conditions, one of them being that you should provide for the exemption of any person who claimed to be exempt. What the Noble Lord wishes to do by his Amendment is to say, "Oh, no, if a man wishes to contribute he may declare his willingness and then he may contribute and the union may receive his money." You do not want a Bill for that. You do not want a Bill to give a man the right to contribute, but you do want a Bill for the purpose of enabling a trade union to engage in political activities, and in order to do that we say you shall have this opportunity, but you must have the secret ballot; and further, you must give a written exemption in regard to it, and we make provision that these rights shall be easily exercised.
    7.0 P.M.
    What do you do if you adopt this Amendment? The hon. Member opposite was careful not to use the same arguments as those which were put forward by the Noble Lord. I am not sorry that the Noble Lord has repeated the same arguments which he used in Committee upstairs. He has taken a very strong line of opposition to certain provisions of this Bill, and he has conducted his opposition with marked ability. He has made speeches which show that he has devoted a great deal of time and attention to the subject, and that he has mastered it, but the one striking feature which always emerges from his argument is that the trade unionist who does not choose to pay and claims exemption will be a marked man, that he will be coerced, intimidated, and in many other ways made to suffer. That really is reverting to the kind of argument which was used upstairs, but from which so far during the course of this Debate we have been singularly free. I do not complain of any Member who chooses to say it would be better to do it in another way, but I do not think it is right to say, "We desire in every way to assist the unions, and we make no suggestion against them or against the way in which they carry on their work," and then to justify this Amendment upon the ground that if a member takes advantage of the Exemption Clause in the Bill he is going to be a marked man, and will be made to suffer all kinds of consequences. I think it is regrettable that argument should have been used. I am sure the Noble Lord will readily admit that in Committee we did, so far as we could, meet objections. I understand the view is that a man should have some opportunity of

    1403
    claiming some exemption in some particular form. We have given him an opportunity. It has been done. The main reason the Noble Lord moves this Amendment is because at bottom he is absolutely distrustful of the unions.
    Viscount WOLMER: Because I believe the hon. Member for South Glamorgan (Mr. Brace) believes what he says.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That, no doubt, is very clever, but it is not quite so candid as the Noble Lord is usually. The Noble Lord, before he had ever heard the statement of the hon. Member for South Glamorgan, had made up his mind.
    Viscount WOLMER: I have heard others like it.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It was said in Committee, and the Noble Lord welcomes it because it confirms him, but he had formed his opinion before he ever heard the hon. Member for South Glamorgan. I am not going to say there have not been cases in which members of trade unions have had cause to complain. I do not know any particular society or combination of men in which those things do not happen. The hon. Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus) said, "Why should you compel a man to contribute if he does not want? Why not let him simply declare whether he is willing to contribute? How can you justify compelling him?" Supposing he and I were members of the same club, and there was a vote taken upon a particular point of principle, it might be that neither of us voted upon it, but, nevertheless, we should be bound by the majority, and have to do what the majority wished. We should not even have the right to claim exemption.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Here you are bound to do what the majority wish, and you can claim exemption.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is what I am pointing out. We should be bound, although not voting, by the majority, but in the trade union we give the right of claiming exemption in case a member does not wish to contribute. It is really difficult to see, except as a ground of objection to the Bill on Second Reading, how this Amendment could be put forward. I could understand it as a ground of objection to the Bill, but, if you are to take the Bill as it stands, you cannot accept the
    1404
    Amendment without fundamentally altering the whole principles on which it is founded.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: This Amendment is really necessary if the House is going to give effect to the assurances made over and over again in this House and in Committee that a man shall, after the passing of the Bill, be absolutely free to contribute or not to contribute to the political fund of a union, and that if he chooses not to contribute he shall not be damnified in any way. The right hon. Gentleman likened the case to a club. There is really no analogy whatever. The right hon. Gentleman is not bound to join any club in order to earn his living, but a man is bound to join a trade union in order to do his work. If the right hon. Gentleman were bound to belong to a club in order that he might earn his living, then the analogy might apply.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I likened the method of voting in a club in answer to the argument used by the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus).
    Mr. H. TERRELL: The Attorney-General must see there is no analogy whatever. He is trying to draw an analogy between institutions which are totally and radically different. It is essential a man should under no circumstances be damnified if he chooses to exercise the right which the Bill is supposed to give him of claiming exemption. The provisions of the Bill are carefully drafted to provide for a secret ballot on the question whether the union should engage in political activities, and at the same time it is provided that the men who in the ballot oppose entering upon political activities should immediately afterwards be bound to declare in substance the way in which they voted. A man votes secretly against engaging in political activities. His secrecy is supposed to be safeguarded. That is an essential principle of the Bill according to the Attorney-General. Those men who oppose the union entering upon political activities will be those who will claim exemption, but the moment the resolution has been passed, if they want to claim the benefit of the exemption, they have got to declare themselves, and by that means declare which way they voted on the resolution. What is the use of the ballot? Is it not an illusion and a sham if you tell a man the moment there has been a ballot and it is against him "you have to declare you are in the minority;

    1405
    otherwise you get no benefit whatever"? It may do very well for the purposes of the platform, but, if it is examined, it will not bear criticism for a moment. A man is not to be damnified by claiming exemption, but, before he can claim exemption, he has to declare himself. He is in a minority; he may be in a small minority. The principle upon which trade unions have been supported has been that the majority should govern the minority. A man who is in the minority says, in the first place, "I do not want to belong to the union." You compel him. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We know the methods that are used. It is no use denying it. It was admitted in this House not long ago, and it has been admitted to-day. Take a miner in the Rhondda Valley. He cannot help himself. Such pressure is brought to bear upon him that he has to belong to the union.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: How about the lawyer? Can a lawyer practise in a Court of Law without being a member of a trade union?
    Mr. TERRELL: Certainly he can. There are certain qualifications which a man has to possess before he is allowed to appear in one of His Majesty's Courts. But let me accept the analogy for the moment. Would the Attorney-General like the majority of the Bar, for instance, to say what politics the Bar should adopt, and would he like to be compelled to subscribe to those politics whether he agreed with them or not? That is the position in which you are going to put the members of the trade unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members say "No," but I most emphatically say "Yes." The unfortunate man has in the first place to declare he is opposed to the majority. What will be his position? He may be a man who has contributed for twenty or thirty years to the funds of the trade union and who is entitled under the rules of the union to receive benefits. If he lays himself out to oppose the majority of the union, they may deny him any benefit whatever, and he has no remedy. An hon. Member says I was one of the majority of four. I was, and if that majority had been a trade union, we should have been able to tyrannise over the minority according to the principles of this Bill. It is a very good example. A very small majority under this Bill would be entitled to deal with the minority in the most tyrannical manner. I held a
    1406
    meeting in my Constituency the other day, and I invited every trade unionist to attend. Some 1,200 attended. I put it to them1 that if a man were in a minority he would be a marked man. A trade unionist got up and said, "There are no marked men in trade unionism," but he was met by fifty voices, "Ain't there? There are plenty in Gloucester." I have never hesitated to put before my Constituency exactly my views on the matter, and the majority of my Constituents are trade unionists. It is an industrial constituency, and I have twenty-eight unions represented in it. If a member in the minority chooses to claim exemption the same methods would be used against him that are used to-day to compel a man to belong to a union. The safeguards in the Bill are purely illusory. I challenge the Attorney-General or any man to deny it. If a man who has contributed to the funds of his union for twenty or thirty years with the expectation and the right of receiving benefits in return for the money he has contributed sets himself up in opposition to the executive or the majority of that union, they can refuse to give him a single penny of benefit.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is provided for in the Bill.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: How is it provided for in the Bill? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer to Clause 3, Subsection (2)? That simply provides that the man shall not be placed in any inferior or disadvantageous position. But how is that going to be enforced?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are, I believe, going to discuss at a later stage the whole question of the effect of Clause 3. There are Amendments down, and I should like to know, if the matter is raised now, will it be open to me to reply on this Amendment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself raised the point. I think it was a natural invitation to continue the discussion.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I only sought to point out that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not quite accurately stating the effect of the Bill, and I wished to draw his attention to the presence of this Clause in the Bill.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: I quite knew of the Clause; it is one of those which are utterly

    1407
    illusory. It does nothing more than express a pious opinion that a man ought not to be damnified. But there is no pro vision in the Bill which will save him from being damnified. There is no provision, should the Bill be passed in its present form, to prevent a man being absolutely debarred from enforcing his right to benefits. I do not think the Attorney-General will deny that he may be absolutely debarred from enforcing his right to any benefit whatever, simply because he has set himself up against a majority of the members of the union; if the majority should refuse him any benefit he has no remedy whatever. That is what makes the Clause a sham. There is no substance in it. There is no use in introducing into the Bill a Clause to the effect that a man shall not be damnified if he does a certain thing unless you also—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better have the discussion on that point on Clause 3.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: I wish to submit that this Amendment is necessary if we are going to give effect to the statements which have been made by the Attorney-General and by other Members of the Government that, when this Bill is passed, every man shall be absolutely free to contribute or refuse to contribute towards the political funds. But I submit it is necessary not to put the initiative on the man to claim exemption, to put himself forward as a man who docs not wish to contribute. You ought to put upon those who desire to contribute to these funds the onus of taking the first step towards making that contribution. Why should you say to a man, "You shall contribute unless and until you have gone through some formality in order to relieve yourself." Why should you not say to those men who want to contribute, "If you want to contribute by all means do so." You are putting the onus on the wrong shoulders, and you are doing it because you know you will thereby force many men who do not want to to contribute to these funds.
    Mr. WARDLE: I desire to say a few words, because of the misrepresentation in regard to this matter which has arisen out of certain words used by the hon. Member for South Glamorgan. It is one thing to say—as the hon. Member has said—that in his opinion men ought to be members of a union, and that they ought to contribute to the Parliamentary fund
    1408
    when it is established. It is quite a different thing to say that when this Bill comes into operation they would then be treated unfairly, as has been suggested by speakers opposite. I want to deny absolutely, on behalf of the trade unions, that there will be any such coercion exercised, or any of the penalising which has been referred to. I want to say further that, from the historic standpoint, what the Noble Lord said with regard to Mr. Osborne is absolutely untrue. I will not go into that now. This is neither the time nor place to do so. But with regard to the other case the Noble Lord mentioned, I will have inquiries made. I am pretty well convinced that in that case also the reason stated by the Noble Lord for the expulsion of the man was not the real reason for which he was expelled. In the machinery of trade unionism, there is an opportunity for a man who is aggrieved, or who thinks he is improperly deprived of his benefits, to appeal to his fellows, and he gets a fair chance and a fair trial. It is unfair, therefore, to suggest that men would be tyrannised over or penalised in connection with this matter. I have myself down an Amendment which would meet this particular point. It will provide that if a member is aggrieved or' thinks he has been interfered with in regard to the matter of benefits, the Registrar is to have an opportunity of deciding whether the man is or is not aggrieved.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Are the Government going to accept it?
    Mr. WARDLE: I cannot say, but it shows our bona fides in the matter. We want to give a fair trial and a fair chance to every man. We only want fair play; we have no desire to coerce men to pay if they have a strong objection to so doing. But we do say that in the case of those members who have no strong objection to pay, with whom it is not a matter of conscience or who may not have sufficient moral courage to say that they will decline to pay, we ask that in those cases we should have the facilities we already possess for getting in our ordinary contributions.
    Mr. A. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member made, in the latter part of his speech, a very weighty and forcible remark. Let me, if I can, put the position as it seems to us on this side. The ballot is part and parcel of this Bill, and the Government

    1409
    have recognised that secrecy and protection are required. There is definite provision to secure that. Therefore we may take it that in the opinion of the Government it is necessary that the voting should be secret, because obviously it might mean, if it were not secret, that the minority would suffer. No one would say for a single moment that trade unionists are any worse than any of us. But we do say that they are subject to the ordinary emotions and passions of human beings, and it is asking us to outrage common sense to say that at a time of burning political excitement, when a small minority assert their rights against a large majority, that majority has not the power, and may not very often have the will, to make it very disagreeable for the minority. There is not one Labour Member who would contradict that statement in a conversation in a private room, but somehow the House of Commons is supposed to be a place where any argument will do for any purpose. That it would be contrary to human nature and common sense is not denied by the other side. Let me ask hon. Members for a moment to look at it from the common sense point of view. It is recognised by the Government in their own Bill that the minority should be protected by secrecy; that is definitely admitted. As my hon. Friend pointed out, unless you do something in the, direction indicated by the Amendment, does it not become an absolute farce? You, in one place, proclaim secrecy, and in the next line you proclaim publicity.
    Mr. PRINGLE: This Amendment does not give secrecy.
    Mr. A. LYTTELTON: It will give secrecy in this sense, that it puts on the shoulders of those who wish to go into politics the burden of saying that it is their wish. It does not put the burden on the minority of dissenting from what may be believed to be the general opinion.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: Where is the secrecy of that?
    Mr. A. LYTTELTON: The effect is perfectly plain. If a man has voted in the minority in the ballot it is kept entirely secret. But to ask any man who has voted against a political fund to announce to an official of his trade union, on an open form, that he dissents from paying any contribution to the political fund does away with
    1410
    all secrecy. It is a contradiction in the plainest possible terms to say that it is secrecy, and it must be borne in mind that the Government themselves have declared that they consider secrecy necessary. I frankly admit that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman goes some way to meet our objection. I do not wish to commit myself to the exact terms. I recognise his good faith in bringing it forward. It shows he thinks that there is a good deal of force in our arguments and he has done his best to meet them. But take the case of a member who is in the minority. Assume that he has become the subject of public indignation. Hon. Members of course will say that he is deserving of it; they will say, "Here is a man taking all the benefits of the trade union and refusing to pay the contribution. Such a man is a low creature." Public opinion would be against him. No hon. Gentleman opposite will disagree with that. It is, I know, human nature; they would make it very hot for such a man because he is taking the benefits without bearing the burden. They would say he is a low creature.
    Mr. W. E. HARVEY: So he is.
    Mr. A. LYTTELTON: That is the view which is held. I am not passing any opinion upon it or saying whether it is right or wrong. That opinion exists, and it has been frankly admitted by the hon. Gentleman who so exuberantly interrupted me just now. His hon. Friend (Mr. Wardle) has seen that, and has seen that that indignation so expressed may result in coercion, I do not say in many cases, but in some cases being applied to the unpopular dissentients. He has endeavoured to meet that. He says that if that unpopularity or that pressure result in injury to the man, the Registrar of Friendly Societies, after giving the complainant and any representative of the union an opportunity of being heard, may make an order remedying the breach of the rule, and that on being recorded in the County Court it may be enforced as an order of the County Court. I think that goes a long way to meet us, but are the Government going to accept it?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACSindicated assent.
    Mr. A. LYTTELTON: If that is so I will say no more. I think they have gone a good way to meet us in this matter, and I shall reserve anything further I have to say upon it until we get to that Amendment.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I desire to make a submission for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. This matter has been discussed on the basis that the three Amendments hang together, although strictly and technically we are only on the first Amendment. If you take the three Amendments together, what you find is this, a proposal that those who desire to contribute to a Parliamentary fund may do so; that is to say, it is left quite voluntary on their part. I do not think there can be any question at all that at the present moment the law is that there may be such a voluntary contribution, therefore there is no need for an Act of Parliament to say that. Inasmuch as the purpose of this Bill is to amend the law with respect to the objects and powers of trade unions, and inasmuch as those Amendments would not be amending the law, I submit that if it is not entirely out of order, at all events it would be so reversing the purpose of the Bill as to land the House in a position of having to go through a First and Second Reading again if the Amendment were carried. I submit that point with great respect for your decision.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is comparing small things with great. I do not think the alteration which he suggests could really be considered as of such a nature as to convert the Bill into a new Bill.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: In dealing with the Amendment I want, first of all, to refer to the argument just used by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. Lyttelton). Apparently he has come to the decision that if there is a minority who are required to sign their names contracting out of the provisions of the Bill, that is glaring publicity; but if it is the majority who are required to sign their names contracting into the Bill, then it is profound secrecy. Secrecy and publicity cannot depend upon whether a minority or a majority write their names, so that part of the argument cannot be used to sustain the reasonableness or otherwise of this series of Amendments. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. H. Terrell) repudiated with a good deal of indignation and warmth the idea that members of the Bar are members of a union. He said that they had to possess certain qualifications. That is quite true. One of the qualifications they have to possess is that they belong to one or other of the unions, otherwise called the Inns; another qualification
    1412
    is a capacity to eat so many dinners spreading over a certain period. I have been an official of a trade union, and I am a member of the Bar, and I say without hesitation that the regulations with which I am faced at the Bar are a great deal more drastic from a trade union point of view than the regulations with which I was acquainted in my trade union days. I take a typical trade union rule: That a bricklayer is required, if he goes outside a particular area into another area, to take his own bricklayer's labourer. But, in connection with the Bar, if I go outside my circuit to another circuit, I have not only to take a bricklayer's labourer in the form of my clerk, but I have also to employ alongside of me another bricklayer.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the Amendment.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: I must apologise for having been drawn to the question of the analogy between the Bar and a trade union. This Amendment proceeds on the assumption that there is coercion, and unfair coercion, applied to men who do not see eye to eye with the Labour party. That is what it really amounts to. I am in a position to speak with some degree of authority on this question. At the last election I ran for a constituency, with a Conservative on one side and a representative of the Labour party on the other side. I have not heard from the time of that election up to now any single echo of coercion of those men inside the ranks of the Miners' Federation who did not see eye to eye with the Labour party, and who took either the Conservative or the Liberal side. I do not believe that there is this wholesale coercion and intimidation. I believe there is exactly the same regard for liberty of thought and freedom of expression and action on the part of trade unions as there is on the part of any political organisation. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester suggested that if a man were, in fact, penalised by being expelled from his union after paying contributions for years, because of his political views, he had no remedy. That is not true. At this moment he has a complete and effective remedy, inasmuch as he can get an injunction restraining the expulsion, if the expulsion has been based upon any other ground than that of an actual breach of the rules on the part of that man. This Bill makes a sufficient and ample provision for seeing that the rule in that respect

    1413
    shall be perfectly fair, both to the majority and to the minority.
    Mr. SANDYS: I confess I was somewhat disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for East Glamorgan (Mr. Clement Edwards), who speaks with some authority as the legal representative of the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] I am sorry if I have attributed to the hon. Member qualifications to which he is not entitled. I expected that we should have had from him some observations of a rather more practical character in regard to the Amendment under discussion than the speech to which we have just listened. Although he gave us some very interesting reminiscences of his legal career, and some facts in connection with the bricklaying industry, he did not deal with the question under discussion. Neither did the Attorney-General deal with the question, which is one of the most important that can be raised in connection with this Bill, in a manner which I should consider satisfactory. In effect he told us that the principal objection he had to this Amendment was that if it were embodied in the Bill it would, as a matter of fact, change the whole character of the Bill.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Change the Bill completely.
    Mr. SANDYS: It might, of course, be necessary to make some changes in the Bill if this Amendment were embodied in it, but those changes would be in a direction of altering that portion of the Bill which, as it stands at present, we are entitled to regard as inconsistent and illogical, and bringing it more into accordance with common sense and what are supposed to be the underlying principles of the Bill itself. What are supposed to be the general principles of the Bill? The object of the Bill, surely is to allow trade unions to enter into political activity, subject to certain definite conditions, one of which is that no member of any trade union shall be forced to contribute to political funds unless he desires to do so. In the course of his speech the Attorney-General threw us into some, perhaps unintentional, confusion as to what are the principles of the Bill. There is an underlying fallacy in all the speeches made from the other side of the House both in connection with this Amendment and those which were moved yesterday. The assumption of hon. Members opposite is that political activities are now to become
    1414
    one of the primary objects of trade unions. Surely the very terms in which this Bill is framed and the existence of the Bill itself show that it is nothing of the kind. The primary objects of a trade union are clearly defined. The political objects into which trade unions are to be allowed to enter can only be regarded as subordinate objects. It is only intended that in certain definite conditions and under certain provisions, clearly stated in the Bill, that trade unions are to be allowed to enter into political activity at all. Therefore, surely, if that is the underlying principle of the Bill—and I maintain that it is—that the primary objects of trade unions are still to remain—those statutory objects which are summarised in Clause 2 of the Bill—the general assumption should be, with regard to the wishes of members of the union, not that every member of the union is anxious to contribute to the political fund, unless he expresses an opposite view, but rather that any member of the union who desires to contribute to the political fund should definitely express his willingness and desire so to do, and it is for this reason that I shall support the Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The point which is at issue between the two sides is a very narrow one. It is as to the most effective way of giving protection to the person who may be described as the conscientious objector. The method suggested in the Bill is that the conscientious objector should ask for exemption from payment of the contribution. The method proposed in the Amendment is that every man who is willing to pay a contribution should sign a notice stating his willingness. It is suggested by hon. Members opposite that the latter method is the better way of giving protection, apparently on the ground that greater secrecy would be preserved. I was unable to follow the argument that there would be greater secrecy. If we consider how this would work in practice we see that there would be no greater secrecy, but there would be a great deal more irritation, and consequently a much greater likelihood of injustice being done to the minority of conscientious objectors. What would happen if it were necessary for every man who is willing to sign a notice to that effect? It would mean that the officials of a trade union which had decided to adopt political objects would have to go round and canvas their members and ask which of them were willing to sign, and the man

    1415
    who refused would naturally be regarded as a disagreeable person who did not succumb to the blandishments of the officials. On the other hand, under the scheme proposed by the Bill, the man will make his application for exemption. He will not thereby cause anything like the same degree of irritation as would be caused if the alternative
    method in the Amendment were adopted, and on these grounds I hold that the method suggested in the Bill is a better protection to a member of the minority than that which the Opposition put forward.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 67.

    Division No. 563.]

    AYES.

    [7.50 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Maclean, Donald

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

    Adamson, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Field, William

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Adklns, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Furness, Stephen

    Manfield, Harry

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

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

    Gilhooly, James

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Gill, A. H.

    Meagher, Michael

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Ginnell. L.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, ft.)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Barton, W.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Molloy, M.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Goldstone, Frank

    Mooney, J. J.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Morison, Hector

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

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

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Bentham, G. J.

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

    Muldoon, John

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Gwynn, Stephen (Lucius (Galway)

    Munro, R.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hackett, J.

    Neilson, Francis

    Boland, John Pius

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Brace, William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Brady, P. J.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Dowd, John

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Grady, James

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hayward, Evan

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Malley, William

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

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Shee, James John

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

    Hinds, John

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hodge, John

    Parry, Thomas F.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Clough, William

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Clynes, John R.

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hudson, Walter

    Pointer, Joseph

    Cotton, William Francis

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Radford, G. H.

    Cullinan, J.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    Reddy, M.

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    De Forest, Baron

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.t

    Delany, William

    Joyce, Michael

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Keating, Matthew

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Dillon, John

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneslde)

    Doris, W.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Duffy, William J.

    Leach, Charles

    Roch, Walter F.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Rowlands, James

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    McGhee, Richard

    Scanlan, Thomas

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

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    Sheeny, David

    Thomas, J. H.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Shortt, Edward

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Wilkle, Alexander

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir James Allsebrook

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clltheroe)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim, S.)

    Wadsworth, J.

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

    Snowden, Philip

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Wardle, George J.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Sutton, John E.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Webb, H.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Boles, Lieut-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Cassel, Felix

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sandys, G. J.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanier, Beville

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

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stewart, Gershom

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

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

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

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

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

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Wolmer and Sir P. Magnus

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Greene, W. R.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Question, "That the words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. GILL: I beg to move, to leave out the words "is unwilling" ["that he is unwilling to contribute"], and to insert instead thereof the word "objects."
    8.0 P.M.
    I am trying to bring this Amendment into accordance with general legislation in connection with these matters. The principle of the Bill is that a ballot should be taken, and, if the majority decides in favour of engaging in political objects, the union should make provision for exemption for those who do not wish to pay. In my opinion these words "is unwilling" are not at all definite enough. When the ballot has taken place and the members have decided to engage in political objects the onus ought to be put upon the person to do something more than simply say he is unwilling. When we deal with vaccination no one is allowed to get out of that by saying he is unwilling to have a child vaccinated. He must have a conscientious objection. The same thing applies under the Education Act. If a person wants to take a child out of school while religious education is being given he has to declare a conscientious objection. If a man thinks he is not being fairly treated under the
    1418
    Income Tax he must make a definite appeal. It is easy enough for anyone to say he is unwilling. In almost all walks of life if men could get out of paying anything by saying they were unwilling we should have a good many persons making use of that description. It has been said by the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) more than anyone else, that men would be marked men if they claimed exemption in these circumstances. Any official who attempted to take advantage of any person who simply complied with the law would be in a rather difficult place himself. The members themselves watch what is done very carefully, and they see to it that their colleagues are protected so far as benefits are concerned. To impute motives in regard to making men marked men is rather unworthy of the Noble Lord. I think this is a reasonable Amendment.
    Mr. BRACE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will accept this Amendment. I do not think it is necessary to take up time discussing it.
    Viscount WOLMER: I really think there is more in this Amendment than the Attorney-General makes out. I confess if I were a trade unionist and was unwilling to support the Labour party because I disapproved of their policy on some vital question—for instance, the religious question, or because I had on some minor question a conscientious objection—I would feel justified in using the word "objects." If the Amendment means anything, it only means that a member should be allowed to contract out of the Act in a case where he has a real, conscientious objection. If I understood the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill) aright, what he wanted was a conscientious objection such as is entertained to the Education Act of 1902 by passive resisters. Before I could agree to this Amendment, I would like to be assured that it does not mean that the minority have got to place their objections on a level with those of passive resisters and of those who claim exemption under the vaccination law. If it is a question of conscientious objection, I should oppose the Amendment very strongly indeed; but if it is merely a question of drafting, I agree with the Attorney-General that it is not worth while making a fuss about it. If the hon. Member really wants to make the minority say that principles which they conscientiously hold are at stake, I think he is going a great deal too far, and my view is that a man ought to be able to withhold a contribution to the Labour party funds on grounds which may seem to other people exceedingly flimsy. There should be no pressure, direct or indirect, on any man to contribute to the Labour party funds.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: It has been stated that this is a drafting Amendment, but in my view it is nothing of the kind. The Attorney-General has a simple faith in trade unions which is almost a fetish. I say that these progressive Amendments, both upstairs and here, involve not only the possibility but the probability of pressure being used. You are driving a man into the open by steps. You profess to give him secrecy under the ballot. Secrecy of what? Secrecy as to whether ho is in favour of a union engaging in political objects at all. You first of all, under the Bill as it stands, make him come forward and say that he is unwilling to contribute, and now you go further and make him say that he positively objects. The Attorney-General accepts the Amendment at once, but I see elements of great
    1420
    danger in it. Secrecy and pressure are-interwoven in this matter.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS Sir RUFUS ISAACS indicated dissent.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I take that view. It seems to me that secrecy is necessary in order to prevent pressure. If you have first of all a negative form of expressing unwillingness to contribute, that is consistent with indifference to political action or positive dislike of the political action likely to be adopted by the majority. But when you proceed further and make a man object, you are making the original secrecy with which the ballot is surrounded less effective or absolutely inoperative. If there was going to be no question of pressure, there would be no need for the Bill at all. At the present time, according to the existing law, it is declared by the Osborne Judgment itself that members of trade unions, if they wish to furnish money for political objects, can form their own committees and collect their own funds. They can do that as an aggregate of individuals. In the past they have been unsuccessful in getting funds for political activity, and they come now for further powers. They want to put pressure, if possible, on a man, and you lend yourselves to that. Instead of making a man say that he is unwilling to contribute, you make him come before his order and say he objects. Let me point out what a vast difference there is in a man coming forward and saying he is unwilling to contribute and saying he objects. It is the moral aspect of the case to which I am directing attention. If you had allowed a man who is willing to come forward and who would be pleased and proud to come forward, to say, "I am going to do this," there would be no harm done, but instead of that you make a man, who is not pleased and proud to come forward, say, "I object," and thereby incur the odium of his fellows. Do you think that is fair to the individual? If safeguards are necessary—and by your own admission they are, for you have provided for secrecy under Clause 4, and you have inserted provisions in Clause 3 by which a man shall not have undue pressure brought upon him—why shape the Bill so that a man is going to be exposed to every possibility of pressure? You are dealing with a state of things in which he may be indifferent to political matters altogether. If you insert the word "objects" you import two things, namely

    1421
    in the first place, that he objects to contribute, and secondly, that he objects to the method of the expenditure which is likely to be made. I cannot understand how any man, trade unionist or not, who has any regard for the liberty of the working men of this country, can support a state of things like that. I am profoundly surprised that the Attorney-General should treat it as a matter of course, and that the Labour party should treat it as a matter of drafting. Bear in mind in dealing with this question that you say a trade unionist ought to contribute because he is enjoying the benefits of an industrial trade union. Do you think it is pleasure for him to pay for things which are not benefits, and which are distasteful to him? There is a great difference between getting benefits from an industrial trade union, which are certain, and paying for things done by a trade union with which you entirely disagree. I see here a departure from elementary liberty in asking a man to come forward and say that he is unwilling to contribute. I see an opportunity for pressure in asking a man to come forward and object. Not only does experience show that pressure is likely to be exercised, but on the form of the Bill as drafted the Government seem to expect it.
    Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. This Amendment would make the Clause read, "objects to contribute." Should it not be made to read "objecting to contribute"?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is open to the Noble Lord to move that Amendment.
    Mr. PETO: I am in complete agreement with what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for That. Is the Attorney-General really so simple as he claims to be in stating that the hon. Member for Bolton has risen to move this series of Amendments because of his burning ardour for some slightly better drafting in a Government Bill? The hon. Member for Bolton is much more candid than that. He did not claim any such intention. He said he moved it for practically one reason only, because the words "not willing" are not strong enough.
    Mr. GILL: Not definite.
    Mr. PETO: I accept the statement of the hon. Member, but I want to remind the Attorney-General of what he said on the Second Reading. Dealing with the case
    1422
    of a man who joins his trade union for industrial benefits, he said
    "that man is also entitled to the protection of the Government when he says, that although he is a member of the union he objects to his money being used for the purposes of paying the expenses of a Member of Parliament or a candidate for Parliament."
    I notice that the Attorney-General used the word "objects" there, but he was speaking colloquially. In stating on the Second Reading of the Bill that the Government view was that the man was entitled to protection, he was undertaking a very grave responsibilty.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Will the hon. Member mind telling us what, in his view, is really the crucial difference between saying he "is unwilling" and he "objects"? I think probably "objects" is, if anything, stronger, but to me it is so subtle that I cannot see that it is going to make any difference to the trade union.
    Mr. PETO: We proceed in these matters step by step. This is another step in the direction of pointing out more plainly the minority who do not agree with the political views of the majority. The very word suggests an obvious name which will be used for that handful of people who will be called the objectors. If that is not the object of this Amendment, I would very much like the hon. Members below the Gangway to tell us what the object is. If there is no difference, as the Attorney-General thinks, or only a very slight difference, why do they put down these Amendments and press them upon the House? In what way is this Amendment going to help them if it is not going to help them to carry out their political work? It will help in one direction only, the direction of bringing pressure to bear upon the minority to make it fall into line with the rest and subscribe to the political funds of the union. Coupled with the Amendment which has been negatived in the last Division, it is very unfortunate that the Government should be so willing to strengthen the pressure which is bound to be brought upon these people, who by the hypothesis of the Bill, have got to signify before they can get this exemption that they are a minority of people who are unwilling. To insist that these people shall say "we object" not necessarily to the political opinions of the trade union, but to contribute to the political fund, makes it infinitely easier for the majority to say, "these people are mean and unfriendly people who ought not to be

    1423
    allowed to be members of the union, who certainly ought not to be treated in the same way as other members who are in accord with us." If there is any real substantial meaning in what the Attorney-General said on the Second Reading, and in what is said to be the main basis of the Bill, that they are going to give effective protection to The minority, then I ask the Attorney-General at the last moment to withdraw his approval of this Amendment. Unless there is some very strong reason why it makes a better Bill, it is most unfair on the part of the Attorney-General to impose this still further slight disability, even if it is by way of pinprick, on the minority who are already in such a position of disadvantage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. WARDLE: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (c), to insert the words:
    "If any member of a trade union alleges that he is aggrieved by a breach of any rule made in pursuance of this Section, he may complain to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and The Registrar of Friendly Societies, after giving the complainant, and any representative of the union an opportunity of being heard, may, if he considers that such a breach has been committed, make such order for remedying the breach as he thinks just under the circumstances; and any such order, on being recorded in the County Court, may be enforced as if it had been an order of the County Court."
    We quite recognise the susceptibilities of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to this matter and feel that to some extent we have a right to meet them. Their fears in our opinion are groundless with regard to any coercion of members after this Bill becomes an Act, but in order to meet their susceptibilities, and in order that this shall not be a matter for the Courts, but that there shall be a proper tribunal which will not lead the unions into Court, we have put down this Amendment.
    Viscount WOLMER: It gives me the greatest possible pleasure to second this Amendment, because I recognise in it a very great change of attitude on the part of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Stockport, in proposing the Amendment, has said that he has done so simply
    1424
    to allay our fears, although he does not recognise that there is really any ground for them at all. Of course we accept that statement, and think that it is a perfectly consistent ground for hon. Members to say, "We do not admit that there is any likelihood of this Amendment being required, but nevertheless we are ready to insert it in order to meet the argument which you have brought forward." This Amendment alters the Bill in a very important respect. It practically means that all the safeguards of the Bill, on which the Government have laid the greatest possible stress, have some reality about them, instead of being, as they were in our opinion before that, a fraud and a sham. I understand that this Amendment has been moved largely to meet the pledge that was made by the First Lord of the Admiralty when he was Home Secretary and Minister in charge of the Bill. He said that he was prepared to give the right to trade unionists to sue their unions if they alleged that they were damnified in availing themselves of the privileges given to them by this Bill. The Attorney-General, when this pledge was pointed out to the Government, then stated that, although he was not willing to carry out that pledge to the letter, he would be perfectly willing to allow appeal to be made to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. I gather that he has since arranged that the Labour party should be called upon to move the Amendment. I do not say—
    Mr. WARDLE: I moved it upstairs in another form.
    Viscount WOLMER: I do not think it was actually moved; we never had a debate upon it, we had a Division upon it. This Amendment was certainly never moved upstairs.
    Mr. WARDLE: I put down the substance of this Amendment upstairs, but it was not moved because we were told by the Attorney-General that it was unnecessary.
    Viscount WOLMER: Of course I accept the hon. Member's statement as to his intention. If I remember rightly, I think that the Amendment he did put down was really a very different one from this—one that did not go nearly so far as the present one, and which was more ambiguous. The Amendment which was on the Paper during the Committee stage was not nearly so satisfactory as this Amendment. In support of the present proposal, I should

    1425
    like to say that I do not think it goes wholly to meet our contention. The original proposal was that if a member of a trade union felt that he had a grievance, he could take that grievance to the Law Courts and have it fought out there. Hon. Members opposite have an invincible dislike to the law. If that is so —and I believe it is the case with a great number of others—then we on this side of the House are perfectly prepared to compromise on the Registrar of Friendly Societies, provided that he is given sufficient power to carry out his decisions. That, I understand, this Amendment does confer. Therefore, I regard this Amendment as a very important one indeed. If hon. Members look at the Order Paper they will see at the beginning that there were two proposals made on this side of the House which were never discussed— the first one because it was out of Order, and the second because the hon. Member who was to move it had not arrived in time, and had thought there would be a Debate on the first Amendment. Those two Amendments were put forward simply and solely with the same object as the hon. Member for Stockport has in moving his Amendment—that is to say, they were designed to give to trade unionists who felt they had a grievance the right to appeal to some tribunal, either the Law Courts or the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and have that grievance set right by authority of that tribunal. We certainly would not have put down those Amendments if the hon. Member had assured us that he would move this Amendment. I recognise that the hon. Member for Stockport has sought to meet us in this respect. From first to last my objection to this Bill has been that it was an imposture, a fraud, and a sham. It professed to give the minority the right to contract out of the political levy, and to give the minority safeguards, yet there was no method in the Bill at all by which those safeguards could be enforced.
    I have said before that this question of safeguards is, in my opinion, the whole crux of the Bill, and I confess to feeling infinitely flattered that the force with which he urged our contention in the Standing Committee has at last been felt by hon. Members opposite, that all that we advanced upstairs has not been in vain, and that they are prepared to come forward and make a substantial concession on the point. The reason why I attach so much importance to this Amendment is that I speak in this House on behalf of a
    1426
    large body of Conservative trade unionists in my Constituency. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh), for whom I have the greatest respect, I am sure will not contradict me in what I say, that in that part of Lancashire which I represent a great number of trade unionists habitually or occasionally vote Conservative. Those men have felt very strongly on this subject, and I have received strenuous representations from them that this Bill would have placed them in a very unfair position, because the right which was extended to them to contract out of the political levy was an illusory one. I hope that when this Amendment is carried it will not be so. I hope that those men who are Conservative—who have every bit as much right to their political opinions as hon. Members opposite, and who have the right to be Conservative if they choose, however misguided hon. Members opposite may think them—will have a perfect right to refuse the political levy, and that, if they suffer for so doing, they will have the right to take the case to an impartial tribunal. It is for these reasons I second this Amendment. In my opinion, the Labour party have acted in a very sensible and a very straightforward manner. They have admitted the force of our contention, that without this Amendment the Bill would have been a fraud and a sham. They have met us half way, and I congratulate them heartily upon it. Although this Bill is not satisfactory, although it has its blemishes, in my opinion this Amendment will make the measure real, instead of a fraud and a sham.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the Noble Lord who has just spoken has misunderstood the object of this Amendment when he suggests that without it the Bill would practically be a fraud and a sham. I imagine that he was speaking with his tongue in his cheek when he said that.
    Viscount WOLMER: I protest against that.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If the Noble Lord objects to my saying that he spoke with his tongue in his cheek, I withdraw it. I certainly did not think that he could be serious when he said that the Bill was a fraud and a sham without the Amendment, and that it was a success to get the Amendment put into it. If he does so all I can say is he is arrogating to himself a credit which I do not think he is justified in claiming from what has happened, and he

    1427
    is also speaking, forgetting what did happen. Let me remind him what did take place. I have before me the Amendment that was before us in Committee which was moved in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle), by the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes), by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), and by another hon. Member. That is the Amendment which is down on the Paper, and one which was proposed by them in order to get rid of some fears which they had that if they had not some Clause of this kind in the Bill the result would be that they might be taken to the Courts on actions or for injunctions, and consequently be involved in very expensive and costly litigation. That was the reason they proposed it. They had some conversation with me, and apparently misunderstood what I said with reference to it. I said it certainly was not clear that actions would lie, and I am not at all certain that actions will lie except, of course, for injunctions against expulsion from membership. At any rate, I am not prepared, as I told them, to state on my authority so that they could rely on it, that it would be impossible to bring actions for injunctions under Clause 3, paragraph (c).
    Thereupon they said, as it seemed to me very naturally and rightly, if that is the case it is better to have this Clause in, so that we may have it in this form that the Registrar of Friendly Societies is to decide this question instead of being taken into Court, and having expensive litigation, with sometimes, I am afraid, expensive counsel. I am making no suggestion against anyone, but no one who is familiar with the history of litigation of trade unions will doubt but that employers have in the past, and I am speaking with definite knowledge, paid men to come forward, paid members of trade unions to come forward to bring actions in order to prevent a trade union expending its money, it might be for strike pay, or in some other way. These actions have cost very large sums of money, and have been taken to the House of Lords. I am making no complaint against them; it is perfectly legitimate warfare, but that kind of thing ought not to take place under this Bill. At the same time it is quite right that there should be some tribunal with the simplest possible procedure to provide a remedy without any difficulty of any sort or kind, and where there is no expense and no appeal. The matter goes before a man
    1428
    who is used to dealing with trade unions, who lives in the atmosphere of trade unions, and knows fully all the points which sometimes may look a little small in Courts of Justice, but which are real points to trade unionists. The Registrar of Trade Unions is a man who can understand those points and deal with them. For that reason I think my hon. Friend is perfectly wise and right in the interest of trade unions in his proposal. That by doing so he has satisfied the Noble Lord and hon. Gentlemen opposite is no argument against it. If it did satisfy them, and if they think the Bill is better it may be that they will not vote against the Third Reading. That seems to me to be an argument all in favour of it. I am not suggesting that they are in any way bound. It helps to relieve apprehensions some persons may have, and, at any rate, trade unionists have acted very wisely in the interests of trade unions in saying, "We will not run the risk of actions in Court."
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: As one who has had a good deal to do with the trouble that resulted in the Osborne Judgment, and as one who advised the acceptance of this Bill as it left the Committee stage, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that this particular Amendment, now when I see it in cold print, is one that will inflict just as great damage on trade unions in the future as the Osborne Judgment has in the past. The reason why I have so consistently advised trade unionists' acceptance of this Bill was not that the present Bill was a complete satisfaction of their honest demands, but because it did really give us the chance of keeping out of the Courts; and now a new danger is proposed to be instituted. By whom? By our very friends. Of course, the Attorney-General says that this would be easy of access, and not very costly, and that you will get rid of injunctions, and, I suppose, all will be calm and bright thereafter. As a matter of fact is it quite so easy to get before the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Because of the infinite friction that will be created under this very Amendment we are inviting the thousand and one out of the millions of trade unionists constantly to take us before the Registrar. In addition to that you are creating a new offence that has hitherto been unknown to trade unions. The Amendment says:—
    "if any member of a trade union alleges that he is aggrieved by a breach of any rule made in pursuance of this. Section."

    1429
    Of course, I will be told by lawyers whatever grievance he complains of must be strictly limited to breaches of any rule made in pursuance of this Section. Yes, of course, and so soon as the poor simple fellow alleges he is aggrieved by this Section he will have the lawyers saying, "You are perfectly right; you are aggrieved by this Section, and, of course, you must get along to the Registrar." You are therefore, first of all, making a new authority. The Registrar's functions have hitherto been confined to seeing whether the rules laid down by the society were in pursuance and in accordance with the Friendly Societies Acts. His powers have been strictly limited to that, but now you are making him a judge in the first instance, and you go on to say,
    "if he considers that such a breach has been committed he may make such order for remedying the breach as he thinks just under the circumstances, and any such order on being recorded in the County Courts may be enforced as if it had been an order of the County Court."
    The County Court is being brought in, the Registrar is being brought in, new functions are being created, unlimited powers are being given to the Registrar. He may "make such order for remedying the breach as he thinks just under the circumstances." In the Bill which had as its object their settlement, the difficulties, friction, and injustice created by the Osborne Judgment are being reopened once more, and under a Clause which is given to us by our Friends. It is perfectly true that it has been proposed by a Member of my own party; it is perfectly true that it stands in the name of a Friend and of a trade unionist. But I recognise my responsibility to my own trade union, as well as the responsibility which up till now I have taken in advising the acceptance of the Bill. That responsibility I am no longer willing to take. Rather than accept the Bill with this Amendment, I would refuse the Bill altogether. It reopens once again, and indeed with far greater probability, the prospect of members taking up this course of action. If the Registrar of Friendly Societies is easy of access, that will only multiply the cases that will be specially raised by prompters such as the Noble Lord {Viscount Wolmer). It is perfectly true that there are Conservative working men and trade unionists of whom he knows in the Newton Division. I think it is equally true that a good deal of the prompting of these
    1430
    Conservative trade unionists has come from the Noble Lord himself and his Friends.
    Viscount WOLMER: Not at all.
    Mr. WALSH: Whether that be the case or not, it is very curious indeed that working men with 25s. a week can spend thousands of pounds in the Law Courts. That crime—because it is nothing else than a crime—against trade unions will be repeated manifold under this Amendment. I am not prepared to accept it, and sooner than accept such a Clause I will vote against the Bill.
    Mr. BRACE: I think my hon. Friend must have spoken under very serious misapprehension as to the meaning of the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend. If my view could be reconciled with that of the Noble Lord opposite (Viscount Wolmer) or with that of my hon. Friend (Mr. Walsh), I should be opposed to the Amendment. It seems to me that what we have to do is to apply our minds to the actual practical working of trade unions under this Bill when it becomes an Act. This Amendment applies in connection with Clause 3 (c). If a man feels that he has been forced into a Parliamentary levy and deprived of trade union benefit, under this Amendment he may apply to the Registrar for redress. The Registrar will say "Yes" or "No." The man cannot appear before the Registrar with expensive counsel. If he wants to appear himself he may do so. He has to make out his own case, as we have to make out our case for the trade union. The whole thing is simplified. The Amendment creates a very simple and inexpensive tribunal to settle any grievance that may arise if a minority man feels himself aggrieved. After all, we start with the basal proposition that we cannot make a man responsible for this Parliamentary fund. I wish we could. In my judgment that is the weakness of the whole Bill, and when we come to deal with the Third Reading we shall be able to say that we only accept it as an instalment of what we think we ought to have. But to argue, simply because my hon. Friend proposes an inexpensive tribunal, that we shall be setting up a position infinitely worse than, or as bad as that which existed before the Bill, is, in my view, to take a very extravagant view of the situation. The law at present is that one man can tie up a trade union. One man has done so, and has made us entirely helpless as a political force and

    1431
    power in the land. Under this Bill, if one individual member of a trade union feels himself aggrieved, he may go to the Registrar of Friendly Societies and get his grievance corrected, and the trade union will yet be free to go on with its political work and activities. I accept the rendering of the Amendment given by the Attorney-General. It would be presumption on my part to assume a knowledge of law in the presence of such an authority. He has told the House of Commons that the explanation he has given is the real legal interpretation of the Amendment. Therefore I accept it. I say, further, that the Amendment has been the subject-matter of discussion and decision with the Labour party, and, whatever my own opinion might be, it is the Amendment of the Labour party, and I stand loyally by it.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: History has a way of repeating itself in regard to trade union legislation. The speech which the hon. Member (Mr. Brace) has just delivered is in almost precisely the same terms that were used by the chairman of the Labour party in this House when the Trade Disputes Act of 1906 was being discussed. Then the Labour party got into a dilemma; then the Labour party nearly betrayed the whole of the trade unions of the country; and then the Labour party by their spokesman endeavoured to get rid of their own responsibility by suggesting that they accepted the interpretation of the then Attorney-General. I say without hesitation that if this Amendment is carried it will open the door to actions against trade unions in flood and volume hitherto undreamt of.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Where?
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: Before the Registrar. I will use the term "legal proceedings." The Attorney-General has dwelt upon the question of the tribunal, as also has the hon. Member for South Glamorgan. I do not think that the question of the tribunal matters very much, and I am not going to say much about it. But if the process, as suggested, I believe rightly, by the Attorney-General, is going to be easy, simple and cheap, it will encourage a much larger number of aggrieved members to take proceedings. The real crux of the Amendment is in the proposition that members are in future to have a right of enforcing their penalties as against trade unions. At present they have no such right. The Attorney-General
    1432
    shakes his head. It was decided only the other day by the House of Lords, after the expenditure of some £1,000 or £1,200 by the trade union, that a member has cot a right to enforce benefits.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What I said was: that that is not the Amendment. The Amendment only gives him the right, if he is aggrieved by a breach of the law made under this Section.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: We need not be— and I regard this as vital—in the least degree at cross purposes. Let me construe the Amendment. The Amendment refers to a breach under a rule made in pursuance of this Clause. This is Clause 3. Under Clause 3 there are certain rules which may be made and certain conditions laid down. One of them is contained in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c). That says—
    "that a member who is exempt from the obligation to contribute to the political fund of the union shall not be excluded from any benefits of the union, or placed in any respect either directly or indirectly under any disability or at any disadvantage as compared with other members of the union."
    What that means is this: that if a member of a union does not desire to be part and parcel of the political section of the union, and manifests any opposition to what may be the dominant Labour party section in the union, and if because of that, that member is refused sick benefit or strike or industrial benefit or—and this is rather the point—is expelled from membership of the body and thus deprived of benefits, friendly or industrial, it means, if any of those things happen, because of a man's political attitude, then a breach of the rule made under this Section has arisen; thereupon he can go to the Registrar and allege that he has been deprived of those benefits, and the Registrar is clothed under this Amendment with absolutely unlimited power. He can make any such order for remedying the breach as he thinks fit, and that order has the force of an order of the County Court. I say, and I say unhesitatingly, that this is an absolutely new law for the trade unions in this country. I say more: It is in effect a repealing of Section 4 of the foundational Act of trade unions, the Act of 1871. That Section says:—
    "4. Nothing in this Act shall enable any Court to entertain any legal proceeding—

    1433
    It does not even say action—
    "instituted with the object of directly enforcing or recovering damages for a breach of any of the following agreements, namely,

    1. Any agreement between members of a trade union as such concerning the conditions on which any members for the time being shall or shall not sell their goods, transact business, employ or be employed.

    2. Any agreement for the payment by any person of any subscription or penalty to a trade union.

    3. Any agreement for the application of the funds of a trade union—

    (a) To provide benefits to members…
    9.0.P.M.
    That Section from the foundational Act, from the very charter of the liberties of trade unions, expressly prohibits the right of an aggrieved member to bring any legal proceedings for the purpose of enforcing the payment of his benefits. This Amendment proposes that in future, so long as the aggrieved member shall allege that he has been deprived of those benefits for political purposes, for political reasons, or on political grounds, that he can go in the face of that Fourth Section of the Act of 1871—can go to the Registrar and the Registrar can make any order he likes without limit or stint. It is not a question of tribunal. That is comparatively unimportant. But I do regard this as of vital importance, and I say as one who has stood here and in the country for the preservation of the industrial side of trade unions, much as I regret to oppose the Government on this question, and much as I regret to oppose my hon. Friends here, I shall not only vote against the Amendment, but I shall do my level best, between now and the Third Reading, to warn the trade unionists in the country of the dire peril in which they are placed by the Amendment which opens the door to actions against which the door is now closed, and which undoes the very principle upon which trade unionism was founded in 1871. The Mover of this Amendment does not even make this proposal bilateral. He merely proposes that an aggrieved member can enforce his benefits against the trade union through the Registrar. He docs not even propose to repeal that portion of the Trade Union Act that gives trade unions a grievance Against the member and the right of en-
    1434
    forcing their contributions. I appeal to Members of the Labour party, for the sake of the future strength of trade unions, for the sake of keeping them free from the harassing and embarrassing litigation which has been so troublesome, to withdraw this Amendment. I hope the. Attorney-General will not insist upon going to a Division. It has been said, and the point is made, that hitherto there have been costly proceedings. Why? There have been costly proceedings by means of injunction to secure what is called the status quo, that is to restore a man to membership—injunctions have not gone beyond that with an aggrieved member in an action against his trade union.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Does the hon. Member suggest, supposing the member is expelled and declined the benefits of the union in consequence of a breach of Subsection (1), paragraph (c), that that member would not have the right to go to the Courts and obtain an injunction?
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: What I say is this: that an aggrieved member under the existing law can, if he is expelled, go to the Court, and, as in the case of Howden versus Yorkshire Miners, get an injunction to put him back into the same position of membership as he occupied before. That he can do now. [An HON. MEMBER: "No." I I beg your pardon, that is what he can do under the existing law at the present moment. There are half-a-dozen cases, but what he cannot do, what no Court has yet said he can do, is that when he is replaced in membership he can positively enforce the payment of the benefits provided for in the rules. On the contrary, the House of Lords expressly said the other day that by reason of this very Section 4 of the Act of 1871 that he cannot do that. The sole point is this: If this Amendment becomes law, the position will be then that if a man has been expelled" from his union and deprived of benefits for any other than political reasons, then the extent of his remedy is an injunction to-replace him in membership. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that he has been deprived of his benefits for political reasons he can then have them removed by injunction and get replaced in membership; or, exercising the further right this Amendment gives, he need not proceed by injunction but by a process through the Registrar, and may get what damages the Registrar likes. That is a new power which I regard as exceedingly dangerous.

    1435
    and I say unhesitatingly that if the Labour Members are well advised, if they really desire to preserve the industrial side of trade unions even at this late hour, they will withdraw this entirely mischievous and destructive Amendment.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: The hon. Gentle man who has just spoken showed great and passionate anxiety for fear there would be an increase in civil proceedings in regard to trade unions. While not doubting the sincerity of his anxiety or the reality of his passion I do hope if this Amendment is passed some weighty consideration will compensate and console him for the moral injury done to trade unions in the multiplication of civil proceedings. The hon. Member has attempted to answer the arguments of the Attorney-General in regard to this Amendment. At the present moment a man can go to the Courts for an injunction, and he can be reinstated in his union. Is the hon. Gentleman so distrustful of trade unions and, in my opinion, so unfair to trade unions, as to say that any trade union which would be ordered by an injunction of the Court to receive a man back to its fold who had been an expelled member, would then withhold the benefits from him? That is the whole of the hon. Gentleman's fear. I am not saying I am as ardent a supporter of trade unionism as he is, but I am certainly not so unfair or unfriendly as to say that, and I candidly confess that a more amazing proposition from one who believes in the trade union movement as an honest movement honestly conducted, I cannot conceive. He conceives this, and it is upon this he works himself into this passion. Under the existing law an injured man whose benefits are taken from him can go to the Courts and demand re-entrance; he can not insist, by reason of Clause 4 of the Trades Union Act of 1870, that the trade unions shall pay any benefits to him, but I ask again, Can anybody on either side of the House conceive a case where a trade union, compelled to receive a man back, would not take him into benefit—
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: While taking his contribution?
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: And avail themselves of a technicality? It is too utterly disgraceful to think of; I do not believe that ever was or ever will be done. That one who professes himself so
    1436
    interested in and identified with the trade union movement should resist this Amendment put forward officially by the Labour party, fills me with surprise, which I will not express too harshly. The hon. and learned Member may be quite justified in his view of the law as to what will result if the Amendment is accepted. May I call his attention to the fact that by reason of the Amendment of the Attorney-General, which we passed to-day, you have left in certain obligations which have statutory obligations, and which therefore can be a matter of appeal to the Courts, namely, that ballots should be taken in accordance with the Act, and that rules should be enforced containing certain enumerated provisions? By the proposed Amendment the rules are to be dealt with only by reference to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Mark the danger you are running if you do not put in the new method of enforcing the rules. You are in this position, that an aggrieved member would go to the Courts for an injunction if he could show no ballot was taken in accordance with the Act. There is no domestic remedy such as is suggested by this Amndment. He could go to the Courts and say I am entitled by the terms of this Act to come to the Courts if there are no rules in force providing so-and-so and so-and-so; and he could say that "no rules in force" mean "no rules in effective force"; and he could go to the Courts for an injunction to enforce any Statute where you have no other remedy and the Court itself must decide as to whether the rules are in effective force. I put that forward as a question of law; I do not know what the Attorney-General may think of it.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman it is in consequence of a question of that kind arising as to the jurisdiction of the Court that the provisions under Clause 3 are made. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was by no means clear, and I think I so stated when addressing the House. I said in Committee, and I venture to repeat it, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member will agree with me, that if an injunction was granted in certain circumstances—that is, against expulsion—and that that member was readmitted and that the union ever did such a thing as to refuse benefits, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the Courts would find a means of compelling the union to carry out the judgment of

    1437
    the Court and would not allow itself to be treated with contempt.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and being enforced by the expression of his view, with which I entirely agree, it is unnecessary for me to add anything more on the legal aspect These matters of trade unions are very complex. There is room for all sorts of indefinite and undefined things. Speaking as a lawyer, not upon the merits, which must be determined by those whom the matter more particularly concerns, I want to point out that the passion of the hon. Member for East Glamorgan was vapid and theatrical, and that his law on this matter was of a piece with it.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: There is no doubt that the Attorney-General made a great deal of the contention of my hon. Friend (Mr. Walsh). There are one or two points in connection with the Amendment that some of us in this quarter of the House would like some more information and explanation upon. It is pretty well understood, so far as the Courts are concerned, that when trade unionists are involved at the present time, and when the question of the expulsion of a member is involved, or anything of that sort, which they think has been done unfairly and in opposition to the rules, they would restore such member. In that case they had got injunctions against trade unions, and insisted upon them admitting the man to membership, and so practically enforcing their will with regard to that matter without any damages and reinstating the man into membership. If the Attorney-General will look at this Amendment I think he will agree that were the parties to enforce this proposal instead of the Registrar-General it is a moral certainty we should have to look very carefully into the wide powers we are giving to this authority. Apparently it is absolutely without limit when once the Registrar-General is satisfied that a grievance on the part of a member who alleges a complaint is justified. If any member of the trade union alleges that he is aggrieved by a breach of any rule made in pursuance of this Section he may complain to the Registrar-General and if he consents and agrees that such a breach has been committed he may make such order for remedying the breach as he thinks just under the circumstances. Does that include reinstatement only? Does it give the Registrar power to punish
    1438
    by damages? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] That is the only complaint I have to make of the Amendment, and I wish to ask, are we satisfied that we are not giving the Registrar-General by those words absolute power to make whatever order he chooses for the purpose of remedying a grievance. Will that power allow the Registrar to inflict damages upon the trade union, and to impose his will through the Courts afterwards? I confess that by these words we are setting up a new authority which is more friendly than the ordinary Courts and is not so dangerous, but if it is proposed to give to the County Court this enormous power, I should like some limitation upon the power of the Registrar-General, because of what follows immediately after. When once the fiat of the Registrar-General goes forth it becomes an order of the County Court, and then with all our temerity and fear about Courts interfering with us, the moment it is an order of the County Court, it is enforceable by injunction, by contempt and by imprisonment, if the officials of the society will not carry it out.
    I wish the Attorney-General could suggest some words which would reinstate the man into his benefit and make some provision for enforcing the rule upon the executive of the managing body of the society. If this power were limited to that, I could understand it, but it seems to me these words are of such wide scope that it would include almost any proposition whatever the Registrar-General decided was in his opinion in any given case put before it, even if it imposed a monetary line upon the society for the damage done to the member. The moment that fiat has gone forth, the whole Courts would be at the disposal of the member to enforce that order upon the society. Is that a strict legal interpretation of the power we are placing in the hands of the Registrar-General? I do not say it is; I do not know what the words imply, and I should like someone friendly to the movement to explain them, because much depends upon those words. Is this an absolute power given to the Registrar to do what he likes and make any mortal order he chooses which he considers just, and you cannot call into question his decision, and the only thing that follows is the enforcement of his order by the Court? Does that power involve a monetary fine upon a member? A man may have damaged a member because of his hostility to the political fund, and this is a dangerous

    1439
    power to place in the hands of any man without some limitation. I should like to know the exact scope and meaning of those words before I vote for the Amendment. I do not want to pledge myself until I know exactly what this proposal means. I confess it looks dangerous as it stands without some limiting words giving a little more protection than the words seem to imply.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I confess that when I saw this Amendment on the Paper I regarded it with a considerable amount of doubt and suspicion, not because I feared any evil effects to trade unions, but because I thought it was rather a novel precedent to confer upon an administrative officer the judicial powers contained in this Amendment. I have no hesitation now, in view of all the circumstances, in commending to my hon. Friends below the Gangway this proposal, and I will give the House my reason. One of the most solicitous affairs of the Legislature with regard to trade unions and friendly societies is protection from litigation. If you look not merely at the Trade Unions Acts, where the legislation is very strenuous, and at the Friendly Societies Acts, you will find the same policy pursued. The Section with which we are dealing lays down in very clear and precise language what the duties of the Registrar are to be with regard to the rules which govern the creation of a political fund. It lays down that the payments shall be made out of a separate fund, that the political object shall be approved by the union, and, coming to the critical question in which we are engaged to-night, that a member who is exempted from the obligation to contribute to the political fund of the union shall not be excluded from any benefit of the union or placed in any respect, either directly or indirectly, under any disability or any disadvantage as compared with other members of the union by reason of his being so exempted, and the contribution to the political fund of the union shall not be made a condition for admission to the union. You get there a clear purview of the limitation of the powers of the trade union in respect of the control of its political fund and in respect of the conditions which shall regulate the admission and the membership of those who wish to become members of the trade union. If any member of a trade union alleges he is aggrieved —by what?—not by some misconduct or misfeasance on the part of any leader of
    1440
    the union, but by any breach of any rule made in pursuance of this Section, he may complain to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. What is that Registrar to do? He is to consider if such a breach has been committed, and, if he thinks it has, he may make such order for remedying that breach as he thinks just under the circumstances. No Court of Justice would for a moment entertain the suggestion that involved his power to give general damages against the trade union or to override the policy of the trade union. I hold that the words of this Amendment oust the jurisdiction of the Courts.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: No.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: There may be a difference of opinion, and, if there be any difference of opinion, I would respectfully suggest to the Attorney-General that he might add at the end of the Amendment the words "and the decision of the Registrar shall be final and conclusive." That, at any rate, would be effective in preventing any intervention of the Courts. Let me point out that without this Amendment it is perfectly obvious nothing would be easier in the world than for any person who conceived himself to be aggrieved to go to the Courts.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: The hon. and learned Gentleman is surely not reading the Amendment aright. The man will still have the Amendment as an alternative if he wishes to exercise it.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: With all due respect to my hon. and learned Friend, whose knowledge on the subject no one will question, I respectfully demur and say that in my humble judgment the Courts would say, "A remedy has been provided you under the Statute, and you have no right to come here." I do not want to speak dogmatically, and I have no right to assert greater knowledge than my hon. and learned Friend, but that is my view. I would, however, add the words "final and conclusive" to remove any doubt. Supposing the Amendment was not accepted, what would be easier than for a man who thought himself aggrieved to go to the Courts and say, as indeed has happened in various cases, "I have been excluded from the benefit of the fund, and ask for an injunction? It is idle to suppose that the man who would vexatiously for the purpose of harassing the union go to this domestic tribunal would not equally go to the High Courts if this

    1441
    domestic tribunal did not exist. I have considered the matter carefully, and I do say, on the whole, that I think the Attorney-General has done perfectly right in the interests of the trade unions. These forebodings of my hon. and learned Friend are really unfounded, and the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. J. Ward) need be under no apprehension that the powers of this tribunal would extend to giving damages against the union.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I am, in common with other hon. Members, in a position to command the commiseration of the House. I am neither a lawyer nor a trade unionist, and I have received from Gentlemen speaking in both those capacities advice of a wholly contradictory character. I would remind the House this forms no portion of the Bill as introduced. We hear a good deal from hon. Gentlemen on these two benches about there being no difference between Liberal and Tory, but in this case there is no difference between Liberal, Tory, and Socialist; they are all going into the same Lobby, and they are going to add a provision to the Bill which the Government never thought necessary. It has been moved by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle), and has been seconded by the hon. Member for Newton (Viscount Wolmer), who is one of the strongest and most persistent opponents of the Bill. I will only venture to take one point with the greatest diffidence. I am told by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Glamorganshire (Mr. C. Edwards), for whose legal knowledge and whose service to trade unions I have the greatest possible respect, that this is going to set up a new disability on trade unions and to make enforceable for the first time the payment of money benefit. The Attorney-General, of course, intervened and contradicted that point. I have got the Trade Union Act, 1871, here. I certainly cannot construe it like a lawyer, but to my humble, uninstructed mind these words seem perfectly clear:—
    "Nothing in this Act shall enable any Court to entertain any legal proceeding instituted with the object of directly enforcing or recovering damages for the breach of any of the following agreements."
    And then in Sub-section (3):—
    "Any agreement for the application of the funds of a trade union to provide benefits to members."
    1442
    Those words appear perfectly clear. The Attorney-General then proceeded to say, "Oh, yes, but the Courts would consider it unjust, and would manage to get round the law." That was the effect of his statement—that some means will be devised for the Courts to get round Trade Union Acts. That is precisely what hon. Gentlemen on the Labour benches are always complaining about. They say the Court is always doing an injustice. In my humble opinion, and judging the matter on the spur of the moment, trade unions ought to be deeply grateful to the Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) for the courageous stand he has made; to the hon. Member for East Glamorgan (Mr. Edwards) for the service he has once again rendered trade unionism. He is perfectly well entitled to say that he was largely instrumental in tightening up the Trades Disputes Bill, 1906, and now he has rendered further service to the industrial side of trade unionism, a side incomparably more important than the merely political side. I shall, at any rate, unhesitatingly vote with him in the Lobby.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: A good deal has been made in this Debate of the fact that the Amendment was seconded by the Noble Lord the Member for Newton, and that it has been opposed by the Member for Ince. I want to make the matter perfectly clear. If the Amendment had not been seconded by the Member for Newton, it could and would, I think, have been seconded by almost any other Member of the Labour party. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) did not put this Amendment down in his own name. He put it down on behalf of the party, and the party is going to stand by it. I have listened attentively to the statement made by the Member for Glamorgan, and we know the valuable work he has done on behalf of trade unionism, but I feel that, on this occasion, the advice he has offered to the Labour party is such that it would be unwise for UB to follow it. If there is one fear we have in connection with this Bill, it is that there are many legal pitfalls in it. We believe there are pitfalls in this particular Section, and, therefore, we are exceedingly anxious to do something to keep us away from the possibility of those costly injunctions which have been the cause of the depletion of many trade union funds during the last five or ten years. The position taken up in this Amendment was, it is quite true, taken up after

    1443
    consultation with the learned Attorney-General, but it was of our own initiative, because we, as a party, were exceedingly anxious to get some other tribunal than the ordinary legal costly tribunal to which discontented individual members have been taking us during the last few years. I sincerely hope that Members on all sides, when this goes to a Division, will support the hon. Member for Stockport in getting this Amendment added to the Bill.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I can only speak by leave of the House, but, as I have been asked a number of questions upon certain points, I may perhaps be allowed to deal briefly with them. I cannot help thinking there is an enormous amount of misapprehension and misunderstanding as to this Amendment. The hon. Member for East Glamorgan has rendered good service to trade unionism, but he seems to think in connection with what has happened here that the door has been opened wider, and that the result will be that all kinds of actions prohibited by trade union Statutes are now to be let loose or made available against trade unions. There never was a greater mistake. If it were the case I would agree that the Amendment ought not to be adopted. But this proposal is confined to cases of breaches of the rules under this Section. There is a statutory right put upon trade unions to carry out certain obligations and to make rules to secure that a man shall not be deprived of his benefits in consequence of refusing to contribute to a political fund. I propose to deal with two questions, one of law and the other of fact. With regard to the former no man is justified in asserting to the members of the Labour party that there is no danger whatever of actions being brought in the Law Courts to enforce these rules in the event of breach. I do not think any lawyer will venture to assert that. I say with the authority of my position and with a considerable amount of experience both in trade union litigation and in the Law Courts in other matters, although I do not think the j Courts would strain to get round the law, I do say that when a Court has made an order either against a trade union or against any other association or individuals, it will do its best as it ought to, to see that the order is enforced if the Court says the trade union had no right to expel a man and that it was a breach of the rules and that he ought to be reinstated, then if, in consequence of that
    1444
    order, the union does reinstate the man, but subsequently refuses to pay the benefit, then I say that the Court, by way of seeing that its order is not treated with contempt, would do what it ought to do. But I do not believe that any executive of a trade union would deliberately sit down and thus try to defeat an order of the High Court. Neither do I believe there is anything like danger of an enormous number of actions. Trade unions are not likely to do these things. Let me remind hon. Members that if a trade unionist has a grievance before he goes to the Registrar he has the right to put his case before his fellow trade unionists, and it is only when he has exercised that proper legitimate domestic right of appealing to his own court that he proceeds, if he still feels he has a grievance, not to the Courts of Law, but to the Registrar, who understands all these matters and who will decide the point in dispute. When a Registrar has decided I have no doubt the trade union will give effect to his decision. All that happens under this order is that you get some means of enforcing an order in case the trade union or the individuals concerned refuse to carry it out. It does not mean an action. It only means that the order shall not be mere waste paper, which it would' be if the Registrar had no means of enforcing his decision. There is not the slightest fear of any claim for damages such as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward). That would indeed be a very dangerous power to grant to any man. All that happens here is that a man who says that he has been deprived of a benefit, say, of 15s. or 30s., in consequence of some action on the part of his executive, goes before the Registrar, who says, "I think he is right." In that case the money would be paid to the man and there would be an end to the whole matter.
    Mr. WALSH: A person who is aggrieved and believes himself entitled to the 30s. will have lost time and incurred expenses in preparing his case. Would it I not be within the competence of the Registrar under these words to make such an order as he thinks just under the circumstances, and add the whole of the accruing costs to the first claim?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I quite understand. The Registrar will be entitled to say, "This 30s. must be paid, and it has cost 5s. or 7s. 6d. to put your case before me," and you are paid your 7s. 6d. and it

    1445
    is done with. May I ask my hon. Friend, who has attended a good many meetings as delegate, or other functions as a member of a trade union, whether he was not quite properly paid his expenses?
    Mr. S. WALSH: Let me make the matter quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman used the expression, "I think you are entitled to 30a. and that is what will be paid." I would point out that a good many 30s. could accrue upon the first one. The cost of coming to London from the provinces cannot be limited to 5s. There are a day's wages and other expenses that might very well involve going beyond the limit of 5s., so that it is not quite so easy a matter as the right hon. Gentleman states.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If my hon. Friend takes that view he must put against it the other side. Let me put the other side. I will take a case with which I am familiar, and with which everybody in the House, or, at least, my hon. Friend is familiar. Take Houghton's case. He was a member of a trade union, and he was employed, that is the right word, to bring an action against the trade union, which resulted in many thousands of pounds expense, an action which ultimately culminated in the House of Lords, and which, as I know, and as my hon. Friend knows, resulted in another case which also went to the House of Lords. It is infinitely better, if there is such a dispute, that the Registrar should decide such a point as can arise under this Clause than that he should have to bring a law action.
    Mr. S. WALSH: This is a very serious matter. Inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman himself was of the opinion in Grand Committee that such a thing could not arise, will he explain how it is he now uses the expression "as can arise"?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I regret that my hon. Friend was not here when I made my first speech to the House. He would have heard me explain all the circumstances. If he asks me that question I will explain again. This Amendment was on the Paper in the name of the hon Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), and three other Members, to be discussed in Committee. Before the matter came up in Committee, I was asked a question—there is no necessity for any secrecy about it—by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). He asked me, as we were going into the
    1446
    Committee, whether I was quite clear that an action could not be brought to recover benefits. I said, "Oh, no, there is no fear of that." In consequence of that, these Amendments were dropped. What other circumstances occurred I do not know. Subsequently, in further discussion, it was pointed out to me that an action for restraining a union from expelling a member could undoubtedly be brought in the High Court, and if a union refused to pay benefits, after reinstatement, no doubt the Court could find some means for enforcing payment, although there is no precedent for it. If the hon. Member thought that in no circumstances an action could be brought under Clause 3 (c), he was mistaken. I never intended to say that, although I did say, and say now, that an action brought directly to enforce an agreement to pay benefits cannot be brought. That is not the same thing we have been discussing. Hon. Members said if that is the case they ought to be protected against injunctions of that kind and litigation of that character. That is the object of the Amendment, and they have moved the Amendment for that purpose. I assented to it, as I believe it carries out my purpose, and is really in the interests of trade unions and will put an end to all this kind of litigation.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that if the Amendment is carried an aggrieved member will be prohibited from bringing an action for restoration to membership by means of an injunction?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think there is no doubt about it. The only jurisdiction that is given to the Registrar is with regard to a breach of Clause 3 as it now stands. The remedy will be given in the Statute in that Section, and if that is the case there is no doubt that the remedy which is given exhausts the remedies for any breach under that Section. Do net let us have a discussion whether or not it is so or will be so. I think it will be very useful to take the words we find in the Friendly Societies Act and adopt them. When the proper time comes, I suggest that my hon. Friend should move, or that someone should move, after the words in the Amendment "any such order," to insert the words "of the Registrar shall be' binding and conclusive on all parties without appeal and shall not be removable into a Court of Law or restrainable by

    1447
    injunction." I think that will do away with a good deal of my hon. and learned Friend's objection.
    Mr. J. WARD: That meets my point.
    Mr. S. WALSH: And it meets mine very largely.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I see that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) has now deserted the Labour party. I do not know whether he has become a convert to Liberalism, but I am quite sure he would be welcome. I think that some of my hon. Friends near me are rather playing not quite the game by the trade union movement in saying what they have said. What are the facts? In the whole course of my experience in dealing with trade unions I have never known a case in which the union has not given a man the benefits to which he is entitled. This Amendment only applies to men who form a small minority who dissent from paying the political contribution. I do not care what past legislation has been, what I do say is that if there was in any union men so tyrannical as to take a man's subscriptions and at the same time deprive him of the benefits to which he is legally entitled, in the name of common justice that man, whether a trade unionist or not, should have the right to see that justice is given to him. Therefore I think the Labour party are perfectly wise in accepting this Amendment because, although such cases have not come within my experience, I believe it is possible that some cases might occur. Instead of spending thousands and thousands of pounds out of their funds they have, under this Amendment, a ready means of obtaining justice at a minimum of cost. The hon. Member (Mr. Walsh) says what about the expenses that the member who is complaining will be put to if he has to enforce a claim against the union. I know cases where men have found money themselves to fight their unions, not in the High Court, but in a local Court. It is a common occurrence with men who dispute among themselves. Some people like litigation. But be that as it may, this is a reasonable Amendment and I can only say, as one who has always supported what I believe to be the legitimate aspirations of trade unions, the Amendment is wise in itself and is to the benefit of trade unions. It saves expense, it will do justice to everyone, and as to causing this great calamity which my hon. Friend speaks of it is a fear which has no reality,
    1448
    though no doubt it is a good stick to beat the Labour party with. Sometimes we want a stick on these benches to beat the Labour party.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member has spoken with his usual impartiality on this question. I want to show the effect of the discussion we have had upon this Amendment. At the beginning of the Debate the object was quite different from that which is now being presented to the House. We first heard of this Amendment in the discussion of the former Amendment, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) said he would favourably consider the former Amendment if the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Wardle) were adopted. He said by the Amendment we are now discussing protection would be granted to dissenting members of trade unions. Apparently the attitude of the Unionist party at that time was that there was no safeguard for dissenting members, and it was on that footing that the Noble Lord seconded, the Amendment. He held that, apart from the introduction of this Amendment, there would be no protection for the conscientious objector who dissented from the majority who are in favour of political action. Now we find that the situation is altogether reversed, and that, apart from this Amendment, there was protection for the conscientious objector, and that every conscientious objector who felt himself aggrieved would have his ordinary remedy in the Law Courts. Now apparently the Unionist party, leaving their usual position of preserving the jurisdiction of the Law Courts, are going to put into the hands of an administrative officer the power of deciding what are essentially judicial questions, and are thereby going to be guilty of an inconsistency which is quite at variance with their usual attitude in this matter. It is now clear that the Unionist party are in this instance in favour of ousting the jurisdiction of the Law Courts is favour of an administrative officer, and we welcome this change of attitude on their part. I think, however, it has been a valuable discussion, for which we are indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Clement Edwards), and it has made clear that instead of being an alternative remedy which is granted by this Amendment, henceforth it will be the sole remedy which is open to the dissenting member, and that the decision of the Registrar will be final and binding, and as the jurisdiction of the Law Courts is

    1449
    ousted I think my hon. and learned Friend would do well to withdraw his Amendment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move in the proposed Amendment, after the word "order" ["and any such order on being recorded in the County Court"], to insert the words "of the Registrar shall be binding and conclusive on all parties without appeal, and shall not be removable into a Court of Law or rostrainable by injunction and."
    10.P.M.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: I gathered that the Attorney-General was doing something to make it perfectly clear that the alternative method of re-dress, an injunction to the Law Courts, would be shut out. These words, of course, would not do that. The decision of the Registrar is to be final, and you cannot move in any other Court with regard to that decision. The point I raised is that, in the first place, there are the two alternative remedies. Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to accept words stating that this shall be the sole remedy for the aggrieved member? I do not think there can be the slightest doubt that if you have at the present moment a right to go into a Law Court for an injunction to restore to membership, and you use no words prohibiting that right, but you use words which suggest another method, you merely make these two methods of obtaining redress alternative. Will the right hon. hon. Gentleman be prepared to accept words which will make it perfectly clear that an aggrieved member has no right to go into the High Court for an injunction in connection with this Clause? I suggest some such words as these: "Provided that the method of redress set forth here shall be the only method of redress open to an aggrieved member."
    Mr. JOHN WARD: So far as I am concerned I am perfectly satisfied with the Amendment proposed by the Attorney-General. It meets our case absolutely, especially after the statement he made that this, being the redress now in the Clause itself, would be construed by any Court as being the only redress open to a member. Under these circumstances I believe our interest is entirely safeguarded.
    Mr. S. WALSH: When I raised the objection that trade unionists had a strong desire to keep out of the Law Courts I felt,
    1450
    I think rightly, that there was a danger of a new court being created in addition to the present one. But the right hon Gentleman has given us the assurance that this shall be for all intents and purposes the only remedy that an aggrieved member can press under this Section. For any sense of grievance he may feel under the Clause this will be the proper remedy and that undoubtedly removes a great deal of the fear which, rightly or wrongly, I felt. I therefore withdraw my objection to the Amendment.
    Amendmen to proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, inserted in the Bill.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, at end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words:—
    "A resolution under this Section approving political objects as an object of the union shall take effect as if it were a rule of the union and may be rescinded in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as such a rule."
    This is an Amendment to give effect to a promise I made in Committee that I would consider what was best to be done in order to carry out certain views of the trade unionists. I think this is the best way of protecting trade unionists.
    Viscount WOLMER: I think this Amendment entirely meets the point raised on the Committee stage, and I am very grateful to the Attorney-General for moving it.
    Mr. BRACE: I beg to move to insert the following words at the end of Subsection (2):—
    "(3) The provisions of this Act as to the application of the funds of a union for political purposes shall apply to a union which is in whole or in part an association or combination of other unions as if the members of that union were the individual members of the component unions and not the unions; but nothing in this Act shall prevent any such component union from collecting from any of their members who are not exempt on behalf of the association or combination any contributions to the political fund of the association or combination."

    1451
    This is rather an unimportant matter so far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, but in the administration of the Bill it would be very helpful to such organisation as that with which I am connected. The short point of the Amendment is that the Miners' Federation of Great Britain or any similar organisation shall be treated as one unit for balloting purposes under this Act. At present the Miners' Federation of Great Britain is the national organisation for miners, representing all the miners from one end of Scotland to the other end of Wales. Our political scheme is a national scheme upon all matters of a national character. The Miners' Federation, which is an organisation of organisations, is the dominating unit for all these national purposes. If this Amendment is not accepted by the House, it will mean that the constituent unions of the federation will have to take their own separate ballots, and as an organisation we should be in a state of chaos, disorganisation, and confusion. We are simply asking that for the purposes of this Bill the national organisation shall be treated as one unit.
    Mr. GILL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: The hon. Member who proposed the Amendment said that this is a short point. It is a short point as he expresses it, but it is a very substantial point. It means that the provisions of the Bill will apply, not merely to separate trade unions, but will be extended to the political energies of trade unions in an aggregate form. In other words, it is frankly a Syndicalist Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let us examine it. You have got your trade union movement to-day in three forms. You have, first of all, the problem of the individual union; secondly you have the national union of unions within a particular country; and thirdly, you have the world problem of international trade unionism. What does this Amendment mean? It means that not only may a particular trade union address itself to political objects for the purposes of that union, but that the union, being a unit in a larger aggregation of unions, may make its members, who are not exempt, act with the aggregate of unions. For my part I doubt if there is in the country at present a single union which would be within the language used in the Amendment.
    Mr. BRACE: As a matter of fact, the Miners' Federation of Great Britain is so constituted, and does exactly the work which we are asking to be allowed to do within the terms of the Amendment.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Supposing a union is in a federation or group of unions, the members of the individual union would have to express their mind not only with respect to the objects of the individual union, but of the federation of unions. But you also get in the modern developments of trade unions combinations of trade unions which are representative of different kinds of unions. That is a point which certainly must be kept in mind, having regard to the fact that, in ascertaining the mind of your individual union, you have also to ascertain the mind of the federation of unions, if it is in the federation. What advantage do you get in ascertaining the views of the aggregate of unions, instead of the individual opinions held by the members of one union? If this Amendment is accepted, I see that in a veiled way a very dangerous proposal will be grafted on this Bill. The hon. Member was well advised to call it a short point. It seems to me it has all the elements of a dangerous point which ought not to be determined off-hand or lightly in a few moments of Parliamentary time at the end of a long discussion. It is an Amendment which was never discussed in Committee at all. It is introduced now at the fag-end of the Report stage, without a word of discussion, and I-frankly tell the House that it would be very ill-advised, having regard to the nature of its language, to allow it to be grafted upon the Bill.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think a great deal of the fear of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the result of this Amendment is because we have not had an opportunity of discussing it in Committee, and I dare say he may not have noticed it on the Paper before. I do not say that it is of no importance, but I do say that it carries out the whole principle of the Bill. What the hon. and learned Member did not bear in mind is that there are federations, associations, or combinations which are in themselves trade unions, and which have as their component members other trade unions, so that, if the hon. and learned Member follows me, assuming you have a federation of trade unions, which is a trade union and which consists of

    1453
    twelve trade unions—those are the members of the union—
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: If the federation of trade unions is a trade union itself it is already covered by the language of the Bill.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am not satisfied that it is. I think that my hon. and learned Friend is quite right in saying that it is intended to be covered. Suppose in the federation to which I have referred, all twelve trade unions have ballotted for political objects and three of them declare against and nine for, observe that in that trade union you have no opportunity whatever of allowing the man who wants to pay, the member of the trade union which has declared by a majority against payment, to pay through his trade union machinery to the federation. If you have a number of individuals, and some are for and some are against claiming exemption the trade union cannot split itself into those who are willing to pay and those who are not willing to pay unless we have a Clause of this kind. That is why it is introduced and we have taken care to say, that although nothing shall prevent the machinery of the union being used for the collection of money to pay to the federation, at the same time it always remains for the executive to determine whether it will or will not. It is necessary to do this in order to legalise what was intended in the first Clauses of the Bill which we have passed, certainly under Clause 3, and in order to give the right to any man to pay if he wants to pay through the trade union.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: I did not follow the Amendment as drafted, and I would ask the learned Attorney-General to consider the exact words in which it is proposed. The Amendment says, "as if the members of that union were the individual members of the component unions." I do not follow what that means. If the members of the federation were the individual members of' the component unions, then you would have to take a ballot of the whole of the members of the component union. The result would be that if you want the federation to go in for political objects, you would, first of all, have your ballot of the individual members of the component union, and, having got that, you would then have to deal with individual members of the component union. I thought that was what you did not want.
    Mr. BRACE: That is what we do not want.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: It seems to me that these words will not carry that out, because they have to apply as if the members of that union—that is the federation in the case we have taken—were all individual members of the component unions. If the members of the federation were individual members of the component unions you would have to take a second ballot of the members of the compone unions for the purposes of the federation. I thought the Attorney-General agreed with me, but the hon. Member who moved the Amendment docs not agree with me; that is what he wants to avoid. I do not know which it is. The Attorney-General says the true construction is that which the hon. Member wishes to avoid.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In the federation the question is whether the federation should engage in political activity. You have to take a ballot of the federation. In the ordinary course you have to take a ballot of twelve component unions which are members of the federation. By this Clause, instead of doing that, you take a ballot of the individual members who form the component unions to decide whether or not they are to engage in political activity. My hon. and learned Friend is right in saying that when you have done that and got a majority for the federation, it does not follow that the individual unions can themselves, apart from the federation, engage in political activity without another ballot.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: I think that is not what the hon. Member intends.
    Mr. BRACE: Yes.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: Let me clearly understand it. May I take, first of all, the federation? Suppose you have twelve unions in the federation, and that the federation is a union within the meaning of the Act, and that the twelve unions, each of them separately, has a ballot of its members for the purpose of determining whether or not each union shall go in for political activity, and suppose that nine say "Yes" and three "No," then the next question is, Can the federation go in for political activity? You have then to have a second ballot of the individual members of the twelve component unions, and then you have to determine on that ballot whether the federation can go in for political activity. Let me call

    1455
    the attention of the Attorney-General to the words—
    "The provisions of this Act as to the application of the funds of a union for political purposes shall apply to a union which is in whole or in part an association or combination of other unions as if the members of that union were the individual members of the component unions."
    That is as if the members of the federation were individual members of the component union. You would then have to have a ballot of the individual members of the component union in order to determine whether the federation could go in for political activity or not.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is what I say.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: Apply it to this case. You have, first of all, a ballot taken of the twelve unions separately and it does not matter what the result, you then want to consider whether the federation is to go in for political activity, and then you have to have a second ballot of the individual members of the component unions, because the federation is to be treated for this purpose as if it were not a federation of component unions, but as if the members of the federation were the individual members of the component unions. There is no doubt you would have to have a second ballot. It seems to me that ought to be put right. It is not clear as the Amendment stands. What I have suggested is I understand what hon. Members opposite wish to avoid. I am quite sure as the Amendment stands at present the result will be that which I have suggested. I quite agree that is not the result desired.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The point I think will be met by inserting the words, and I suggest we take it "as if the individual members of the component unions were the members of that union and not the unions."
    Mr. BARNES: I think that would more accurately express what we desire, and I think we shall accept those words in preference to the words on the Paper. Let me try and explain to the hon. and learned Gentleman what we do mean. We want only one vote to be taken and on that vote being taken over the whole federation, or combination, or association, we want all the printing and all the necessary arrangements for that vote being
    1456
    taken, done at one centre, and circulated throughout the whole dozen or whatever number there may be of trade unions; so that for the purpose of carrying on this political work the whole federation is taken as the union and not any one of the component unions. That is, in brief, what we want. When the vote has been taken we want further that the majority of the aggregate vote taken over the whole twelve unions should determine the political action of the whole of the unions, or of any one of them. That is to say, in the event of three of the unions having decided, if their votes were taken separately, against political action, those unions shall be determined in their action not by the sectional vote, but by the vote taken over the whole federation. That is what we are aiming at. I admit that the words in the Amendment are rather awkward; those suggested by the Attorney-General are an improvement, and I should wish to accept them.
    Viscount WOLMER: I think that hon. Members opposite, who were rather indignant at his intervention, ought to be exceedingly grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for pointing out the flaw in the drafting of the Amendment. I am not a lawyer, and we laymen have to accept what the lawyers tell us as to the effect of these words. [HON. MEMBKIIS: "NO."] I for one profoundly sympathise with the object the hon. Member has in moving the Amendment. As I have said previously, provided the money is contributed willingly, it ought certainly to be spent according to the desire of the trade unions, and for either House to interfere with the spending of such money would be an unjustifiable interference. If hon. Members opposite think that they can more efficiently manage their political busienss by means of federation, this House ought not to stand in their way.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: I am perfectly clear that the Amendment, even as amended by the Attorney-General, will not carry out the views of the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division, and those are the views I want to see carried out.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: May I, by permission of the House, add another word? There is a danger if you leave the words as they are. Hon. Members desire that a federation of unions should be treated as a unit. It ought, then, to be made clear that the individual unions must not, for this purpose, be treated as units; other-

    1457
    wise you may have an unfair alternative. Suppose there are a dozen unions federated, and that seven of them, with a majority in the aggregate, are in favour of political action, while five are against. It would be manifestly to the advantage of the federated unions that the aggregate vote should be taken. But suppose the case was the other way, and that the larger number of unions were against. It ought not to be possible to take it both ways. It ought not to be left to chance or expediency either to treat the federated unions as the unit or to treat the component unions as units. The component unions should be eliminated as units for this purpose, or you would make it possible for the question to be decided either by the aggregate of the federation, or by simply taking individual unions which were favourable, while the aggregate vote was hostile. If the Attorney-General desires to be fair he should add some such words as, "and the component unions shall not be deemed to be unions for the purposes of this provision." I think it ought to be made perfectly clear, otherwise you may get the alternative condition of the federated unions, as a whole, getting a majority in favour of political action, or taking singly the component unions, as a whole, the majority may not be in favour of political action.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: This, I think, is a very important point, and I think it ought to be quite clearly settled.
    Mr. PETO: May I further point out to the Attorney-General that if you have both the combination or the component unions as an alternative—and in every speech it has been assumed that the twelve unions are numerically equal—it is perfectly possible that a minority of the unions might be a majority of the total unions. In that case you would have hopeless confusion. From that point of view, unless we adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Norman Craig), we shall have confusion in a matter that can be perfectly easily expressed so as to avoid complication, the unions also being taken into consideration.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: As I read this Amendment, the effect of it is that if the federation wishes to engage in political activity there will have to be taken a ballot of the unions that form the federation, and all the individual members of the unions will vote as to whether or not
    1458
    the federation shall so engage: that is what is desired. That undoubtedly this Clause will do. The other point raised is that the vote does not entitle the individual unions—taking the figure 12— does not entitle each of those unions, without anything further, to engage in political activities—that is to say, having political objects as part of their constitution, apart altogether from the federation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In my view it does not—
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: That is exactly what is unfair.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. The whole point of doing it in this way is that we should not bind individual unions as regards their own affairs on political objects. Take five component unions who do not wish to be bound. The executive of those unions may refuse to use the political machinery for collecting the levy and nothing you could do would compel them to do it.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: The point I want an answer on is this. As I read the Amendment, unless it is altered, it produces this result, that a trade federation in the aggregate aims first of all at taking a majority in favour of political purposes from the aggregate of the union. If it gets a majority of the aggregate then the whole of the unions are devoted to political purposes. If it cannot do that, as I understand it, then what it does is to disregard the federal idea altogether and to take the individual unions then voting, although they are in a minority of the aggregate, and to impose political purposes on them.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I want an answer to my question. Will the Attorney-General kindly give me an answer? The question is a simple one. What I want to know is this. In an aggregate of twelve unions, if seven vote in favour of federation and five against it is quite clear the majority would rule; but if the majority is the other way about, can the five unions then as an entity contribute towards political purposes? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] If they cannot they ought to be entitled to. Take, for example, the Miners' Federation. They have always been out-voted by other unions until now. It may be they would say they wanted to contribute to political purposes. I say after they have joined

    1459
    the federation they ought to be entitled to do as they like with their money. Have they that right, or not under the Clause? The Attorney-General shakes his head, but I want an answer, "Yes" or "No."
    Mr. H. TERRELL: This matter, if not properly settled, will go to the Law Courts. I suppose the object of the Labour party is not to invite the intervention of the Law Courts. The matter is very complicated, and in order to give more time for its consideration I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I rise to second the Motion. This is a very difficult point; it was not mentioned on the Second Beading or in the Committee. It now comes up on Report stage, and presents a practical difficulty. We want to make the point quite clear, and I think the matter would be better solved by adjourning it at the moment, and it can be dealt with in two or three minutes when the Debate is again resumed.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): We all realise that there is a single desire to express what we want in proper terms, and I do not think we are in a position which requires an adjournment. I cannot discuss the merits of the Amendment on this Motion, but I may say that you may have an individual union which from one point of view is a member of a federation, and from another point of view has an existence of its own, and unless I am misinformed you may have an individual union which as an individual union takes an interest in local work. I do not think anybody who is prepared to accept the principle of this Bill will deny that such an individual union ought to be entitled to exercise the power within its own area for its own purposes. That is not what this Clause is aimed at. If we keep these two separate things in mind we shall get words quite apt, and I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion. I think it is desirable while the House has this question thoroughly in its mind to dispose of the matter.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: I am quite willing to withdraw my Motion if it is the wish of the House. I ask leave to withdraw.
    Motion for Adjournment by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to omit the words "the members of that union were."
    Further Amendment to the proposed Amendment—After the word "unions" ["as if the individual members of the component unions"], insert the words "were the members of that union"—put, and agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will now read the Amendment as amended:—
    (3) The provisions of this Act as to the application of the funds of a union for political purposes shall apply to a union which is in whole or in part an association or combination of other unions as if the individual members of the component unions were the members of that union, and not the unions, but nothing in this Act shall prevent any such component union from collecting from any of their members who are not exempt on behalf of the association or combination any contributions to the political fund of the association or combination.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General asked us to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate on the ground that he and the Attorney-General were trying to find words which "would meet the difficulty suggested from this side, a suggestion directed to improve the practical working of the Bill? We withdrew the Motion, relying upon the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Are we to understand now that the Motion has been withdrawn, that the two Law Officers are going to proceed and allow this Amendment to be put without further observation or suggestion from them as to the words that would meet the difficulty?
    Sir J. SIMON: Let me just state as clearly as I can what I understand to be the object at which we are aiming, because I submit the Amendment in the form in which it has now been put from the Chair really meets the difficulty. You have got to bear in mind two things. A workman may, on the one hand, be a member of an individual union and may, as a member of that individual union, have responsibilities to it, and his individual union may have certain interests which may include political and municipal interests as well as what are ordinarily called trade union interests. On the other hand, because he is a member of that individual union, and because that individual union in its turn is a member of a great federation, he has an interest in the federation. What I understand the Amendment,

    1461
    as it is now drafted and phrased, to do is this: It leaves the position of the workman, so far as regards his membership of the individual union, under the general terms of the Bill; it does not affect it in the least. On the other hand, so far as the federation is concerned—say, the Miners' Federation, which consists of many trade unions—it says, if you want to answer "Aye" or "No" "may the Miners' Federation engage in political action?" it must be determined by a majority of the votes taken from all the workmen who are directly or indirectly members of the federation. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman differs from what I am now saying, though he may possibly dispute whether it is a wise provision.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: You are using your individual units to try to get a majority which binds the whole federation, even the minority, and then you are taking by the latter words of this Amendment liberty to bind individual units in favour of political action, though as regards the federation as a whole they are in a minority. You are using people to bind the whole federation of unions if you can, and, if you cannot bind the whole federation of unions, you are taking the individual component unions and binding them. Manifestly, to use a vulgarism, that is getting it both ways.
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding as to what is in the opinion of us all the effect of these words. The effect I suggest is this. Let me suppose you have got a federation which consists of twelve individual unions, A, B, C, and so on. The question whether or not that federation and the funds of that federation, may engage in political action is to be determined by a majority of the votes of all the workmen who belong to the federation, whatever be the particular trade union, A, B, C, or D, to which they individually belong. I do not see why the answer to that question should be conclusive one way or the other as to the question whether the workmen who belong to trade union A should, in respect of trade union A, find themselves as belonging to a trade union A which does or does not engage in political action. Supposing your federation is the Miners' Federation, and supposing it consists of trade unions, one of which is located in Wales,—another located in Yorkshire, and still another in Scotland, I can quite imagine
    1462
    that the result of the ballot will be there will be no majority in the whole federation for political action, and therefore there will be no right in the Miners' Federation to use the funds of the federation for political purposes. But I cannot see why that should deprive the miners in Yorkshire—if they have a majority in favour of so doing in the Yorkshire Union—of the power of applying the funds of that union to help to elect a man to the town council—say of Bradford.
    Mr. HILLS: It is not merely for municipalities. This is an important point—less important to me than to hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. But the hon. and learned Gentleman is looking at it purely from the point of view of the component union that is in favour of political purposes. Will he look at it from the point of view of the component union which is not? If the component union is in favour and the aggregate of unions is not in favour, whatever happens, the component union has freedom to work politically. But if the component union is net in favour of political action, while the aggregate of unions are, the component union is swamped by the federation, and has political purposes imposed on it.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and learned Gentleman from one point of view may be quite right in his diagnosis, but ho forgets that you must distinguish between those contributions which are made for the purposes of the federation and those which are local and which are made for the purposes of the individual union. It is not true that these two things are the same. If you are going to accept the principle of this Bill I cannot for the life of me see why if you get a majority of the workmen in individual unions to say that they want to have a political fund they should not be allowed to do so, even although the other unions in the federation take a different view with regard to political action. What is happening is that you are saying that so far as local unions are concerned political action shall depend on whether there are a majority of the members in favour of it; but that has nothing to do with the question whether the whole federaion has the right to exercise its powers. That has to be determined by the views of the majority of the members in the federation itself. We are agreed as to the effect of the Clause, and I submit that this is a perfectly fair and logical way of carrying out its objects.
    11.0 P.M.
    Viscount WOLMER: I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Norman Craig) will not press this to a Division, because when he says this Amendment is letting the unions have it both ways, he is ignoring the fact that if the safeguards for the minority are efficient the minorities are also having it both ways, too. That is the crux of the whole situation. It is because I believe that the Labour party have now agreed to an Amendment which does give the minority a safeguard, and lets them appeal to a tribunal, that I think the safeguards in the Bill are worth having. Therefore it is right to let the unions have it both ways if they like, because if the minority can enforce these safeguards in a Court of Law, which is practically what they can do, then the minority is having it both ways as well.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Provision for Ballot.)
    A ballot for the purposes of this Act shall be taken in accordance with rules to be made by the union for the purpose, but the Registrar of Friendly Societies shall not approve any such rules unless he is satisfied that every member has an equal right and, if reasonably possible, a fair opportunity of voting, and that the secrecy of the ballot is properly secured.
    Amendments made: Leave out the words "to be made by" ["in accordance with rules to be made by the union"], and insert instead thereof the word "of."
    After the word "union" ["rules to be made by the union"], insert the words "to be approved."
    After the word "purpose" ["made by the union for the purpose"], insert the words "whether the union is registered or not, by the Registrar of Friendly Societies."—[Sir Bufus Isaacs.]

    CLAUSE 5.—(Notice of Unwillingness to Contribute Towards Political Objects.)
    (1) A member of a trade union may at any time give notice, in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act or in a form to the like effect, that he is unwilling to contribute to the political fund of the union, and on the adoption of a resolution of the union approving the furtherance of political objects as an object of the union notice shall be given to the members of
    1464
    the union acquainting them that each member has a right to be exempt from contributing to the political fund of the union, and that a form of exemption notice can be obtained by or on behalf of a member either by application at or by post from the head office or any branch office of the union or the office of the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
    Any such notice to members of the union shall be given in accordance with rules of the union approved for the purpose by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, having regard in each case to the existing practice and to the character of the union.
    (2) On giving notice in accordance with this Act of unwillingness to contribute, a member of the union shall be exempt, so long as his notice is not withdrawn, from contributing to the political fund of the union as from the 1st day of January next after the notice is given, or, in the case of a notice given within one month after the notice given to members under this Section on the adoption of a resolution approving the furtherance of political objects, as from the date on which the member's notice is given.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "is unwilling" ["that he is unwilling to contribute"], and insert instead thereof the word "objects."
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "unwillingness" ["of unwillingness to contribute"], and insert instead thereof the words "his objection."—[Mr. Gill]

    SCHEDULE.
    Form of Exemption Notice.
    Name of Trade Union
    Political Fund (Exemption Notice).
    I hereby give notice that I am unwilling to contribute to the Political Fund of the Union, and am in consequence exempt, in manner provided by the Trade Union Act, 1912, from contributing to that fund.
    A.B.
    Address
    day of 19
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "am unwilling" ["I am unwilling to contribute"], and insert instead thereof the word "object."—[Mr. Gill.]
    Bill to be read the third time upon Friday next (31st January) [Bill 358.]
    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."

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Lord BALCARRES: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can make a statement about the business tomorrow and on Friday?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Tomorrow, after the discussion on the Motion to allocate time on Report to the Established Church (Wales) Bill, we propose to take the Second Reading of the Railways Bill.
  On Friday, after the Third Reading of the Trade Unions Bill, we hope to take the Report of the Committee on Vacation of Seat (Member holding contract).

  INCREMENT VALUE DUTY (BUILDERS' PROFITS).
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I desire to raise a point arising out of a question asked by the hon. Member (Mr. Royds) on Wednesday last. My hon. Friend asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
  "whether, in view of Mr. Justice Horridge's recent decision in the case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Lumsden, whereby payment of Increment Value Duty was directed to he made on a builder's profit and where there had admittedly been no rise in the value of the site, he will introduce legislation to indemnify owners of houses and land against liability for payment of Increment Value Duty in cases where there has been no rise in the value of the site since 30th April, 1909?
  "Mr. Lloyd George: Payment of Increment Value Duty was due on the case referred to in the question because the builder realised a price considerably in excess of the combined market value of the laud and the building erected by him. In estimating the increment value full allowance was made for the value of the house, including builder's profits; and the excess of price over value was in the nature of a fortuitous windfall, which under the Statute is liable to taxation I do not propose to introduce amending legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1913, cols. 406–7.]
  The point which I propose to raise is not the effect or the legality of this judgment, as the matter will probably come before the Court of Appeal. I desire merely to state the facts and to quote certain definite pledges and statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to compare those
  1466
  statements with the claims which are now made under his directions, and to ask him how he proposes to make his pledges good. The facts are that a builder, a Mr. Lumsden, of Newcastle, erected a house during the year 1909 upon a plot of land which he had purchased, and the house and land were subsequently valued at a total of £625. Mr. Lumsden, like many thousands of others, not understanding the consequences of not objecting, made no objections within the statutory sixty days, and that £625 became statutorily fixed and incapable of alteration as the value of the premises. He sold the house and land three months later for £750, on which the Commissioners served him with a notice of £125 of increment, and claimed Increment Value Duty of £22. The case came before a Referee, and has recently come before the High Court, and the material point is that in the evidence it was stated, and it was definitely accepted by the Crown, both in the High Court and before the Referee, that the site upon which the house stood, the bare land, had not altered by a halfpenny, but the builder had sold the house and land together at a profit, and the claim of the Crown was that the builder's profit, being in the nature of a fortuitous profit, came under the head of increment, and was chargeable with Increment Value Duty. That is the claim which is made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the reply to my hon. Friend, and that is how the matter stands.
  I desire to place before the House the definite pledges and statements which were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to how Increment Value Duty was to be charged at the time the Act was passed. First of all, I will say that nobody can produce a single statement made during the passage of the Bill which indicates that there was any intention on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government to charge Increment Value Duty upon profits. The whole ground and basis for the charge of Increment Duty was that it was only to be charged on that part of the increase on the bare land which was attributable to the growth and action of the community, and that the object was to specially guard the subject against any levy of duty upon profits apart from any increase in the value of the bare land due to the growth of the community. But in the course of the passage of the Bill, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will very well remember, there was a shifting

  1467
  of the Clauses. In the Bill, as originally introduced, the deduction on the "occasion" and the original deductions were repeated verbatim. That was departed from at a later stage, and it was anticipated on this side of the House that that might give rise to some claim of this kind, and the then Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour) raised that very point. He then received assurances in this House, which I have not time to quote in full, but which are well known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They have recently been stated in the Press. I desire now to quote the definite statements which have been made in writing by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this very point. I have here three definite statements by the right hon. Gentleman, and I will take them in chronological order. The first was written to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden) on 28th October, 1909. It is signed "D. Lloyd George," and the first sentence is quite sufficient for me. It is in these terms:—
  "Unless the bare value, of the land, apart from anything done to it in the meantime, had risen while the house was being constructed, he would not be taxed at all."
  If that is not plain language, I do not know what is. The second letter was written to Mr. Lowell on 5th December, 1910, and in that letter, which is signed by "R. G. Hawtrey," he says:—
  "I am desired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inform you that in the case quoted by the solicitor, if the house was built and cost £400 on a site worth £100, and was sold for £600,"—
  a case absolutely parallel to this one in every particular—
  "not merely is it a complete mistake to suppose that duty will be payable on the sale price for the site value, subject to the 10 per cent, allowance, but duty would not even be payable on the builder's profit. From the price of £000 obtained on sale there would be deducted not merely the cost price of the house, but the whole value attributable to the house, unless there were extraneous causes tending to produce an increase in the value of the bare site."
  No such causes are alleged in this case—
  Colonel GREIG: Is the hon. Member at liberty on a bare statement in a case still sub judice to ask the House to go into the question of what may be decided hereafter?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is calling attention to what was said in this House or during the passage of the Bill. I do not see anything out of order in that.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: In this case it is admitted that there has been no increase in the value of the bare site at all.
  "The amount attributable to the value of the house would be the whole additional sum of £500,"
  What could be plainer than that? The third letter is dated 22nd December, 1910, and is signed "W. H. Clarke," and begins,
  "I am directed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer."
  Here is the point:—
  "If when you sell your properly, the value of the bare land has not increased over the corresponding value on the 30th of April, 1909, the Increment Value Duty would not be payable."
  Here is a case where it was admitted in the Referees Court on behalf of the Crown, when the Solicitor-General was present, that the value of the bare land had not increased. If the quotation is wanted I have it here:—
  "Mr. Stanley then called Mr. Howell Davies, deputy chief valuer for England and Wales, who gave evidence in favour of the Commissioners assessment accepting the effect of the valuation as on April 30th. 1909, and as on the occasion of the sale. He stated that in his opinion there had been no rise in the value of the land, but he thought that nevertheless the amount of Increment Duty had been correctly ascertained."
  That is the evidence before the Referee. There was no rise in the value of the land, and yet Increment Value Duty was payable. Of course, obviously that builder had proceeded knowing the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  "If, when you sell your property, the value of the bare land has not increased over the corresponding value on the 30th of April, 1909, the Increment Value Duty would not be payable."
  Yet a claim is made on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer now by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, in direct opposition to the statement which was made to the builders, and to these correspondents in the letters written by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I could say a great deal upon the consequences of these claims, but in the half-hour which we have I confine myself to the point, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made to the building trade and to the country definite statements, and those statements were in consonance with all the statements made on behalf of the Government when the Bill was passing through its various stages. One more point: When all these letters were written on 21st January, 1911, we found the origin of these claims. The origin of those claims was the Instruction laid upon the Table of the House, and issued to the Revenue Department of the

  1469
  Inland Revenue Commissioners. In that Instruction these words occur:—
  "By this method—"
  —that is the method of valuation prescribed—
  "the following results should be obtained: Increment value should he collectable in all cases where the unit of valuation or the interest therein has actually been sold for more than its worth at the time."
  That is the claim. It amounts to this, that the House was told, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's correspondents were told, that the Increment Value Duty would be levied on the actual increase of the bare land due to the growth of the community. The Increment Value Duty is actually being claimed, and the price at which the property is sold differs from the figure which the Commissioners have fixed as its value. It is an absolutely different proposition from, and absolutely contrary to, the statement made when the Bill was introduced, and absolutely contrary to the pledge, which I have said was made to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I only ask now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall fulfil his pledges, and if the Law Officers advise him that the law allows him to withdraw this claim, which has never been authorised by the House of Commons—it is an official ramp, if I may use the expression—then the Chancellor of the Exchequer should amend this Instruction and should levy the duty upon the value of the bare land. If the law cannot be amended, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared now—his words have been quoted— to make good the pledge which he gave, and to bring the law into accordance with the statement he made in the House, and the pledges he has given since?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): When I had to answer a similar charge last July, the charge was a somewhat different one— differing in character, though emphasised with similar violence. The hon. Member then stated that we were levying the tax against the authority of Parliament. He stated that we had given instructions to the Inland Revenue authorities behind the Act passed by this House and against the Act passed by this House. We then pleaded that the case was sub judice, but he was confident that the Land Union was going to obtain a victory, and brushed aside that plea. The authorities of Somerset House, he said, were levying taxes that were never authorised by this House.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I have just said that, and I say it now.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In face of the judgment you have received and examined, and the pleadings which were advanced by your union? I thought in this House the judges' verdicts stood without challenge until they were upset, and I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should come down to this House and declare, in view of that serious judgment, that he still believes the judge is absolutely wrong in his law.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I made no such statement as that. I imagine it would have been out of order. Of course it is not for me to decide what is a point of Order; I leave that to the Chair, but I never thought of making such a statement. I carefully guarded myself against saying one word about the judgment. My statement was absolutely the same as that I made before, namely, that the House had never knowingly authorised any such tax as this, and that the wording of the Statute was based upon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."]
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman never said anything of the kind. He never said the House never knowingly authorised. He said that the considered determination of one of the judges of the High Court was associated with an official ramp done by the Inland Revenue. I have some experience of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in controversy, and I think sometimes when he makes charges he really does not know what he says. What are the facts of this case?
  Mr. ROYDSmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We had not the advantage of the criticism of the hon. Gentleman who interrupts when the Bill was being passed through Parliament. Therefore I may suggest that my remembrance of what did actually happen is fresher than that of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. ROYDS: I have read it all through.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I would appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and anyone else who was present during these long Debates will remember that there were changes in the Bill, there was a shifting of Clauses from place to place, and alterations made as the result of criticisms, but I on this one point there never was, from the

  1471
  day the Bill was introduced until it was passed, any doubt on the point now challenged, never any doubt at all as to how we measured Increment Value Duty. The method by which you obtained the subject matter of that Increment Value Duty was to subtract from the money actually paid, that is the consideration, the total value which is attributable to the building on the land at the time of the event.
  Mr. PRETYMANmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman occupied a good deal of time, and he has referred outside and in the Press to what he calls alterations which were made in connection with speeches made by Lord Robson in connection with criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I remember the Debate at the time, and I have refreshed my memory. The references which he has given are utterly irrelevant to the point at issue, and the changes which were made in the Act, now embodied in the Act, in response to the appeal made by the right hen. Gentleman the Member for the City— changes which dealt with the point utterly unaffected by the question of whether you deduct from the consideration the value attributable to the buildings. What the right hon. Gentleman said was that in your first estimate of value you estimate the value of the building, in your second estimate of value you estimate the value attributable to the building. He said those might be quite different entities. Lord Robson agreed and said it would not be fair because you might be taxing builders' profits, which we did not intend to tax, and do not tax. Therefore ho promised that the like deduction should be made in one case as the other, and that if you deduct the value attributable to the buildings in the one case you do the same in the other. That change was made in the Act, and that is the change under which the authorities of the Inland Revenue are working. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that we are taxing builders' profits. He says that the promise which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that all value which can be attributable to the buildings at the time the land and building together are sold, has not been deducted. He suggested to the House that in that very case, which he says now is in the Court of Appeal,
  1472
  profit made by the builder has been taxed or claimed to be taxed by the Inland Revenue. Nothing could be further from the facts than that. The cost of the building was estimated at a certain sum and put in at a certain sum. A claim was made by the builder for a value attributable to the building very much greater than the cost of the building, legitimate builders' profits due to the skill and foresight of the builder. I have got the actual figures here. Though the actual cost of the building was only some £280, our valuers allowed on the claim of the builder a value attributable to the building of £430. That was very nearly twice as much. The statement that the hon. Member has allowed to go forth in the Press that we only deduct the builder's cost of building when we come to estimate the proportion which ought to be the right subject of Increment Value Duty is an absolute travesty of the facts. What we say is that we give the builder all the value of the profits which are attributable to the building. That is subtracted from the consideration, which is the actual cash in his hands. That was explained by my right hon. Friend in the very first speech he delivered on the Budget. That is what we learned to know in the debates as the Frankfort system: that is, to proceed on the cash in hand rather than on an ad hoc valuation, at the time. All that under the Act—and I have not the slightest doubt it cannot be challenged in law—is the legitimate subject for Increment Value Duty, is that which remains after you have taken away from the price realised the full value there and then attributable to the building on the site.
  Let me give one or two examples of what might happen. Take a site valued at £100 and a house built on the site costing £500 to build. That is put on the original valuation of the house and site together at £600. Suppose that is sold for £700, that is £100 more. The question then arises: Of that increase how much is attributable to the building? All that increase, as my right hon. Friend said, in 99 cases out of 100 is attributable to the building. It is due to the builder having the foresight and skill to build a building which, apart from the land, has gone up in value. In that case the value attributable to the building is put in at £600 instead of £500. The subtraction is only £100, and no Increment Value Duty at all is charged. The builder has his legitimate profit. Take another case. I am

  1473
  not sure that the figures are quite accurate, but the case very much resembles that which has been disputed in the I inferior Court. A number of houses are situated in a terrace. They are all exactly similar, valued at £500 each, and £100 for the site, £500 being the price upon which Death Duties would be paid, and £500 being the value which any valuer in the town, if called in, would give as the value of every one of those houses. The case I have in mind was the case where one house was adjacent to a nursing home, and it was necessary for the extension of the nursing home that the house should be bought by the home. Although the value of the house as put in for Death Duties would have been £500, the composite subject as bought by the nursing home is bought for £700. There is no builder's profit there. There is a monopoly value held by the builder as against one individual, and not as
  1474
  between a willing seller and a willing buyer. You may say that that is not strictly the value of the site. That is the criticism the hon. Gentleman makes upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But it is not the value of the building; it is not value attributable to the building; it is not the value of the builder's profits. It is a windfall on the site as much as on the building—perhaps more on the site than on the building. It is a legitimate subject for taxation. It was explained for seven months in this House, and it is the subject we are discussing at the present time.
  It being half an hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put.
  Adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Twelve o'clock.

  Howth Harbour (Dredging).
  Howth Harbour (Dredging).
  Members of Parliament (Fees).
  Members of Parliament (Fees).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  OLD AND INFIRM PERSONS.
  OLD AND INFIRM PERSONS.
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
  MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS.
  MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
ROYAL NAVY.
  CHARGEMEN (WORKS DEPARTMENT, PORTSMOUTH).
  CHARGEMEN (WORKS DEPARTMENT, PORTSMOUTH).
  LOWER DECK MESSING ALLOWANCE.
  LOWER DECK MESSING ALLOWANCE.
  Federated Malay States.
  Federated Malay States.
  Earl's Barton Post Office.
  Earl's Barton Post Office.
  Cable Rates (West Indies).
  Cable Rates (West Indies).
  Irish Hay and Straw (Removal of Restrictions).
  Irish Hay and Straw (Removal of Restrictions).
  Payment of Rates (Scotland).
  Payment of Rates (Scotland).
Preamble
The Lord O'NEILL—Took the Oath.

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).
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, anyone who has not had the advantage which so many of your Lordships enjoy of having taken a part, either here or in another place, in the historic discussions on this subject must naturally experience great diffidence, and I hope will be entitled to some indulgence when called upon to make a contribution to the third and, I hope, final volume of these debates. But may I submit that to approach the matter now for the first time does not necessarily involve entire disqualification. It is generally admitted that the circumstances have very much altered since the last Home Rule Bill was before your Lordships' House in 1893, and nobody emphasised that point more strongly than Lord Midleton in his speech last night. Even when the facts remain very much as they were, the perspective is so much altered that those facts may be said to constitute new material. For instance, land purchase, to which allusion has been made, which was part of Mr. Gladstone's original scheme in 1886 and found a place, although rather an obscure place, in the Bill of 1893, is now an accomplished fact, and apart from having, as we are told, transformed Ireland, the sweet security of Irish Land Stock has deprived many noble Lords in this House of their most effective arguments.
Then I would suggest that the great improvement in communications during the last twenty years, with which we are all familiar, has been favourable to the growth of a pregnant conception—that of the compatibility of self-government within the union of the Empire; and there has been an increasing tendency on our part—I do not mean that the Party opposite have not shared in it—to concede to our Dominions and possessions a greater degree of autonomy, and also there has been a marked indication on their part of a desire
612
to reciprocate that confidence by spontaneously coming forward to take a share in the responsibilities and destinies of the Central Government. All the gloomy prophecies with which any grant of self-government to a Colony or Dependency has been received have, in fact, been falsified. That is why, I suppose, we hear very much less to-day than we did in 1893 of the separatist bugbear, which figured prominently in those earlier debates. Further, we may even congratulate ourselves on this side of the House upon having obtained some very remarkable admissions, if not conversions. A Federalist Party has sprung into existence. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Grey, and the noble Earl opposite, Lord Dunraven, the other night both declared themselves as favourable to a federal view. Then I would also mention that in the two decades which have elapsed since the last Home Rule Bill, Ireland has come into possession and exercise of local self-government, and nobody now gets up in this House or elsewhere and declares that Irishmen by disposition or lack of training are incompetent to manage their own affairs. Then, too, we do not hear so much about "Rome rule" to-day. We are not told that the grant of self-government to Ireland means handing over the Irish people to the domination of the priests. I have no doubt that in spiritual matters the power and influence of the Church is as great as ever it was, but owing to the spread of education in secular matters in Ireland as elsewhere the influence of that body is less pronounced. I must also refer to a subject to which eloquent allusion has been made on both sides of the House—that is, the growing congestion of affairs in the Imperial Parliament. I submit that those facts are new since a Home Rule Bill was last before your Lordships' House, and must be taken into consideration and ought to exercise a considerable influence on the decision that will shortly be reached.
It is perhaps on their account, and not, I think, on account of the apathy and the contempt of the public for Parliamentary institutions, to which the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of York alluded in his speech last night, that active opposition to Home Rule does not to-day proceed from the British democracy. Not all the eloquence of noble Lords opposite, not all the scenic effects of the Orange organisers has served to revive the distrust

613
in these proposals which undoubtedly existed in 1886, and in a lesser degree in 1893. But perhaps I may be told, "That is only a personal opinion of yours. How do you know what the opinion of the country on this subject is?" Noble Lords opposite say, "You have no mandate." I contend that we have a mandate; that the electors were definitely conscious of the imminence of these proposals when the present Government was returned to power. But noble Lords opposite, and especially the noble Duke who moved the rejection of the Bill, have complained that it is an attempt to hustle an unauthorised measure—unauthorised, I mean, by the constituencies—through a mutilated Parliament. But when your Lordships gave a Third Reading to the Parliament Bill you knew well enough what you were in for.
Speaking in this House on February 21, 1910, the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, and who we all regret is not able to be in his place, said—
"Home Rule forms an essential feature of the policy of His Majesty's Government."
He went further and said—
"It is the veto of the House of Lords that has stood in the way of Home Rule, and the veto is attacked in order that the way may be clear for Home Rule."
The meaning of those words used by the noble Marquess in this House is, I submit, so plain as to be beyond question. Was that knowledge confined to your Lordships' House? The Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr. Bonar Law, went down to Penge on November 17, 1910, and in the course of his speech said—
"If the precious Veto Bill were, law now, Home Rule would be passed to-morrow."
In view of these declarations I think I am entitled to claim that not only did your Lordships know, but the country knew, exactly what they had to expect if they returned the present Government to power. But we are told that this and other measures of great importance ought to be submitted to a referendum. I was surprised to find that yesterday the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of York seemed to give, countenance to the doctrine that not only ought the electorate to direct the policy of the Government, but they ought to be made judges of a measure when passed; that they ought to be seized of its exact details and of its consequences.
LORD ASHBOURNE: He did not say that.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I venture to say that I am not misinterpreting the most rev. Prelate when I state that he distinctly laid it down that in view of the risk of having to coerce Ulster and also of the financial provisions of the Bill the definite measure ought to be submitted to the country and the judgment of the country obtained upon it before it is passed into law. That is a species of reference to the country of a Bill which has passed through Parliament. Now, my Lords, with regard to the question of the Referendum, my objection to it, and I think that of most of my noble friends on these Benches is that the Referendum as an integral part of constitutional machinery is destructive of the responsibility of both Parliament and the electorate. I do not know what the official attitude of the Party opposite with regard to the referendum is now, but I conceive that the solidity of past times on this question with winch we were acquainted has given place to at best a viscous uncertainty on the subject. I would like to say this to the most rev. Prelate and those who agree with him. If it be true that his only objection to this measure is that it has not been laid before the country in its completed form, then it seems to me that far from refusing the Bill a Second Reading, as he has announced his intention of doing, it would have been open to him to give it a Second Reading and when we got into Committee to suggest an Amendment which would have given effect to his view. We are all aware that under Clause 49 the Bill is to come into operation on an appointed day. That day is an unspecified date, and it seems to me that it would have been open to him to have moved on that clause that the Bill should not come into operation until such a time had elapsed as it was certain a General Election would have taken place. The most rev. Prelate challenged us to say what our view on that would be. I am not going to pretend to say what view His Majesty's Government would take, but I do suggest to him that it would have been an Amendment which was not at all unreasonable coming from him and from your Lordships' House, and if we are to regard his adhesion to the principle of Home Rule as anything more than lip service I think he would have made his position clearer had he taken up that attitude.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Perhaps the noble Lord will pardon me for interrupting him; but I should like to know whether his colleagues in the House of Commons would accept an Amendment excluding Ulster if it were moved in your Lordships' House?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I was not alluding to the exclusion of Ulster.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Archbishop of York was alluding to Ulster.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I think not.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Yes.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I am sorry that the most rev. Prelate is not here to tell us what he did say; but my distinct impression is that his objection to the Bill was not on principle at all. It was merely on the ground that the measure had not been submitted to the electorate in its final form. My view is that it is open to the most rev. Prelate and those who think with him to move that the Bill be postponed until such opinion is obtained, and I suggest that is not an unreasonable attitude for this House to take up. But I submit that we have authority from the constituencies on this subject; and armed with that authority from the British electors, and in response to a demand from the great majority of the Irish people, the Government have framed a Bill calculated to give as great a measure of autonomy to Ireland as is consistent with the Imperial supremacy, with the protection of the minority, and with financial harmony and equilibrium. Those have been our objects. It seems to me, if I may respectfully say so, that the existence of this demand on the part of the Irish Nationalists, forming as they do a great majority of the Irish people, has been somewhat overlooked in this debate. After all, the demand from Ireland is the real thing; it is the thing that is vital to our discussions. We are told of the pressure which the Irish Party exerts in the House of Commons to attain that end, to get satisfaction for their demands, and we hear it villified in this House and elsewhere. The Irish Members in the House
616
of Commons were described by the noble Viscount opposite, Lord St. Aldwyn, as blackmailers. He said the presence of the Irish Members in the House of Commons was like a microbe infecting the body politic. But what are the Irish Members doing more than their constitutional and electoral rights entitle them to do? I submit, my Lords, that they are doing nothing more than every other Party and section of the community is doing in the House of Commons every day. We are told that because of what the Irish Party ask for and work for they are blackmailers.
LORD LANGFORD: I do not think my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn used those words. He said they might be blackmailers, and not that they were now.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I can only refer the noble Lord to the official account of what took place. What the Irish people say through the mouths of their chosen representatives must be taken as better evidence of their wishes than the personal opinion of Sir Reginald Pole-Carew or any other gentleman who visits Ireland. They say, "We want to manage our own affairs in our own way." What is the attitude of noble Lords opposite? What did Lord Midleton say last night? He said, "We have given you material prosperity." But that is not what Ireland asks. She asks to be allowed to manage her own affairs, and she is content to be responsible for the promotion of her own material prosperity. After all, our idea of democratic government is government by consent. We, as far as possible, consistent with the principles of civilisation and the rights of individuals, hope to obtain in Ireland, as elsewhere, government by consent. But the view of noble Lords opposite is that there should be exercised over Ireland a sort of paternal despotism. Ireland is not to have what she wants. Ireland is to have what in its superior wisdom your Lordships' House thinks is good for Ireland.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: As I alluded to this matter, may I say that was not in the least my argument. My argument was that what the Irish Members had demanded had been granted by the Imperial Parliament to the great increase of the material prosperity of Ireland.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The noble Viscount and others have pointed out that the Irish problem was altered because of the great increase of material prosperity, and Lord Midleton emphasised it with all the authority he could command. We know what is said on this subject. It is called "Killing Home Rule by kindness." Ireland is to become so prosperous that the national aspiration will be killed by kindness. I say that is not what Ireland asks. They may be very glad to have prosperity, but their demand is to manage their own affairs. What is the attitude of flue Party opposite? They are prepared to give them what they think is good for them. I am hound to say that as long as that attitude is persisted in by the Party opposite, so long will they find themselves out of harmony with democratic ideals, and so long I think they will not have a voice in the settlement of this question. We have now reached a period in the debate when it is possible to take some stock of the nature of the opposition which has been developed, and to form an estimate as to how it is likely to be pursued. I am bound to say that so far I do not think that the opposition to our proposal has been of a very serious character. We have not been confronted with that frontal attack which was noticeable on previous occasions. At the most there has been a sort of skirmishing on small points.
EARL CADOGAN: Did the noble Lord hear Lord St. Aldwyn's speech?
LORD AMPTHILL: Or that of the Duke of Devonshire?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I hope noble Lords will allow me to state in a very few words what my view is. I can assure them I do not want to be at all aggressive. My reading of the debate is that no noble Lord has argumentatively challenged the principle on which this Bill rests. It is quite true that the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, said that his hostility to the Bill was undiminished, but he never argued the point. The whole of his speech, in fact, was confined to arguing upon the financial relations between the two countries, and I think the remarkable fact about the debate is that no noble Lord so far has got up to argue against the general principle on which the Bill is founded. So far from that being the case,
618
in most of the speeches to which we have listened it has been admitted that in some form or other devolution is necessary to settle the question. There was, I need hardly remind your Lordships, the speech of the noble Earl Lord Grey and also that of the noble Earl Lord Dunraven, while even Viscount St. Aldwyn admitted that something in the nature of devolution would have to be given. I think, therefore, I am fairly stating the case when I say that there is a great diminution in the direct attack which used to be made upon the principle of Home Rule. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Ampthill, said "What about the speech of the Duke of Devonshire." I listened very carefully to the noble Duke who moved the rejection of this measure and I have since refreshed my memory, and I am bound to say it seems to me that his objections were mainly, if not entirely, objections to details. What did he say? I think his first objection to the Bill was that it had been undiscussed in the House of Commons. Well, if that be the case I am bound to say that in moving the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading the noble Duke took a course which of all others precluded that want of discussion, if there has been want of discussion, from being remedied in this Chamber. Surely if it were true that Clause 16 had not been adequately discussed, it would have been open to your Lordships' House to take that and other clauses into consideration. Then the noble Duke asked, "Who is going to be responsible in the House of Commons for the reserved services?" That may be a very fair point to raise, but I submit that it is nothing more than a Committee point. The noble Duke went on to say, with regard to the additional Members who are to form part of the delegation when the time comes for reconsidering the financial relations, that this delegation is to be selected by the House of Commons. I must draw his attention to the fact that he entirely overlooked the clause—Clause 26—which governs the matter; it is not so at all.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Subsection (4).
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. Afterwards the noble Duke made what I took to be the most serious charge of all. He said, "All your safeguards are

619
of no value because they leave the administration of the Irish Government wholly unfettered." There again, with great respect, I must tell the noble Duke that he made a complete mistake. If he had studied Clause 4 he would have seen that subsection (6) expressly provides against the Executive power of the Irish Government being exercised in any way contrary to what the legislative restrictions impose.
LORD ASHBOURNE: But who is to enforce that?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I will come to that in a minute. I ought to say before I leave the subject that this subsection was inserted at the instance of the noble Duke's own friends in the House of Commons, and I think it is very peculiar that the noble Duke should come down and urge as one of the most important and serious difficulties in the Bill that this administrative licence would exist when the clause was inserted in the House of Commons at the instance of his own friends. That is fairly illustrative of the sort of objection we have to meet to-day. It is not an objection of principle; it is merely an objection in regard to the details of the Bill, and such objections I claim ought fairly to be considered by this House in the Committee stage.
I will now pass to one other objection to which allusion was made both by Lord St. Aldwyn and by Lord Midleton. It concerns the question of the representation of Irish Members at Westminster in the future. The noble Viscount said that now Ireland is to have command of her own domestic affairs she was no longer entitled to any interference in our affairs. Support of this contention is frequently sought in the Life of Mr. Gladstone written by my noble friend Lord Morley. Lord Morley there points out in this connection that all courses, either the inclusion of the Irish Members at Westminster or their exclusion or their inclusion for limited purposes, end in a paradox. I am prepared to acknowledge and admit the paradox which is exposed by my noble friend, but I will go further and say that our arrangements with regard to the Irish Members at Westminster cannot be regarded as a final or an adequate solution of the whole matter. I am quite prepared to make that admission. The
620
arrangements are provisional, and must be provisional so long as our complete scheme of general devolution remains unaccomplished. But I would point out that by reducing the Irish representation from 103 to 42 the paradox is proportionately diminished. The microbe, if Irishmen be a microbe, is not half so strong. I would say this with regard to the power which Irish Members may be able to exert for the furtherance of their own works in the House of Commons. These 42 Members, if they are to be effective, must be allied with the Opposition, and if the Irish Members should put forward monstrous and outrageous demands such as have been foreshadowed by many speakers, the Opposition of the day will have to make themselves parties to those outrageous and monstrous demands before the forty-two Irish Members who are retained will have any effective influence upon the decision reached at Westminster. So much for Irish affairs and matters which concern Ireland only.
When we come to domestic affairs the figure of forty-two is a gross exaggeration of the influence which the Irish Members are likely to exercise in our concerns. I suppose there will always be two Parties, and if the Parties are divided under the new conditions in Ireland as they are to-day the majority of Nationalists over Ulster Unionists cannot well under these proposals exceed twenty-six. I very much doubt also whether in many purely domestic affairs Irishmen will consider it worth their while to take any practical part whatever. But there are other strong reasons for not excluding Irish representatives from Westminster. After all, the Parliament still remains an Imperial Parliament concerned with Imperial affairs in which Ireland is as much interested as any other part of the United Kingdom. Then there is the question of taxation. Noble Lords will remember that we still retain the power of imposing Imperial taxes in case of emergency, probably in case of war, and that could not be done unless Ireland is represented at Westminster. But a stronger reason than all for the retention of the Irish Members is to be found in the discussions of 1886. Speaking in the House of Commons on April 9, 1886, Mr. Chamberlain used these words, which I recommend to the Party opposite as they were the cause probably of the defeat of that measure. Sum-

621
marising his objections to the measure, Mr. Chamberlain said—
"I object to it in the first instance because it proposes to terminate the representation of Irish members at Westminster. I object to it because of the consequences that follow upon that. It appears to me that if Irish Members were to cease to occupy seats in this House the Irish Parliament to which they are to be relegated must be, ought to be, and would be in the future, if not in the present, a co-ordinate and equal authority."
That objection has ever since been sustained, and I venture to think it derives additional importance in connection with the safeguards under the Bill. I will in a few minutes try to explain why.
In moving the rejection of this measure I was amazed to hear the noble Duke say that he considered the restrictions to be useless. I do not suppose that all the safeguards in the Bill are seriously regarded by the Party opposite as being absolutely valueless and useless. I can hardly believe that the sense of the Party opposite is that all the elaborate restrictions which we have put in the Bill are absolutely waste-paper. If that is really contended, I think I must give the House a kind of résumé of what they really are. First there is the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament of the United Kingdom. This is expressed in Clause 1, subsection (2)—
"Notwithstanding the establishment of the Irish Parliament or anything contained in this Act, the supreme power and authority of the Parliament of time United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things in Ireland and every part thereof."
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: How are you going to enforce that if the Dublin Parliament did not choose to accept it?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I am coming to that. I thought it would be unnecessary to give chapter and verse as to what exactly are the provisions of the Bill. May I assume, then, that the House is familiar with the exact provisions? [Noble LORDS: "Hear, hear."] Then I will not say any more about the safeguards except to draw attention to this, that under the provisions of the Bill, according to the distribution of Parties in Ireland, the Protestants or Unionist Party ought to retain a representation of thirty-nine Members.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord has not answered my question with regard to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I am doing my best to come to the point which the noble Marquess has raised. I admit that he is a much more experienced debater than I can claim to be, but I hope he will bear with me for a little. I wish, in passing, to point out that the Protestant Party in Ireland will possess, according to the present distribution of Parties, thirty-nine Members in the Irish House of Commons. That is a quarter of the total Assembly, and it is important to understand that it would be equal to a Party of 167 Members in the House of Commons at Westminster. Therefore when we are told, as we often are, of the tremendous influence which has been exercised by the eighty Irish Nationalists at Westminster, I think it is obvious that a Party corresponding to 167 Members is not a body which can be overlooked, and which it can be said will have no influence. That is not all; because if the proportional representative system which noble Lords are aware has been extended to some cities works out as its promoters think it will, then the thirty-nine will be converted into forty-two, so that the Protestant Party will correspond to something like 200 seats at Westminster.
I hope I have not made the noble Marquess impatient, but I am now coming to his point. Our critics tell us that this is all very fine; but, however strong and however drastic the safeguards may be, if the Irish Government wish to infringe any of the provisions of the safeguards they have only to create a Parliamentary deadlock in Dublin. That is what the noble Marquess means. Here it seems to me the subordinate character of the Irish Parliament obtained through the retention of Irish representatives at Westminster becomes important. I cannot conceive a course less justified, less in consonance with representative principle and consequently less likely to achieve its end, than for the Irish Government or the Irish people to break a compact of which they are now willing partners and resist the Imperial Government of which they themselves are a component part both in the House of Commons and in your Lordships' House. They will have had a share in the deliberation and in the vote by which such decision is reached, and I cannot believe that so long as they remain a subordinate Legislature such a course is likely to recommend itself to the good sense of the people of Ireland. I submit that it is upon the representative

623
character of the Imperial Parliament now and in the future that the whole superstructure of safeguards rests, and, I venture to say, rests securely. That is my answer to the noble Marquess so far as I can give one, and I think it is in some sense sufficient.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is no answer at all.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The noble Marquess says it is no answer at all. The noble Marquess often exhibits that deep insight into political questions which entitles him to the position he now occupies, and therefore I do not pretend that my view is anything like so good as his. But if it does not recommend itself to him, I still venture to submit it to the consideration of other people who are perhaps not so prejudiced as he is. We had one or two interesting speeches, as I have already said, from the Federalist Party the other night. The speech of the noble Earl, Lord Grey, made, by common consent if I may be allowed to say so, a great impression on the House. The noble Earl said, "I cannot vote for this Bill because I am a Federalist, and I regard this Bill as a bar to federalism." I suppose the noble Earl had in mind the financial provisions of the Bill and especially the Customs provisions. But may I suggest to him that in a federal system uniformity of treatment of each of the units is not essential? The noble Earl is very well acquainted with Canada. But if he looks at the position of the German federated system he would find, I think, that the component units of the German federation are by no means treated alike. Neither Bavaria, Saxony, nor Würtemberg have precisely the same powers or even the same system of taxation. I do not think that our proposals are incompatible with the extension of the federated system. If they were, we should be the very last to put them before the country and this House.
After all, what have we done in the realm of finance? We have taken advantage of the fact that Customs machinery does exist in Ireland, and we have utilised it for the purposes of our financial relations and provisions. It is because the Customs machinery exists that we have thought fit to make use of it. We do not see that it is necessary to apply the same provisions to Scotland if ever it came within the reach of practical politics to give self-
624
government to Scotland. In the case of Scotland it would be quite unnecessary. After all, we know that in Ireland the great difficulty is this. What compels us to depart from the ordinary practice of federated units is the fact that in Ireland the expenditure exceeds the revenue from all sources. That is not true of Scotland. In Scotland the direct taxes are said to bring in something like £7,500,000 a year, whereas the whole expenditure does not amount to more than £5,750,000. So that really the condition of Ireland and of Scotland is quite different, and it is not in the least necessary to assume that because we have applied certain provisions to Ireland therefore it will be necessary, if federation should ensue, to apply identically the same provisions to Scotland. Precedents are all very well, but you can pursue precedent to the point of pedantry. I venture to say to the noble Earl and to Lord Dunraven that there is nothing in these proposals which is incompatible with a general scheme of federation.
If I am not detaining your Lordships too long, I would like to make one or two allusions to the speech delivered by Lord St. Aldwyn. He expressed his preference for the Primrose system of finance, but I may point out to the two Federalists who have spoken that the Primrose system is really incompatible with federalism. I should like to know what Lord St. Aldwyn would have said if we had put forward such a proposal. The noble Viscount, after expressing that preference, went on to deal with a number of small points. He spoke of the Joint Exchequer Board, and ridiculed the possibility of a Chairman being found whose impartiality would be accepted by both countries. I am bound to say I thought that came very strangely from a noble Lord who is at the present moment conducting an almost identical task with conspicuous success, and the differences which he has to reconcile in that task are at least as great as the differences which are likely to arise between the two Exchequers. But apart from that, the noble Viscount tried to frighten your Lordships on the question of finance. He said, You talk of a deficit of £2,000,000; it will be much nearer £3,000,000 before you have done with it. He also said that the land charges and insurance would be a greater burden in the future than they are now. In making that estimate, however, he failed to make

625
due allowance for the set-off which will occur in the probable decrease in pensions and the annual subsidy which we obtain through the Irish Government; and also, perhaps more important than all, he forgot to allow for the increase of revenue which we may expect to get from Irish sources. It must be remembered that we have reserved to the British taxpayer the reversionary interest in all normal increase of revenue which may, and probably will, accrue in the future.
I have only one more word to say. I said that the great fact in this controversy was the Irish demand. I admit that there is another great fact—the fact of the position of Ulster. I admit that nobody on this side, either here or in another place, Las denied the reality of the Ulster position; but, after all, what is known as the Ulster Party are a minority of the Irish people. I do not see how you can claim that being in a minority they are to dictate what the future settlement of the Irish question is to be. We admit to the full the real and genuine repugnance which is entertained in Ulster to our proposal. We have attempted to meet it by every means in our power. We have filled the Bill with safeguards of every kind and description. Those safeguards are automatic; they are far-reaching; they are practical. We think we have covered the whole ground, but we are open to suggestions if noble Lords have any to make.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Why do you not exclude Ulster?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: We really wish to meet as far as possible the legitimate, although I think sentimental, apprehensions of Ulster regarding this measure. Allusions have been made in the course of the debate to the hopes entertained in Ireland by the Nationalist Party of the coming of a millennium when the Irish Parliament is set up in Dublin. Those hopes are said to be exaggerated. I dare say they are, and my own personal experience tends to show that they are. I had the honour of accompanying the Prime Minister to Dublin last summer on a great and notable occasion. During the course of that visit I was very much struck with the obvious expectation that existed among all classes of the community as to the improvements that would be caused by the setting up of a Parliament in
626
Dublin. If the Irish Government when it comes into existence—if it does—is not to disappoint those hopes it will require, and I believe it will seek, to win the co-operation of all classes and of all sects in Ireland.
I hope—and this is my last word—that in spite, of the Motion of the noble Duke your Lordships may be minded to give this Bill a Second Reading, and take it into consideration in Committee. You will not, if you do, find the Government obdurate. It has been said, both here and elsewhere, that we should consider no price too large to pay for a settlement by consent. And, after all, the Party opposite have an equal interest in a settlement by consent. You freely tell us that as the result of a General Election you will replace us on these Benches. If that is so, and you come back here and tear up this Bill, what will you do? You have, if not encouraged, at any rate acquiesced, in the resistance of Ulster. Do you think you could look forward to peaceful resignation from the rest of Ireland? and, if not, do you look forward with any confidence or any assurance to a succession of Crimes Acts, Coercion Acts, and Proscriptions. We lay this Bill before the Rouse in all good faith. We believe it to be in the general interests—in the interests of both Parties, in the interests of the country, and in the interests of the Empire—that we should find a way of making a reconciliation with the Irish people. We put this Bill before you, and we invite you to share with us in that achievement.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, it is now nearly twenty years since a Home Rule Bill was sent up to your Lordships' House from another place, and when I look round this Bench upon my colleagues here I notice that there are only two who on that occasion took part in the debate besides myself to urge on your Lordships to reject that Bill. I do not know what thoughts are passing through their minds on the present occasion when they carry their recollections back to that measure of twenty years ago. But I cannot myself help comparing in my mind the conditions that existed in the year 1893 with those which exist at the present time. To a certain extent they are very similar. The measure came up from the House of Commons, and a Duke of Devonshire moved the rejection of it. The Bill was disliked in the country, as was

627
shown immediately afterwards by the result of the General Election that took place. But there the analogy ceases. We have similar conditions, but at the present moment your Lordships are powerless to refer this measure, as you did in 1893, to the country. The Government are endeavouring by means of the Parliament Act to secure that measure which I venture to think no epithet is too strong to condemn should be carried through Parliament, not only behind the backs of the people of this country but against the will of the people, who in the case of Home Rule are as much opposed to the Bill as they were in 1893.
I will venture to ask, Is there any Government in the Empire that has ever endeavoured to carry a measure so unconstitutional as this, so fraught with risk and disaster, without appealing to the country, or at any rate without taking every step possible to find out what are the wishes of the people of the country with regard to it? The present Government have done nothing of the kind. They refused to refer this measure to the country, preferring to smuggle and hustle it through the House of Commons in a manner which I venture to say amounts to nothing short of a disgrace to any constitutional Assembly. The procedure in the other House has been described as an absolute farce. The Bill has been rushed through, and many of the most important details have been closured, guillotined, kangarood, or whatever you like to call it. The Government have displayed the most unseemly haste. Consequently when we consider the manner in which this Bill is sent up to your Lordships' House; when we consider the power we at present have—for, whatever may happen, our debates at the present moment have a purely academic character—surely we have a right to say that we have never seen, nor has any country ever seen, a spectacle so degrading as the position to which both Houses of Parliament have been reduced by His Majesty's Government.
This measure, as I say, has been forced through the House of Commons. We may debate it here, but we can only delay it. We cannot refer it to the country. The position of the two Houses of Parliament at the present time, therefore, appears to me to be this. While the House of Commons can vote but cannot speak, your Lordships
628
can speak but cannot vote effectively. If any stranger came back after an absence of some years and visited your Lordships' House or the House of Commons I believe he would ask himself, Is it possible that such a degradation of the Mother of Parliaments could have taken place in the last few years? And if he asked what was the reason that this had taken place, the reply would be "Because His Majesty's Government are not master in their own house." The Government are tied hand and foot to the chariot wheels of Mr. John Redmond, the Nationalist Leader, and of his ally, Mr. Patrick Ford, the dynamiter in America. Mr. Redmond has given His Majesty's Government their orders—"You pass this Home Rule Bill through the House of Commons; you pass it through quickly, you pass it through without discussion—because if there is real discussion the people of England will recognise the iniquities of your measure; therefore they must not be allowed to understand what those iniquities are—and if you do not pass it, out of office you go." I venture to say that never in the history of a constitutional country has a measure of this great importance, coupled with the greatest risk of ruin to Ireland and possibly civil war, been passed behind the backs of the people, without their having a voice or a say in it.
I was reading a short time ago a letter written by the ex-Lord Chancellor, Earl Loreburn, in connection with the Women's Suffrage Bill. These are the remarks he made—
"I believe woman's suffrage for the Imperial Parliament would be a great mistake, and that this opinion is shared by the vast majority. The electors would make this clear if they had the chance, and I hope the friends of fair play, whatever view they take, will make a stand against the design of passing this unfortunate proposal into law behind the backs of the constituencies."
I venture to appeal to the noble and learned Earl, and to ask, if he holds that view with regard to the question of the extension of the franchise to women, which is as the moon to the sun, as water to wine, as compared with the smashing of the Constitution of the country, ought he not to rise up and insist that this measure of Home Rule should be submitted to the country before it is passed into law? I listened, as we all did yesterday, with the greatest interest and admiration to the speech of the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of York, which I am sure commanded the attention of

629
every one in the House. He laid great stress on the fact that when he considered the important position which Ulster occupies in this question it was not in his view the right of the Government of the country to impose Home Rule upon Ulster without first appealing to the people. The most rev. Prelate is not in his place at this moment, but I hope I am not misinterpreting anything he said. I entirely endorse every word in that sentence. I could not help listening with admiration to the way in which the most rev. Prelate alluded to the case of the Government in connection with what I may call stage-management. I noticed that at the time he was talking about the supers of His Majesty's Government a Division took pace in the House of Commons, and the supers who were standing at the Bar of your Lordships' House all fled.
I should not have dreamed of making any allusion to the stage or theatricals if I had not been given the cue by the most rev. Prelate. But when I consider the attitude his Majesty's Government are taking up in refusing to put this measure before the people of the country before they pass it finally through Parliament, I cannot prevent my mind going back to a visit which I paid the other night to a theatre where they are playing a piece called "John Regan's Visit to Ballymore." In this piece we see a conspiracy to get money out of the people of Ballymore for an imaginary Peer. The leading man of the committee, in reply to one conscientious man who said to him, "It, is not honest; we cannot, do it," said, "It is not honest, but we will do it." That to my mind represents the attitude of His Majesty's Government at this moment in not referring the Home Rule Bill to the people of the country. I listened with great interest to the speech delivered by the noble Lord who preceded me. I am bound to admit that I thought he would have proved in the course of his speech that Ireland either had gone back or had improved since the Act of Union was passed. He entirely ignored all those facts. He does not seem to me to realise what the condition of Ireland is at the present moment as compared with what it was before the Act of Union was passed. I do not wonder at it. The noble Lord, if I may venture to say so, was born and bred a Conservative and Unionist. I believe in his earlier days he sat for Plymouth as a Conservative Member. I believe later on
630
when he discarded the traditions of the family and devoted himself to the interests of the Nationalist Party, even then when he stood at Cardiff he was not altogether in favour of Home Rule for Ireland. I have a speech of his in which he said, speaking in April, 1904, as a Radical candidate—
"The question of Home Rule might be considered outside practical politics. But if the question did arise, he was not prepared to vote for a measure setting up an independent Parliament in Ireland. That, however, would not prevent him considering any extension of the principle of local government by, say, the establishment of something in the nature of Provincial Councils in Ireland, Wales, or any other part."
Then, in reply to questions, the noble Lord said that he would vote against any Government which brought in a Home Rule Bill similar to that of 1886. Therefore when I hear the noble Lord to-day eulogising this Bill, which is very much on the lines of the Bill of 1886, I would ask him how he reconciles the speech he made in 1904 with the speech he has made to-day. But I leave the matter to the noble Lord. He finds it better, perhaps, to sit on those Benches and to repudiate the principles he held both as a Conservative and also as a Radical before 1904.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I did point out that there was a great difference between the two Bills in regard to the exclusion of Irish Members in the Bill of 1886. I quoted Mr. Chamberlain as showing the great difference there was.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not see that that makes much difference, but if it pleases the noble Lord I am quite willing to accept it. In the speech he made last night Lord Emmott endeavoured to prove that the country was fully aware of the measure of Home Rule which was to be brought in if this Government came into office. I am bound to admit that he presented his case exceedingly well, but still I differ from him entirely. I venture to say that the country had no idea when they returned the Liberal Party to office that a Home Rule measure was to be the most important item in their programme. I will tell you why, and I will ask the noble Lord to contradict me if I am wrong. If Home Rule was to be the most important item on the programme of the Radical Party, why was not Home Rule ever mentioned in the election addresses of either the Prime Minister or Mr. Birrell, the Chief Secretary

631
for Ireland. It is a singular fact that the question of Home Rule was never brought forward at that time. Indeed, I believe I am correct in saying that out of 300 Radical Members who were returned, 156 only mentioned the matter at all, and 52 alluded to it very shortly in a small paragraph. Therefore I challenge the statement of the noble Lord who spoke last night when he said that Home Rule was one of the prominent planks of the Radical Party at the last election. I would remind your Lordships, further, that Mr. Asquith maintained a very discreet silence on the subject until two-thirds of the Members of the House of Commons had been returned; and then it was only in reply to a heckler that he said Home Rule was to he one of the planks in the platform of the Radical Party.
Now I am afraid I must weary you a little, because I am going to tread upon ground which has not been trod upon yet. I want to prove beyond all doubt that the present condition of Ireland is not only prosperous but that its prosperity is increasing by leaps and bounds. I want to prove to you also that the reason of Ireland's prosperity at the present time is its connection with England and the Union carried by my great predecessor, Lord Castlereagh. What I would like to ask the noble Lord who will follow me on the Government side is, Are you prepared to pledge yourselves to maintain or increase the present prosperity which Ireland enjoys? I venture to say you cannot do it. The present prosperity of Ireland is due entirely, to my mind, to its connection with England. It has been able to borrow money at a very low rate of interest, thanks to that connection. I am not going to deal with the financial question of Ireland, which Lord. St. Aldwyn treated fully last night. I ask your Lordships to look at the development which has taken place in Ireland since the Union. I myself read very closely the Irish papers, and I would invite noble Lords opposite to read what has been said by their own supporters, Mr. Redmond and Mr. Devlin among others, who tell you that during the last ten or twenty years the condition of Ireland has improved to an extent that one could hardly imagine. I have their speeches here, but no one will deny that improvement and therefore I will not weary the House by reading extracts. What does this mean? It means that,
632
thanks to the credit of England and the connection Ireland has with England, the occupiers of land have become the owners of their holdings on terms agreeable to both parties. Thanks again to the credit of England the land question has been to a great extent settled, and I believe every one of those men in the South and West of Ireland who have enjoyed the benefit of the various Land Acts would, if they could speak openly and without fear of intimidation, tell you that they did not want Home Rule.
Let me give some statistics with regard to the prosperity of Ireland, which I wonder very much some one has not mentioned before. The imports and exports at Irish ports in 1904 were £103,790,799, and in 1911 £131,940,725. The Government funds held in Ireland in 1893 were £25,283,000, and in 1912 £42,429,000. The deposits and cash balances in Irish joint stock banks amounted in 1904 to £34,637,000, and in 1911 to £57,752,000. The deposits in Post Office Savings Banks—and may I say in passing that these are the best barometer as to the position of the working-classes—were in 1904 £4,155,000, and in 1911 £12,731,000. The deposits in Trustee Savings Banks in 1904 were £1,856,000, and in 1911 £2,599,000. Will anybody get up and tell me the condition of Ireland is not prosperous at the present moment? I want to ask noble Lords opposite, and particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, Are they prepared to pledge themselves that if Home Rule is granted they will maintain that prosperity. We know better. We who live in Ireland know what the condition of Ireland was before the Union. We know its pauperism, its misery. What did Mr. Lecky, the great historian, write describing the conditions before the Union? He said—
"Agriculture had ceased. Its implements were destroyed. The sheep and cattle had been plundered and slaughtered. The farmers were homeless, ruined, and often starving. This Government and corruption, political agitation and political conspiracy, had done their work, and a great part of Ireland was as miserable and as desolate as any spot upon the Globe."
I ask noble Lords to compare the conditions described by Mr. Lecky with Ireland's prosperity at the present time. And what did Lord Clare, the Lord Chancellor, remark as to the condition of Ireland previous to the Union. He said—
"We have not three years of redemption from bankruptcy or intolerable taxation, nor one hour's security against the renewal of exterminating civil war."

633
Therefore I ask you, having wearied you by quoting these statistics to show the present prosperity of Ireland, Are you justified in running the risk of going back to what existed before the Act of Union?
There is another point I wise to raise. What are the safeguards with regard to the protection, not only of the interests of the people generally, but also of the minority in Ireland? I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, and I could not gather that there was any safeguard put forward which was worth the paper it was written on. What are your safeguards? The noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, told us on Monday night that he does not think the safeguards are sufficient for the minority; and Mr. Dillon, looking at the matter from quite another point of view, has stated the same thing. When we have these two gentlemen viewing this matter from opposite sides making this statement, are we not justified in thinking that there are no safeguards at all that are worth anything? I know the Government must have considered the danger they were undergoing, because they lay such stress on the safeguards. But what are those safeguards worth? I know we are told, "You have a great safeguard in the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament." Let me take a concrete case. The Parliament in Ireland passes some Act which is contrary to the wishes of the Imperial Parliament. The Lord Lieutenant may veto it or not, and you repudiate it here. But what happens? The Government of Ireland resign. What other Government is possible? They return to office, and they renew that measure. They carry it through in spite of you. You must either surrender to that Parliament in Dublin, or you must govern Ireland like a Crown Colony. That is a question to which I should like to have an answer. The noble Lord objected to my interrupting him and said he would answer me, but he did not answer me. I appeal to the noble Viscount opposite. Will he, when he speaks, answer me?
We are told by Mr. Redmond that the Unionist Party in Ireland need have no fear whatever; that they are going to be welcomed into the fold of the College Green Parliament; and we are told that we shall occupy a very prominent part in the representation and in the affairs of Ireland. That is all very well for England, but it does not do in Ireland. In 1889, speaking
634
of the Local Government Act, Mr. Redmond stated that he would undertake to say there would be proper representation of the Unionist Party. Outside of Ulster I believe there are only fifteen Unionist members elected on the county councils. That Act has been a network to the Nationalist Party throughout the other provinces; and when we hear Mr. Redmond talking of safeguards for the minority, and Mr. Asquith also saying that he will see it is done, I maintain they are playing a game of "bluff." Mr. Asquith is trying to delude the English people into believing that the Parliament in Ireland is only to be a subordinate Parliament. Mr. Redmond tells them in Ireland that it is not to be subordinate but all-powerful. Therefore I wish to have some reply from the Front Bench as to how they propose to deal with this question of the safeguards.
Now I come to what I think is acknowledged to be the most important part of this question, and I ask His Majesty's Government at once, as au Ulsterman myself, What are you going to do with Ulster? I do not think any one will deny that Ulster is the key of the whole situation. Ulster is presenting a difficulty to His Majesty's Government which they do not know how to get over, and I want to know before it is too late what they are going to do. We heard from the noble Lord on the Woolsack last night some fluent and voluble sentences with regard to Ulster, but he gave us no definite answer to the question I am putting now. We want a definite answer, and we must have it before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House. I know full well the difficulty the Government are in, and that the Cabinet are divided on the subject. The First Lord of the Admiralty made a speech—I have not got it before me, and I am speaking from memory—in which he said he more or less realised the great difficulties that Ulster presented in this respect. I have, however, the speech of Sir Edward Grey in the House of Commons in May last, when he said, speaking on this question—
"If Ulster defeats tire solution which we propose, or makes it impossible, we cannot afford to continue the present state of affairs. Some solution will have to be found which will free this House and put the control of Irish affairs in Irish hands."
All I can say is this, that Ulster will adhere to the policy which she has pursued all through. It is for you to tell us what alternative you propose.

635
Let me say a few words, as an Ulsterman born and bred, with regard to the present position in Ulster. Ulster knows full well that she owes her prosperity entirely to the Act of Union. Before the Act of Union Ulster was the poorest of the four provinces, but prosperity runs all through Ulster now and she is now the foremost. What is that due to? It is due to the Act of Union, which has brought her into close connection with this country. She has taken advantage of that connection; she has given her energy, her ability, her brains to it, and after having attained the magnificent position she is in at the present moment, is she going to surrender what she and her fathers and grandfathers fought for in order to put herself under the yoke of a body of men like Mr. Redmond and the National League, particularly when they remember the notorious Plan of Campaign which ruined thousands and thousands of people and wrecked the town of Tipperary? Whatever happens, she is not going to submit to be placed under the yoke of Mr. Redmond and the National League and the Ancient Order of Hibernians. I know it is quite possible to say that England in a moment of temporary aberration returned the present Government to power. But, my Lords, England did not return it to power for Home Rule. I ask, What are you going to do? You may, if you like, cut the loyal population of Ulster adrift, but, having once cut it adrift, you have no right to say to them, "You shall be placed under the yoke of a body of men you all hate, and who all hate you."
I maintain that there are only two alternatives with regard to this question, the one being that you should continue to govern Ireland as she has been governed since the Union, which has conduced to the prosperity of the whole of the country or else that you should cut Ireland entirely adrift and leave her to seek her own salvation. But if that is not done, you have no right to call on the English troops to fire upon the loyal people of Ulster, whose only fault is that they love you and are devoted to you and will fight for you in any part of the globe you ask them to. They will not cheer Boer victories or eulogise men like Mr. Lynch, as has been done by supporters of noble Lords opposite. Ulster only asks to be left to live with you and die with you, to share your responsibilities and your liabilities, and to be part
636
and parcel of your country; that is all they ask. My concluding remark is, What are you going to do? Are you going, in face of the fact that the people of Ulster will not tolerate Home Rule, to order the English troops to shoot them down? I ask that question with all solemnity.
I myself, I need not say, feel very strongly on this question. If I may venture a few words of an egotistical character, I would say that my whole political life has been bound up in the Union of England and Ireland. I am the collateral descendant of the man who carried the Union. I entered Parliament a young man as Member for County Down, my only pledge being that I would support the Union to the best of my ability. Shortly after being called to your Lordships' House I was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and my official experience there taught me that the maintenance of the Union, the credit and the connection with England, is all-powerful. Since then I have spent a great part of the year in the North of Ireland. I have associated with the industrial population and their views; I believe in them, and I believe they believe in me; and, having had the experience I have had officially and politically and socially, I tell your Lordships here publicly and deliberately that you are running the gravest risk that ever was run if you attempt to coerce Ulster in this matter. I therefore conclude by asking you, What are you going to do with regard to Ulster?
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, the House has listened with the respect and attention it deserves to the speech of the noble Marquess who has just sat down. Not only the House but I think the whole country has awaited the speech of the Marquess of Londonderry, who holds the position of chief and spokesman of what Lord Cornwallis once called "a bold and deeply interested minority." I think on Friday perhaps we may be able to go a step further and call it a minority of a minority. We may not agree with the speech to which we have just listened, but I think every person, whether he agrees with it or not, must congratulate the noble Marquess upon it as being a really good speech from his point of view. I think he had the sympathy of every noble Lord in this House when he spoke of his historical connection with that part of Ulster in which he is so truly and deeply respected. He spoke with know-

637
ledge of his subject; he spoke with deep conviction; and he spoke with spirit and fire—in fact some portions of his speech might distinctly be called somewhat fiery. He spoke of the Government the day being under the orders of Mr. Redmond and Mr. Patrick Ford. He spoke of the iniquities of the Government; he spoke of their smashing the Constitution; and he went so far as to call the Government dishonest. He talked of the safeguards in the Bill not being worth the paper upon which they were written, and he was very strong on the subject of disgrace and degradation. I do not intend personally to make arty reply to the noble Marquess, but I am grateful to him for having spoken so clearly and resolutely and plainly to members on this side of the House, because it gives them an equal opportunity, which I am sure the noble Marquess is a fairminded man will not resent, of speaking equally plainly and equally clearly to him in reply.
I am bound to say that, good as the noble Marquess's speech undoubtedly was, there seemed to me to be two or three omissions in it. The whole of his speech appeared to be destructive; it was not constructive in any sort or kind of way. He never threw out the vaguest hint of any sort of constructive policy in the room of this Bill, which noble Lords opposite seem determined to throw out. And it seemed to me that the speech of the noble Marquess was a speech that could not possibly and would not have been made by any man who had ever seen a Colony or by any man who had ever seen a Colonist at all. In those circumstances it is easy to understand how it is that the noble Marquess has adopted the attitude of what is called across the seas, "the English Englishman". But I am bound to confess that it is uncommonly difficult to understand the position of one of the Leaders of the Party to which the noble Marquess belongs, Mr. Bonar Law, who, with the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne—whose return to the House we welcome with such great pleasure—leads the great Party opposite. It is difficult to understand how a man with the acumen which Mr. Bonar Law undoubtedly possesses could ever have gone sc far as to express in the Commons House of Parliament his belief that Ulstermen would really prefer to accept government by a foreign country than submit to be governed by their own countrymen. This is, to us at
638
any rate, a most astounding statement, and it does not seem to have been challenged, either on the platform or in the Press, by any member of the Party which he leads. On another occasion he went so far as to say that, under circumstances which he does not define—he gives himself a loophole there, I admit—he would encourage Ulstermen in their resistance. It seems to some of us that this wild talk is a natural sequence—I hope the House will believe that I use this expression in no hostile sense—of the revival of the spirit of those Orange lodges which, as the House knows full well, came to an end in March, 1839, under somewhat dramatic circumstances.
Lord Midleton last night said that he did not intend to go back into the history of the first half of the last century, as no noble Lord present in the house could be held responsible for what happened then. But we are told that history repeats itself, and most of us would be uncommonly sorry if the dreadful history of the first part of the last century was to be repeated. Therefore I ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I remind noble Lords of what the state of affairs was in the early part of the last century. Your Lordships will remember that when the Duke of Wellington carried Catholic Emancipation in 1829 Party feeling in consequence ran terribly high, and it ran very high especially amongst the Orangemen in Ireland. It ran so high that the Deputy Grand Secretary of the Irish Lodges went so far as to assert that the Irish Orange members declared that it was no use their remaining loyal, as they were about to be sacrificed; and, in confirmation of that, if you Lordships look at Greville's Memoirs of that period, you will find that in his opinion loyalty at that time was a dead letter. The Orange lodges then, as is well known, were extremely strong. In Ireland it was stated that there were 220,000 arm-bearing men. I am speaking subject to correction, because I have not been able to verify it; but a few days ago some Member in the other House of Parliament stated, curiously enough, that that was about the number of the Orangemen in the North of Ireland at the present time. There were 220,000 arm-bearing Orangemen in Ireland. There were 40,000 men of the same kidney in London alone; there were 140,000 Orangemen besides in Great Britain. There were a great many Colonial lodges, notably in

639
New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, and, in addition to that, there were a great many military lodges in the Army, the members of which were affected, or disaffected, whichever way you please to put it, by the tenets of that institution. In June, 1833, Colonel Firman, who was Co-Deputy Grand Secretary of the Lodge, wrote to a then member of your Lordships' House, saying—
"We shall speedily have such a physical force, I trust, as will strike terror and dismay into the enemies of our country."
I pause for one moment to ask, Who were the enemies of the country at that time? Were they the foreign countries under whose flag we are told under certain conditions some of our fellow-countrymen are anxious to take refuge? Not a bit of it. The enemies to which he referred were the majority of their own countrymen, the Catholics who were living in other parts of Ireland; and so numerous and menacing did this institution become that Joseph Hume in 1835 brought the whole matter before the Commons House of Parliament. He obtained a Parliamentary Committee, which was appointed to inquire into Orange institutions, and they brought out a Report which I hold in my hand and from which I ask the indulgence of the House to allow me to read two or three extracts. I have extracted what I want to read, and put it under six or seven heads. They reported that the effect of the Orange institution was (1) to incite one portion of the population against the other; (2) to increase the rancour existing between the different religious persuasions; (3) to make the Protestant the enemy of the Catholic and the Catholic the enemy of the Protestant; (4) to raise up other societies amongst the Catholics in their own self-defence; (5) to interrupt the course of justice; (6) to tamper with the discipline of the Army; and (7) to incite to breaches of the peace and to bloodshed. The Report goes on to say that all these evils have been proved in the evidence as regards Ireland. I take the concluding words of the Report, in which they say—
"The suppression of the Orange societies, in the opinion of your Committee, is an absolute necessity, and the House should consider whether the Law Officers of the Crown should not be directed to institute legal proceedings without delay against the Grand Officers of all the Orange Lodges."
Generally when England gets into a mess common-sense comes to the rescue. It
640
was so in this case. The Grand Master formally dissolved the Orange lodges, and the Orange Institution was finally broken up in 1839. I think I might here mention that this was a strange and somewhat tragic termination of a society which, I believe, speaking subject to correction, was originally founded on religious principles, and whose proceedings opened with a prayer, and, as far as I know, at the present moment may still open with the same prayer, the concluding words of which ran—
"Bless, we beseech Thee, every member of the Orange Institution with charity and brotherly love."
and its last words were—
"Make us truly respectable here on earth and eternally happy hereafter."
The agitation and the bitterness of feeling which existed at that time—in 1839—were scotched but not killed, and what the Litany calls "privy conspiracy" changed into open sedition. If noble Lords read the accounts of those days they will be surprised at the violence of the articles which were written in the newspapers, the violence of the speeches, and the atrocious lampoons that were published broadcast in those days. The climax came when a terribly disloyal oration was made by a member of the Opposition to Lord Melbourne's Whig Government. I think I had better not mention the name of the person who made the speech nor his constituency, as it is only sixty or seventy years ago and it might cause pain to some of his relations who may be living at the present moment. It was so dreadful a speech that it was at once answered by a member of the Whig Party whose name and constituency for the same reason I withhold, who told the speaker to his face that he had "the heart of a traitor and the tongue of a coward." For six weeks nothing occurred; but the pressure was so strong that a hostile meeting had to take place, and the second to the Whig duellist was Mr. George Anson, private secretary to Lord Melbourne, whom some of us can remember as private secretary to the late Prince Albert, Shots were exchanged, an apology was made for the speech, and the matter ended.
Then a loyal reaction set in, and in that loyal reaction there was one very startling development. In the Annual Register of 1839 you will find an account of a great

641
meeting—so great a meeting was it that it was impossible for it to be proclaimed—which was addressed by the Liberator O'Connell at a place called Bandon, which I believe is in the county of Cork; and the speech which this man made to the Repealers, or Home Rulers, as they would now be called, ran as follows:—
"The moment I heard of the menaces of the Tory Party I promulgated my feelings of detestation in the Press."
He went on to say—
"In one day I could get 500,000 bravo Irishmen to defend the honour and the person of the Queen."
And he added—
"Let every Irishman in this great gathering who is loyal to the Queen and who would defend her to the last, lift up his right hand."
In the Annual Register we read—
"The entire assembly held up their lands."
In conclusion he said—
"If necessity required, there would be swords in them."
and he sat down, in the words of the Annual Register, "amidst tremendous and awful cheering." I should be the last person in the world to deny that the Irish people had been disaffected in days gone by. No one can think, except with horror, of those terrible days that some of us spent when staying with Lord Spencer in the old days, when he was virtually a prisoner in Dublin Castle. I remember, the first time he was permitted to take a ride in the Phoenix Park, riding on his left. The Staff said, "Look carefully going round the corners, and be very careful to ride out any person who tries to get between you and the Viceroy." There are many of us who remember the splendid courage of that noble man Lord Spencer in those terrible days of trial and tribulation, and the splendid example that was set by his beautiful and devoted wife.
But still, my Lords, I say that never, in the bitterest time of agitation, have the majority of the Catholic population in Ireland been disloyal to the Throne itself. They have hated with rancourous hate, and they have loathed the system of Crown Colony Government under which they were compelled to live; but I think I have every noble Lord opposite with me
642
when I say that under no circumstances, not even under the worst circumstances, have they been disloyal to the Throne. I take one instance. The House of Lords, to its everlasting credit, in England's deepest necessity went out to fight its battles in South Africa. I think there was not one single family in your Lordships' House where the bead of the family did not go out himself or at least send one, if not more, members to the seat of war, and especially I should like to call the attention of the House to the conduct of the Duke of Norfolk, the respected head of the Catholics of England, who went out to the seat of war and was severely wounded. I ask noble Lords who have themselves fought whether they can mention any body of men that fought better than the Irish regiments. I will only mention a few—the Dublin Fusiliers, the Leinster Fusiliers, the Connaught Rangers, and the 18th Royal Irish. I only mention those because I believe that these regiments are maintained and recruited in the South of Ireland, and that every man in those regiments is a Home Ruler.
I take another case. What was the reception given to the Sovereigns of this country when they have honoured Ireland with Royal visits? The hearts of the nation went out to the late Queen Victoria when she visited Ireland in 1900. The same thing happened when King Edward, of blessed memory, took Queen Alexandra to Ireland in 1903; and we are told by those best qualified to know that on the occasion of the visit of the present Sovereign and Queen Mary, great as was the enthusiasm and the loyalty shown in different parts of the country, perhaps the most striking enthusiasm and the most striking loyalty was shown by the Dublin crowds who went out to see their future King and Queen. I think that the attitude of the Irish nation towards the Sovereigns of their country can be exemplified in one single sentence by what was said by the Irish carman on the occasion of the visit of Queen Victoria in 1900. A member of your Lordships' House was coming back from the Phoenix Park Review, and he said to the driver, "Pat," or "Tim," or whatever people call those drivers, "have you seen the Queen?" and the car-driver, with that twinkle in his eye which seems to be the birthright of every Irishman, said, "Indade I did, and I cheered for her like mad—God forgive me!"

643
We are asked, "Why do you support Home Rule? How on earth can you defend your position?" The answer is very simple. All those of us who have gone out into the wide world support Home Rule because we are convinced, we are absolutely positive, that self-government—I care not whether you call it Home Rule, or Rule at Home, or Devolution, or what you will—we are convinced that self-government in Ireland is a necessity if we wish to continue a great and a growing British Imperial confederation. I am not going to give the opinion of any member on this side of the House, but I ask your Lordships' permission to quote what a great authority on your side has written on this subject—I refer to Mr. Garvin, the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette and of the Observer. He wrote some time ago when there was a suspicion that some members of the Party opposite were coquetting with Home Rule under an assumed name—
"So long as the Irish question is unsettled, close alliance with the United States of America is impossible; while we have to reckon with the sentiment of the Colonies, all of which are made uncomfortable—"
that is the word he used—
"by the present state of things."
Nothing can be truer, nothing can be fairer, than these words. We cannot put it better. It shows how great a stroke for the Empire Liberals will have accomplished when they have passed, as they inevitably will pass, Home Rule. Then we are told, "If you grant Home Rule, you betray Great Britain into the hands of her enemies." Her enemies!
Mr. Redmond tells you that this Bill will have the effect of bringing contentment to Ireland, and of putting an end once and for ever to the disaffection existing there and amongst the Irish people in every part of the world. I know that that opinion is received with laughter from the Benches opposite, but still we have on the other side of the House an admission, and we have a categorical admission from Sir Edward Carson and from Mr. Walter Long, both great authorities on Irish problems, that Ulster Unionists are not afraid of any persecuting or unfair legislation at the hands of the Catholics. Why should Ireland be called the enemy of England? Both have fought shoulder to shoulder on many a battlefield, and they have the same patient industry, the same loyalty to the Sovereign, as I hope we have ourselves;
644
and I would ask the Bishops' Bench, if any of the right rev. Prelates are going to vote against this Home Rule Bill, Is this deep religious feeling going to separate for ever two Christian countries? I would ask noble Lords opposite, and I would ask Ulstermen, Are you for ever going to deprive Ireland of that self-government which has been so happily granted to all other Dominions under the Crown, and which has made the great British Empire what it is to-day? I hope your Lordships will pardon me if I call attention to a very old hackneyed quotation which I believe we used to learn in days gone by in the Eton Latin Grammar—si monumentum quœris circumspice. If you want to seek or, still better, complete the monument of Britain's greatness, look, not only at the result of the self-government you have granted to British Dominions across the seas, but, before it is too late, open your eyes at home.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, holding the convictions that we do, I do not see that those who sit on this side of the House have any choice but to vote for the Motion of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire. At the same time I am greatly obliged to the noble Marquess who leads this House for his reminder of the limitation of your Lordships' powers. We are able to delay the passage of Home Rule for a period of something like another eighteen months unless disaster befalls the Government in the House of Commons. We have no power to ensure that this third Home Rule Bill should be referred to the nation, as the Bills of 1886 and 1893 were referred. We are still the unwilling accomplices of the Government in their scheme that this country should be ruled by a Single Chamber, itself the dumb tool of an all-powerful Government. Nor really are our powers of revision less illusory. Lord Emmott last night, in a very interesting speech, suggested that we ought to read this Bill a second time in order that we might assist in remoulding it in Committee. I had the advantage of hearing the noble Lord, and therefore I know that what he said he said with perfect simplicity and honesty; but if I had read the speech instead of hearing it I should have supposed that he had spoken with his tongue in his cheek, because no remoulding of this Bill in Committee would be possible without a complete recasting of the finance, and your Lordships are unable by the endorsement

645
of the Parliament Act of the excessive claims of privilege of the House of Commons to have any share in the recasting of the finance of a Home Rule Bill. When Lord Crewe was dealing with the powers of the Senate it this Bill, he slurred over the fact that the Senate has power neither to reject nor to amend the finance of a Bill with the assertion that there were many precedents in other countries for such a provision. The noble Marquess made a mistake. What he meant to have said was that the only precedent for that provision was his own Parliament Act.
If the Government ever have any inclination to carry into effect their solemn pledges in respect to the Preamble of the Parliament Act, there are some indications in this Bill and in the Government Press of the kind of line they mean to take. The Irish Senate is to have no power to amend or reject a Money Bill. In the Parliament Act there is a provision, a meagre provision it is true but still a provision, to safeguard this Home against "tacking" by the House of Commons. There are provisions in the Parliament Act which are designed to prevent a Government in the House of Commons "tacking" on to a Money Bill great social or political changes unconnected with a Money Bill. There are no such provisions in the Home Rule Bill which we are now considering. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent an Irish House of Commons "tacking" on to a Money Bill any provision they like, and the Senate could neither amend nor reject it because it was a Money Bill. I do not know whether your Lordships happened to read a short leading article in the Government official organ, the Daily News, of the 27th of this month. It really is worth reading to your Lordships because it shows how utterly impatient the Government and their supporters already are of the miserable relics of influence left to your Lordships' House—
"The Home Rule Bill is to come to-day before the Lords for Second Reading, and it seems to be generally assumed that, after a more or less ceremonial debate, the Bill will be rejected. The assumption may be made that the probability that the Lords will take this step only deepens their offence. We must refuse to believe that the Lords will reject the Home Bide Bill until they have done it, just as, in common fairness, one must refuse to believe that a fellow-man will commit a base crime until he has done it. If and when the Lords take this indefensible step the need will be demonstrated of depriving them of the power of outraging a fundamental constitutional principle."
646
I think Lord St. Aldwyn gave us very good advice when he suggested that it was unnecessary for each of us to attempt to cover the whole ground of the Home Rule controversy. That is my answer to Lord Ashby St. Ledgers. Because we do not attempt to cover the whole ground it does not mean that we do not feel able to cover the whole ground, or that our convictions on this subject have weakened in the twenty-seven years since Mr. Gladstone introduced his first Home Rule Bill. I mean to follow Lord St. Aldwyn's advice, and to confine my observations to one particular aspect of this subject. But before doing so I must enter a protest against the attempt which has been made by Lord Emmott and others to try to gain credit for this measure on the ground of the success of the grant of responsible government to the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. I will leave your Lordships to judge presently where the analogy really lies, if analogy there is. I will not dwell on the fact that this is a very different Bill from the kind of government granted to the Transvaal, or on the all-important fact that South Africa is 6,000 miles from England and that Ireland is 60. I concentrate on this point, that in the Transvaal there was no Ulster. In the Transvaal the two contending parties were approximately equal, and there was no kind of racial division in the Transvaal which could be at all compared with that which unhappily exists in Ireland. Self government was granted to another Colony besides the Transvaal. It was also granted to the Orange Free State. Although the circumstances were not the same in the Orange Free State as they are in Ireland, there was a much closer analogy than in the case of the Transvaal. In the Orange Free State there was a small minority with a different history and a different idea of politics and of government, and I know, and the noble Marquess opposite knows, that questions were emerging in the Orange Free State which might have caused very grave anxiety in South Africa and in the Empire. That danger, happily, was removed by the Union of South Africa.
Now, what was the Union of South Africa? Here we have a United Kingdom and, at present, no subordinate, no Home Rule Parliament. In South Africa there was no United Kingdom, but there were four Home Rule Parliaments; and what they did in South Africa was to get rid of

647
the four Home Rule Parliaments and form a United Kingdom. They did that because they found by experience, just as Mr. Pitt had found, that within the compass of one geographical unit, such as the United Kingdom is, or South Africa is, a collection of Home Rule Parliaments and Executives was intolerable and constituted a political danger. Therefore, if there is any analogy at all between our experience in South Africa and what is proposed for Ireland, the moral is entirely contrary to the course which the Government are now proposing. My noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, sitting on this Bench yesterday, reminded me that if we do seek for an analogy from South African experience there is one which, perhaps, has not occurred to His Majesty's Government. After Majuba, sed absit omen, a Convention was made with the Transvaal under which, on paper, the suzerainty of the British Crown was reserved and in which all manner of safeguards were inserted for the protection of the British and of the natives; but experience proved that all those reservations and safeguards were not worth the paper upon which they were written.
The point I want especially to emphasise to-night is this. Of course, there is a case for Home Rule. We all know that there is a reasoned case for Home Rule which brings conscientious conviction to the minds of noble Lords opposite, and to many other people in this country, just as they know there is a case against Home Rule which brings conviction to our minds. But I think I can demonstrate to you to-night that there is no case for this Bill. There are two possible forms of Home Rule for Ireland or for Scotland, and two only. One is the Colonial form, and the other is the federal form. This Bill is not the Colonial form; the Government have rejected that, and rightly. To introduce the Colonial form of Home Rule would be an irreparable disaster. But they have not introduced the federal form. What they have introduced is a bastard Bill, and I think I can prove that their Bill cannot possibly fit in with the federal constitution which they contemplate. The noble Marquess, in dealing with this aspect of his case, said the Government proposed to carry the principle of devolution further; they proposed to have a Parliament for Scotland, and presumably for Wales and England. "But," he said, "there is no necessity that there
648
should be a slavish imitation in the Scottish Bill of our provisions for Ireland." I remember very well in the years gone by listening with rapt attention and admiration to a speech of the noble Viscount who is not in his place this afternoon—Mr. John Morley, as he then was—in the House of Commons. I think he was talking about Home Rule then, and he quoted, as he only can quote, an aphorism, I think, of Bishop Butler. I do not attempt to remember the exact words, but I do remember the exact sense. It was to this effect, "Facts are facts, and they will remain facts, and they will produce their inevitable consequences. even though you choose to shut your eyes to them." My contention is that it is a fact, which no wilful blindness can alter that the only possible forms of Home Rule are, as I have said, the Colonial or the federal, and that you cannot fit this Bill into a federal system for this country.
Many instances have already been given of how this Bill offends against federal principles. The noble Marquess said, as I have reminded him, that there was no necessity for slavish imitation, but he forgot this fact, that in all essentials it is an inevitable principle of a federal system that the relation of each subordinate Parliament and Government in that system to the central Parliament should be the same. You may have variations in the internal arrangements of each subordinate Parliament, but in their relation to the central Parliament and Government there can be no diversity in essentials. I am not going through all the cases in which this Bill offends against the federal principle. I am only going to take one. Take the case of bounties. Under this Bill the Irish Parliament can grant bounties on any Irish product. It cannot grant a bounty for exportation only. For instance, it would not be in the power of the Irish Parliament to grant a bounty of 2s. 6d. a hogshead on all butter exported; but it would be in the power of the Irish Parliament to grant a bounty of 2s. 6d. on every hogshead of butter produced in Ireland. How is that going to be fitted into a federal system? Is England, Scotland and Wales each to be given the power to grant bounties on its products? That would be a fiscal system only worthy of Bedlam. But if England, Scotland, and Wales are not to be allowed to grant bounties like the Irish Parliament, is it likely they will tolerate a partnership of that kind? You cannot possibly fit such

649
a provision into any federal scheme, and you can find no precedent for such a provision. It is not in the power of any Sovereign State in Germany; it is not in the power of any State of the United States; it is not in the power of any State of Australia; it is not in the power of any province of South Africa, to do such a thing. Before you can possibly fit your Irish scheme into a federal scheme, you will have to begin by amending this Bill. Therefore I think I have proved to your Lordships' satisfaction that this Bill is, as I have said, a bastard Bill; it is neither the Colonial scheme nor the federal scheme.
I wonder whether the Government have ever asked themselves where, in the matter of the Constitution, they are leading their country? I think all of us must feel that we are on the edge of a transition period. We do not quite know where we are going, and I do not think the Government quite know either. Allusion has been made many times in this debate to the fact that the great ideal of some form of organic union of the Empire for common purposes is passing into the realm of practical politics. My Lords, that is no Party question. That is an ideal which fires the imagination of Liberals just as much as that of Unionists. And, more than that, it never should pass into a Party question. It is a cause for which many of us would be only too thankful to be allowed to give all that remains of our political life. It is a cause calculated to awaken our passionate enthusiasm. There is only a small section of our countrymen who do not seem as yet capable of comprehending what it means—Socialists and a certain class of Radicals. They believe that the organic union of the Empire for purpose of defence, for foreign policy, and the government of the Dependencies would tend to militarism, as it is called, and would be a barrier to social reform. I do not believe there could be a more profound miscalculation. I do not believe that any greater guarantee for the world's peace could be given than some form of truly Imperial Parliament, nor do I believe that any greater security or opportunity for the quiet development of social reform and the betterment of the lot of our people could be given than by the existence of such a Parliament.
But if that ideal is ever to he realised we have to reconstitute the Government
650
of the United Kingdom. That can only be done in one of two ways. We Unionists think there is no reason for saying, because a truly Imperial Parliament may be created, that you are thereby bound also to create half a dozen subordinate Parliaments in the United Kingdom. We believe that the existing British Parliament relieved of its responsibility for the Navy, the Army, foreign policy, and India would be perfectly capable of dealing with all the requirements of the United Kingdom. We set that deliberately against that other ideal so eloquently voiced by Lord Grey of a federal system. Lord Grey thinks that an imitation of the Canadian system would be the only possible solution of the difficulty for the United Kingdom. We do not agree with him. We prefer the South African system to the Canadian system, the unitary system to the federal system. We do not deny that the Colonies have a right to their own choice, and would not for a moment question their judgment or say that the federal system is inferior to the unitary system, but we see no reason, because our imperial ideals may be realised, that therefore we are to deluge the United Kingdom with half a dozen or more new Parliaments and new Executives.
I know the opposite opinion is held. Not only Lord Grey, but other noble Lords opposite think differently. They stand by the federal system. Let us look at it from their point of view. At the very least, they would require five Parliaments in the United Kingdom—one for Ireland, one for Scotland, one for England, one for Wales, and one for the United Kingdom—to deal with those matters which are not directly Imperial, but yet which are common to the whole of the United Kingdom and not confined in their application to Ireland, Scotland, England, or Wales only. But that is the very least that would be entailed by the policy of noble Lords opposite. There are members of the Cabinet who would be very far from satisfied with a beggarly five new Parliaments. The First Lord of the Admiralty proposes, as I understand, in order to secure some system of uniformity and to reduce the component parts of England to an equality with Wales, to cut up England into a dozen different blocks. England is very long-suffering, but I think that England will revolt at that point. I do not think that she will exchange willingly her robe of perfect national unity for a patchwork quilt

651
dragged out of the cupboard of the Anglo-Saxons. The contribution which the Government are making to this great problem that is looming before us is this. They are proposing a scheme of Home Rule for Ireland that cannot possibly fit into either system; it can neither fit into the unitary system which we prefer, nor into the federal system to which they are committed.
The Lord Chancellor told us that there was a secondary very important object the Government had in view. They felt that the congestion of business in Parliament was intolerable, and they proposed this measure as an instalment of relief. What really is the fact? You must take the action of the Parliament Act and this Home Rule scheme with their consequences as all part of one policy. What is the real fact? We find that the House of Lords is already in the melting pot; that the House of Commons, chained by the Parliament Act to the House of Lords, is being dragged into the melting pot; and that this Bill for Home Rule is going to put the whole of the United Kingdom into the melting pot. The prospect of a constitutional change of this kind is enough to appal any nation or any Government. The laws that would be necessary for the final settlement of these great subjects will be more numerous, more complicated, more difficult of solution, than any group of laws which have had to be dealt with by any Parliament in the world since the days of the French Revolution. That does not seem to be a very felicitous beginning for a measure designed to relieve congestion and to leave the House of Commons free to deal with social reform.
There remains the ideal of the Government and their followers, which we frankly recognise. Their ideal is to reconcile England and Ireland and to settle the Irish question once and for all—a noble ideal. Lord Crewe spoke with the gravity and the sense of responsibility we would expect of the problem of Ulster. He feels, as all his colleagues must feel, a loathing and abhorrence at the contemplation of a possible conflict between a Liberal Government and Ulster. He turned to us sitting on this Bench and said—
"Supposing you succeed in defeating this Bill and come into power what will be your relations with the rest of Ireland? Will not all that you have said about us and Ulster be true of yourselves and the rest of Ireland?"
652
I think Lord Crewe is quite justified in uttering that grave warning. My colleagues and I would regard with the same loathing and abhorrence any conflict between ourselves and Nationalist Ireland. But what a picture the Leader of this House has drawn of the policy which is to end in the settlement of the Irish question and the reconciliation of the two races! He tells us that these are the only alternatives. Either the Liberal Party and the Labour Party of Great Britain which is joined to them will find themselves at daggers drawn with the North-Eastern counties of Ulster and the Protestants of Ireland, or the Unionist Party will find itself at daggers drawn with the rest of Ireland and the Roman Catholics. What a perfection of settlement! What a triumph of reconciliation!
LORD WELBY: My Lords, I venture to take part in this debate as one of the survivors of the Financial Relations Commission of ten or twelve years ago. This Bill presents itself in two aspects. One, of course, is political, and with that aspect the noble Earl who has just sat down has dealt. The other is purely administrative and financial. I shall not venture to deal with the higher subject, but propose to deal for a short time with the minor subjects, hoping to show that this Bill is not so complicated as it has been represented to be by noble Lords opposite, and that there will not be that necessity which the noble Earl who has just sat down foreshadowed—namely, the necessity at any hazard to recast the finance of the Bill.
There are two divisions in the Bill with regard to the financial provisions. The first is the financial scheme itself, and the second is the machinery by which the scheme is to be carried into effect. I will, for a few moments dealt with the second of those divisions first. The machinery of the Bill is, if I may venture to say so, not nearly so complicated as the noble Viscount opposite (Lord St. Aldwyn) stated it to be. For forty years I had experience of the working of financial measures, and during the latter part of that time I had a humble share in advising on financial measures and in carrying them into effect. During that time a number of most important financial measures were passed. I need hardly do more than mention the Irish Church Act, the Land Acts, the Acts dealing with the National Debt. Each of those bristled

653
with financial clauses, but I think I may venture to say, from my recollection of them, that they were hardly a whit less complicated than those contained in this Bill. The fact of the matter is, in the case of this country, that with its widely extended administration, its immense revenue and its immense expenditure, it becomes almost impossible flat a Bill having to provide for possible and probably inevitable contingencies should not appear a most complicated one to the person who casually takes up the Bill and reads it. One of the most able Chancellors of the Exchequer under whom I served, Lord Goschen, used to lament the extreme complexity of our financial system. But when he came to frame his own masterpiece of legislation—and it was a masterpiece of legislation—the Conversion Act, the Bill as he turned it out was certainly not less complicated than the Bills of his predecessors of which he had been somewhat of a critic. But nevertheless it fell to him to carry out the provisions of that Act, and, complicated as they appeared generally, he carried them out thoroughly and successfully, without any difficulty that I can recollect. If I might venture for what it is worth to give a personal opinion, I would say that if I were now at the Treasury I should not look with any great apprehension upon the difficulty of giving effect to the financial clauses of the Bill; and chiefly for this reason, that in all my past experience I have never known these complicated clauses, which as I say, abound in nearly all great financial Bills, meet with any insuperable difficulty when they come to be carried out.
I will now pass to the scheme of the Bill. The merits and demerits of that scheme are, of course, a fair subject for difference of opinion. I had the privilege, on the Financial Relations Commission, of working in concert with two very able men, Lord Farrer and Mr. Bertram Currie, and it was a matter of very careful consideration on our part what we should advise as to the future of Irish Government. We inclined to the view that it would be better that the Irish Government should be entrusted with the whole of the government of Ireland, that they should have charge of the collection of the revenue and the managing of it and the whole of the administrative services of Ireland—in fact, what I think has been called by noble Lords "a clean cut" between Great
654
Britain and Ireland in financial matters. Sir H. Primrose's Committee, with wider experience and wider knowledge, came to the same conclusion. That is the simpler scheme, which has found favour widely and has found favour with many noble Lords opposite as preferable to what they call the complicated and cumbersome scheme contained in the Government Bill. The Government, however, have not taken the view of those two Commissions. They have come to the conclusion that it is better to keep the management and the collection of revenue in Imperial hands and also a certain number of the services of the Irish Government. I could not help feeling at first a slight disappointment that the Government had come to that conclusion, but after mature consideration of the subject I modified my views and am now of opinion that the course which they took was the wiser.
May I point out that the two Commissions to which I have referred were not engaged in drafting a practical measure to carry out Home Rule in Ireland at once. They were not charged with such a duty. They were drawing an ideal scheme for the future of Ireland, the end and the aim of what a Home Rule policy should be. The Government were not in a position to draw up an ideal scheme; they had to provide a practical scheme which could be carried into effect to-morrow, and which would be a working scheme when so carried into effect. I would ask your Lordships to think for a moment, would it have been a reasonable or statesmanlike scheme to create an Irish Government which would come into power on a certain day, absolutely unexperienced, without any previous knowledge of administration, and on that day to transfer to them the whole charge of Irish government and taxation, and the whole charge of the services which under the Home Rule Bill is reserved? Would it not have been a cruel act? What new Administration could have dealt with it? They would have been saddled with work that they could not cope with at once, and would have had thrown upon them a responsibility for which they could not be prepared. Further than that, it would have paved the way for unpopularity on account of the shortcomings which a Government starting with such a load of work would be almost certain to incur at the outset, and which they would not have deserved; but it would have affected

655
them, and, still more, the fate of Home Rule. I can understand why some noble Lords opposite would have preferred that scheme. Possibly because it would not have facilitated the success of Home Rule.
But so far as the Government are concerned I feel that the course they have pursued—namely, that of handing over the government of Ireland to the new Irish Government by sections, and giving them time to make good each step as they go along, to work out the problem gradually—gives Home Rule the best chance for the future, and at the same time is the most reasonable plan of administration that could be devised. As it is the Irish Government will take over the whole of the internal government of Ireland. They will have the opportunity, as they are provided with sufficient money, to meet the charge of that government, with a surplus of £500,000; they will have time to undertake their first and most necessary duty—namely, a revision of their overgrown Civil establishments. The extravagant and wasteful expense of Irish administration is, I think, admitted by all sections of the public and on both sides of the House, and the first and most immediate duty which an Irish Government can have to undertake is that of revising those establishments and laying down the principles of organisation on which a reasonably economic Irish Government is to be carried on in the future. There have been several criticisms addressed to this part of the Bill, none more striking than those we heard last night from the noble Viscount opposite. I always fear, when I hear the noble Viscount, that his clear statement of fact and his persuasive arguments will lead my poor judgment astray. But there is a Spanish proverb, "How can the enemy of the bride speak well of the wedding?" and I would ask, "How can the implacable enemy of Home Rule be an impartial judge of a Home Rule measure?"
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Or an implacable friend.
LORD WELBY: I am glad to hear the noble Viscount say so much; but I think there is this to be said, that impartial persons will at all events accept with some reservation the criticisms, I might almost say the denunciations of the Home Rule
656
scheme which we heard last night from the noble Viscount. My noble friend Lord MacDonnell would have given the Irish Government a much larger surplus to start with. With great diffidence, I venture to differ from him. That would tempt the Irish Government at its start to relax its efforts to revise efficiently and effectively the Irish Civil government. It might also tempt them early in the day to incur lavish expenditure which was not needed. I would very much prefer, though I am inclined to agree with Lord MacDonnell in his desire to deal benevolently with Ireland, to wait until the Imperial Government has seen how the new Irish Government deals, and whether it deals effectively, with these important questions of internal administration. If it should prove that they are working out a really prudent system of government in Ireland, I think then the Irish Government would have established a claim for kindly consideration on the part of the Imperial Government. The conclusion I come to is this. His Majesty's Government are not fundamentally opposed to the recommendations of these two Commissions. The idea of His Majesty's Government is that we should go gradually and by steps, and, if the Irish Government establishes itself on a sound footing, that gradually the reserved services may be transferred to it; and finally the opportunity may come when, with full experience, the Imperial Government will be able to consider whether it would be wise to hand over the collection and management of revenue to the Irish Government.
It has been said that the scheme of the Bill is very complicated. Is that really the case? Consider what is going to happen. The collection and management of revenue will continue under the same law and conditions as it is under at the present day, and the money required will be handed over to the Irish Government at the most convenient time. There is no difficulty in that; there is no complication there. Then comes the question of the Exchequer Board. I have been rather surprised to hear the attacks that have been made on that board, because it seems to me an eminently sensible way of arriving at a solution of questions of administration with regard to which doubts have been raised. The noble Viscount opposite spoke about Treasury clerks being employed. I do not see anything about Treasury clerks

657
in the Bill. At the same time it is a very important board and I can quite understand that it would he as much in the interests of His Majesty's present Government to appoint capable men as it would be in the interests of the Irish Government to appoint capable men on that board, and I cannot help thinking it would be possible to find a chairman of high authority whose decision would be respected without going to the isle of Man. I am rather astonished at the line of opposition that has teen taken to this extremely sensible method of settling doubts with regard to questions of administration. In this country it is astonishing to note the manner in which very difficult questions between the Crown and the subject are left in a most undecided state, and in which the powers of settling them are exercised. It is done in financial matters by the Treasury—an interested party, shall I say?—and a succession of Chancellors of the Exchequer and a succession of Governments have never seen what a very doubtful state of matters that is.
Let me turn to one Act that I have mentioned before, Mr. Goschen's Conversion Act, an Act that settled the relations between the subject creditor and the State debtor. Many difficult questions in which the subject was most intimately interested arose in the case of that Act. Look at one line in the Act, "The Treasury shall make regulations for carrying out the prescriptions of this Act." No provision is made for any special impartial people to do it; in other words, the cat was set to watch the cream. There are many other instances I could give. I need only refer to the recent case of Mr. Bowles against the Inland Revenue. There was a case in which for years the Executive Government had made itself judge and jury in its own case, but nobody ever thought there was anything odd in that. But directly it comes to the establishment of this extremely reasonable tribunal in the Bill, intended to settle quickly and without delay questions of fact which may arise, the idea is at once created of the numerous dangerous practices which may require attention.
The noble Viscount last night spoke of what might happen if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to abolish the Tea and Sugar Duties, and the effect it would have, no doubt a very disturbing effect, on Irish finance—meaning, I suppose, that Ireland
658
would receive less taxation, and therefore the deficit to be made good by the English Exchequer would be the greater. I was rather surprised that the noble Viscount did not go on and notice that supposing the present state of things goes on, supposing Home Rule is rejected and the Chancellor of the Exchequer abolishes his Tea and Sugar Duties, you will have exactly the same result. It will not be translated in the same form, but the revenue received from Ireland will be equally small, and the damage to the British Taxpayer will be exactly the same in both cases. If great changes are made in the organisation of our taxing system, great changes which alter the basis of that system, under those circumstances this country of course will have to take into consideration the effect of those changes upon such an arrangement as this in Ireland. No arrangement of this kind can possibly be such as will meet every contingency that arises. There must be a certain amount of adjustment, and that adjustment we must accept as a necessary corollary of Parliamentary Government. But at all events I feel this, that the Bill presents much fewer difficulties than it has been represented to create, and if it is carried out in a large spirit on both sides the aim of His Majesty's Government of creating a lasting goodwill between the peoples of the two countries will be accomplished.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I am sure we have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, although we are not all of us competent to follow him into the realms of finance. I should like, however, to make one observation. The noble Lord's sanguine mind has enabled him to approve, not only of the finance of the present Bill, but of that of the Home Rule Bills of 1886 and 1893, although the finance in each case differs completely.
LORD WELBY: It has been said frequently that I was an approver of the Bills of 1886 and 1893. I do not know where the foundation for that suggestion is to be found, or where any words of mine can be pointed to justifying it. At the time when the Bills of 1886 and 1893 were passing through Parliament I was a Civil servant and was bound to carry out the policy of my superiors and was not supposed to possess any individual opinion one way or the other.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: If the noble Lord does not approve of what I said, I apologise for my remark and withdraw it. The noble Duke, in the very interesting speech he made in moving the rejection of this Bill, told your Lordships that this House was daily reminded of the passage of the Parliament Act by the degradation of the House of Commons. It seems to me sometimes that we think too much of that Act as it affects another place, and not sufficiently of it as it affects us in this House. I sometimes think that we are so bound by the traditions and precedents of a time when we were an independent branch of the Legislature that we hardly realise how inappropriate those precedents and traditions are to a body which can only claim to be an advisory committee of the Single Chamber which now appears to rule in this country. We are free, it is true, to offer any amount of that cheap article called good advice, but with the foreknowledge that that advice will be rejected by those to whom it is offered, and with the foreknowledge that they have taken special care, and succeeded most admirably in their arrangements, to be able to discard that advice with impunity.
We are told, if we give a Second Reading to a Bill we disapprove of, that we are approving the principle; and no doubt it was undesirable to do this if by refraining from giving our assent to that principle we were able to ensure that the measure would be submitted to the suffrages of the people of this country. But surely the position is somewhat different when we know that the Royal assent may be given in this very Chamber to a measure the principle of which we have, three times running, refused to accept. Would it not be wiser to content ourselves with the more modest functions that are left to us, and to think less of whether by passing the Second Reading we approve of the principle, if by doing so we are able to expose the defects of the Bill. If this Bill passed into Committee we should be able to force His Majesty's Government to reply to objections which, by a skilful use of the "gag" and the "guillotine" in another place they have been able to avoid hitherto. We should be able to bring forward Amendments which we know their masters in another place would not allow the Government to accept. We should be able to point out the dangers which await Unionists if this measure becomes law, and the
660
futility of the safeguards by which it is proposed to protect them. Then, having shown, as I believe we could show, that this Bill is bad to the core, financially and socially, we should reject it on the Third Reading. It is well known that this House is opposed to the principle of Home Rule. We showed that on a former occasion by rejecting a Home Rule Bill by an enormous majority, and on this occasion it appears to me that we have not only to defeat the principle of Home Rule but also the special Home Rule Bill which is submitted for our consideration.
After all, the principle of Home Rule is only approached from two points of view. There is the point of view which thinks that by sacrificing your friends to your enemies you may be able to appease the latter, and there is the cheery optimism of the Prime Minister, who has the comfortable assurance that, however false his prophecies may turn out to be, he himself will not suffer from them. There is the fatuous credulity of believing the honeyed platitudes of those who now profess attachment to the Empire and thus give the lie to the assertions of a lifetime. On the other hand, there is the belief that it is wrong to forsake the British Garrison who, through evil and good report, have for centuries upheld the flag of England in Ireland; there is the knowledge of the fate which will befall those men, should this measure become law, and there is the shame of betraying those men who have trusted to the word and the honour of England. Holding these views, it may be asked whether I propose to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not propose to do so, because this is a question of tactics, and though I may put forward the tactics that I think best I am only one of the rank and file, and I think that I am bound to obey in this case the commands of my Leaders.
I therefore propose to deal with one or two points touching the principle of this measure. In the first place it seems to me that if it is desirable to grant Home Rule to Ireland this is not the proper way in which it could be granted. My only claim to a seat in your Lordships' House is as a representative of one of the two Chambers of that independent Parliament which signed the Treaty of Union with this country, and I cannot but think that if this Treaty of Union has proved a failure, if it

661
is desirable either to revise it or to abrogate it altogether, it would seem at least right that the high contracting parties who made that Treaty should each separately have an opportunity of considering it. The noble Duke in his speech gave us instances of what was done in Australia and in South Africa, and how the Bills proposing the Commonwealth and the Union respectively were submitted, first to a Convention and then to local Parliaments, back again to the Convention and then back to the Parliaments, and finally referred to a referendum. In the Bill before us, in the third subsection of the 26th Clause, it is enacted that if any change is made in the financial arrangements a deputation shall be summoned from the Irish Parliament in order that the Members from Ireland in the Imperial Parliament, when that change is made, should be at least equal in number to what Ireland would have on the basis of population. I cannot help thinking that if at the time of the Union it had ever been supposed that a revision of that Union should take place, some similar clause would have been found in that Act.
Let us imagine what would have happened if such a Parliament could have been called together. Let us imagine a Parliament assembled in Dublin to consider a question of revision In the democratic House of Commons I suppose the Chief Secretary could easily have found a place and been able to explain the views of His Majesty's Government, but the whole of the measure would have been considered without any fear that, by moving or carrying Amendments, a change of Government would have taken place. I should like in those circumstances to have heard the criticism of Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Healy and their followers. I am inclined to think that some very important Amendments might be put forward, even by official Nationalist Members, and if the Bill reached the House of Lords I have no doubt the provisions would have been explained to us by my noble friend Lord Granard, who is not in his place, but who, no doubt, will give us his views before the debate concludes. We know, at any rate, that the fears of the minority would have been well looked after in that Assembly, and at the same time the British House of Commons would have assembled to consider the revisions which should be made also without fear that a change of Government might follow. I am not a betting man,
662
but I think I should be prepared to lay long odds that when that Bill reached Third Reading you would not find the clause which provides for the retention of Irish Members still part of the Bill. Why has sonic arrangement not been made which would enable the component parts of the United Kingdom to express their opinion? The reason is, His Majesty's Government have determined that the Bill should be passed over the heads and against the wishes of the people of this country.
As an Irishman who finds himself obliged to vote against a Bill which has received the support of the representatives of the great majority of his countrymen in another place, my objections to this Bill are threefold. I base them upon these three grounds—first, that the Bill is injurious to Ireland; secondly, that it is injurious to England; and, thirdly, because I believe it is fatal to the Empire. I think it is injurious to Ireland because it will degrade her to a secondary and subordinate position as regards Great Britain, and because it must saddle her population with largely increased taxation. It is injurious to her because she will lose the benefit of Imperial credit. It is injurious to her because the Bill is full of points of friction which must arise and develop between the two countries in the future, and it is injurious to her because it will perpetuate the religious and political differences which unfortunately are so acute amongst Irishmen by placing for ever the Unionist minority under the heels of the Nationalist majority. I think it is injurious to England because of the retention of these forty-two Irish Members who will be able to tax Great Britain, make laws for her, settle her administration, and will only use their position as a means of extorting further concessions. I think it is injurious to England because it puts her under tribute of over £6,000,000 a year to Ireland. I do not know whether those figures are questioned, but that sum includes the share which Ireland ought to pay to the Imperial Exchequer calculated at £3,500,000 a year. I believe it will be injurious to England because she will be betraying those who have been loyal to her in the past; and I believe that it will be fatal to he Empire because I have no doubt this Bill will only prove to be a stepping-stone towards the goal of complete separation. I know sonic noble Lords do not hold that opinion, but the only reason they can give for not

663
doing so is that they disbelieve the utterances of their Nationalist friends. With your permission I should like to read one very short extract from a speech of Mr. Kettle in New York in 1906. He said—
"The message we bear is from that illustrious leader of our party, John Redmond. If there is any man in this audience who says to us as representing that Parliamentary movement I don't believe in your Parliamentary ideas, I don't accept Home Rule, I go beyond it; I believe in an Independent Irish Nation'—if any man says this I say that we don't disbelieve in it. These are our tactics—if you are to take a fortress, first take the outer works."
By this Bill not only do they take the outer works, but they leave forty-two spies within the fortress.
The last ground on which I object to this Bill is as a Unionist, and here I speak as a representative in this House of a vast constituency numbering over a quarter of a million of people scattered throughout Leinster, Munster, and Connaught, a constituency which has no representatives in another place with the exception of those two doughty champions of the Union, the Members for the University of Dublin. I wish to be very careful in what I say on this matter, because I live in the midst of Nationalists. I have the kindliest feelings for them. I believe that in normal times they have kindly feelings towards me, and I do not wish to impute to any of my fellow-countrymen a double dose of original sin. But this I do say, that with all the good qualities with which Irishmen are endowed, there is one peculiarly English which they do not possess, and that is the quality of self-reliance. There is hardly any one of those Nationalists, whatever his feelings might be, who would not turn against me at the bidding of the local "boss" of the United Irish League or the President of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. We are told that if this measure passes into law all this is to be changed. Mr. Redmond has asked for our full cooperation. The answer to that has already been given so well by my noble friend Lord Midleton last night and by my noble friend Lord Londonderry to-day that I need not dwell upon it. They pointed out that similar promises were made in 1898 and have been falsified by the result, and they called attention to the fact that a member of your Lordships' House had been ousted from the chairmanship of a board of guardians because he refused to promise not to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.
664
We are told that there are safeguards that will protect us. Again I should like to refer in that respect to what Mr. Dillon says. Only last year he made this remark—
"I do not believe that the artificial guarantees in an Act of Parliament are any real protection."
What does he say with regard to this toleration? I must do him the justice of saying that he has been absolutely consistent all through. He has never asked for co-operation. This is what he said—
"When we come out of the struggle we will remember who were the people's friends and who were the people's enemies, and deal out our rewards to the one and our punishment to the other."
My Lords, I fear the punishment of Mr. Dillon. It will not take the form of loss of life or limb, but there are subtler forms of persecution. It will mean that we shall be excluded from all share in the government of Ireland, from that of Prime Minister down to that of parish beadle. Then are there not powers for special vindictive taxation? Is it not possible that a tax may be placed specially on grass lands which are held by landlords alone? Is it not conceivable that a special tax will be put on demesne lands and even on the windows of houses which contain more than a certain number of windows? There are endless ways in which taxation may be made to fall on those who are the "people's enemies." I say we are not prepared to be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water for the Nationalist Party.
A short time ago the Prime Minister asked a question which has been quoted several times in the course of this debate. He asked the Leader of the Opposition whether, in the event of this Bill obtaining the sanction of the constituencies, the Unionist Party in Ireland would be prepared to accept it. I am prepared to answer that question. I do not know what Ulster would do. Ulster can take care of itself. But so far as we in the West of Ireland are concerned, where we are in a minority of about one in 2,000, we should have no option but to accept it. We should have no choice. But this I do say, too—that on the day on which the Royal Assent to that Bill is given I should consider that His Majesty had been advised by his Ministers that he could no longer protect his loyal subjects in Ireland and that they must look after themselves. What we should do I cannot say, but one thing I can say—we should have lost all confidence in England. Sometimes after

665
a disastrous war a nation has had to surrender provinces. She has had to give up some of her citizens. She has had to pay an indemnity. But never in time of peace have I heard of a prosperous nation surrendering a million and a-quarter of her most faithful subjects, and saddling herself with a debt the capital value of which is calculated at £163,000,000. I still believe that this Bill must be and will be submitted to the people of this country, and that when it is put before them this nightmare of Home Rule will pass away as a hideous vision of the night. Then I hope that in the course of time, although perhaps not at once, we may find that Ireland, under firm and generous administration, will quiet down and make up her mind to take her place beside Scotland as really an integral portion of the United Kingdom.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, if I venture to intervene for a few moments in this debate I think my excuse must be that I am, if not the last recruit, the last recruit but one from a gagged, garrotted, and guillotined, but yet salaried Chamber. I can lay claim to this, that I have been in a humble way assisting in another place in the manufacture of the measure that now, in its "perfect and unalterable form," is before your Lordships. Much has been said about the necessity of raconciling Ireland, but very little is said about the necessity of reconciling English opinion. I should have thought, if you were really trying to effect this great end, you would not have attempted to do it by driving this measure almost by force—at least by constitutional and moral force—through both Chambers. I feel, as an Englishman, that the natural desire that I might have to be reconciled to Ireland is damped, because this measure is not the free outcome of English opinion or of English feeling but has been driven through Parliament under the operation of the Parliament Act.
I have heard speeches from noble Lords opposite in which they say that they are in favour of the principle of this Bill but do not like the way in which it is carried out in detail. I submit that the time is past when any man can vote on the principle of Home Rule. Here we have principle translated into the hard, bare facts of a Parliamentary Bill. This is not a Resolution, and though a vote of that kind might be possible on a Resolu-
666
tion it seems to me entirely out of place when you are dealing with a perfected Bill. I am quite aware that we are asked, Where is your scheme for dealing with Ireland? That is almost a common-form question with the supporters of the Government to-day. I heard it many times in the House of Commons, and I rather regretted to see that it found some distinguished imitators in your Lordships' House. On this Bill I submit that nobody but a supporter of the measure itself can vote for it. No Federalist can vote for this Bill. The Lord Chancellor has most clearly shown that the very reason he approves of this Bill is that it is not federal, and he compared this Bill with the American Constitution to emphasise that. The other point is that this Bill absolutely precludes federation. I need not dwell on that, because it has been so fully illustrated this afternoon.
But I do wish to put this point to Federalists, in reference to the proposition so ably expressed by Earl Grey the other evening. What anybody who is a supporter of federalism feels, I suppose, is that you must have some degree of equality between the different States making up the Federal Union. The proposals of the First Lord of the Admiralty, made in August and attributed by some of the Liberal newspapers to an outburst of the "silly season," were in my opinion profoundly wise. It is only by the severance of the different parts of England that you can set up any kind of equality between the units of a federal system. The noble Marquess, in introducing the Bill, to some extent exaggerated, I thought, the absence of control of the Irish representatives over the Executive. I have never noticed that in this country we have very great control over the Executive, or over the permanent official who is so strongly entrenched in power. But if the noble Marquess had seen the Irish Under-Secretary quivering under the battery of Irish Questions in another place, as I have so often done, he would hardly feel that the Irish representatives would have no control over some portion at least of the Irish Executive; and I understand a good number of persons of distinct Nationalist opinions have been appointed in recent years to posts upon boards in Ireland. The noble Marquess dwelt on the great number of measures which bad been passed in recent years,

667
and said that many of them were the result of Nationalist pressure and suggestion. Was it a coincidence that this Imperial Parliament passed those measures of which Nationalists were supporters? Have the Irish Members not much more power than the noble Marquess was inclined to admit? There are 100 of them, which is more, no doubt, than they ought to have in strict numbers.
It has been mentioned that the great material grievances of Ireland have been removed during the last few years. I do not think that material grievances are the only things that have been responsible for the difficulties that have arisen in Ireland. It is well to ask oneself whether the more spiritual and sentimental grievances and bitter feeling are not based rather upon memories of the past, upon ancient history, and on the fact that Ireland has not yet had time to adjust herself to the new conditions that prevail and which have been brought about by the great growth of prosperity that exists in Ireland at the present day. This Bill in its many phases is recommended to us from different sides. One side, which does not affect me now but which affected me very much a few months ago, thinks that the Imperial Parliament is overworked. I think there is a great deal of exaggeration in that charge. I do not wish to refer to what has been said with regard to the action of the Parliament Act. I regard the Parliament Act as a mere passing phase. It is impossible for me to consider that the Parliament Act, so unbusinesslike is it, should form a permanent part of the legislation or the Constitution of this country. I do not refer to the fact that you have had during the first two years of this Parliament a sort of superheated feverish activity, which will probably be followed by a slumbrous lethargy in the last two years. I do not refer to the fact that the Government have been trying to drive many Bills through Parliament all at one time, or to the fact that they apparently wish to burst up the feudal system of this country. I think the colossal system of legislation which they have been trying to force through Parliament at the same moment has been sufficiently referred to. What I think has not been sufficiently dwelt upon is this, that in legislation we are passing through what may be called a revolutionary period. Every one of our institutions and
668
sets of laws is being subjected to revision. That cannot last. If we take the large aspect of legislation, I think we must feel that this revolutionary legislation of today is merely a passing phase, and cannot be one on which we should base a permanent alteration of the relations of this country to Ireland.
I am one of those who certainly do not think that the House of Commons would be relieved of any work by the passing of this measure. I am inclined to think their work would be increased. I will not try to enumerate the list of new subjects which would be brought up from time to time for them to deal with. I am only alluding to Questions that might be asked. As under this Bill full power over the Irish Legislature is still retained with regard to many local and administrative matters, I think it would be very easy for any ingenious Parliamentarian to fill the Paper with Questions and easily avoid the rule as to number. There would be, for example, the whole problem of the reasons why the Imperial veto was exercised on such and such an occasion and why it was not exercised on some other occasion. Then there would be the delightful subject of bounties—as to whether a duty is or is not a costly one. I can imagine an afternoon most agreeably spent in the House of Commons discussing such questions. There is another most delightful question which might have to be discussed—as to whether the collection of some new tax to be imposed by the Irish Government was not so expensive that it would be better to do away with it altogether. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as we know, is a great authority on the relation of the cost of the collection of taxes to their yield, and his views on that subject would be very valuable in any Irish discussion. There are so many questions that would arise that I think it is admitted by all thoughtful Parliamentarians that there would be very slight relief in the mass of business Parliament would have to discuss.
One is immensely attracted by the idea that there will be some finality about legislation of this kind. I know it has been said and accepted by Mr. Redmond. But I view with distrust the passionate statements of emotional politicians in moments of heat. We must judge, not by the statements of distinguished

669
orators and rhetoricians, but rather by the facts existing in the country itself and by the provisions of the Bill itself. One of the questions that has not received sufficient attention, to my mind, is whether or not the Bill will work. To my commonplace, work-a-day mind it seems that that is a much more material question than to indulge in rhetorical phrases about the future of Ireland. Whenever any anomaly or difficulty was exposed in the House of Commons it seemed to afford the greatest amusement to the supporters of the Government. They revelled in difficulties, they battened on them; but they treated them on the whole with that spirit of jocularity which does not conduce to making possible the machinery of an otherwise unworkable Bill. I need say nothing about the position of the Lord Lieutenant in his triple capacity—his responsibility to the English Parliament for certain things, his responsibility to the Irish Parliament for certain things, and his responsibility for other things to both.
There are one or two financial points with which I should like very briefly to deal, because I think they display great difficulty in the working of this measure. The financial provisions of the Bill are very difficult to appreciate and understand. As far as I can judge, the first year of office of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer would be occupied in understanding the provisions and realising the pitfalls, and I think his second year would be occupied in trying to avoid them. What he will do in his third year I forebear even to prophecy. But there are one or two objections from the English point of view to which I should like to refer. We have been told by noble Lords opposite of the vast and unnecessary expenditure in Ireland, and that the fact that a poor country has to live up to the standard of a rich one is our fault; that we have reached a prosperous and extravagant standard of life and have made Ireland equally extravagant. Even if that is due to our action, is it not rather hard that any of the savings that are to be made, say, in the Transferred Sum should be allowed to go to Ireland entirely and not to this country? I do not ask that they should hand over all their savings to the English Government—if anybody is able to make any saving under these provisions—but I do think that some small share of any
670
savings there may be should go to the Imperial Exchequer which is bearing so large a deficit. Old-age pensions, for example, will be taken over by the Irish Government at the highest point, when it is most profitable to them. Many Irish friends of mine have told me that about 3s. a week would be sufficient in the West of Ireland instead of the 5s. that is now given. That would represent a saving of about £1,100,000 a year to the Irish Exchequer—about one-seventh of the whole amount it would get under the Transferred Sum. Surely you are not going to make Ireland economical or less extravagant by suddenly setting free a huge sum of that kind to be spent on other services. Surely if there are any savings, some portion ought to go to the long-suffering taxpayer of this country. AS to what will happen if Ireland is to be further taxed by the Imperial Government, as is suggested, between the appointed day and the happy day, one hardly likes to dwell upon, or what the position taken up by the Irish Members, forty-two in number and not fully representative of Ireland, would be. They, no doubt, would raise the old cry again of "Taxation without representation." I cannot help thinking that there is some oversight in the Bill in this respect, and that when, under Clause 26, the balance is to be struck by the Exchequer Board between expenditure and revenue, any excess raised by taxation ought not to be taken into account on the theory of the Bill in balancing the expenditure of the three years before fresh powers are handed over to the Irish Parliament.
We have beard that some people amused themselves in past days by discussing what sovereignty is, and where sovereignty lies. I think if you examine the Bill you will see that both Parliaments transfer a great deal of their sovereignty to this amazing body, the Exchequer Board. It is very curious to see that there are no salaries apparently provided for the members of the Exchequer Board, but that does not mean that they are going to do their work for nothing. It means, I suppose, that Treasury clerks from both countries are to be brought together for a short time to form a portion of this Treasury Board under some impartial chairman, who will have to do the best he can to reconcile the conflicting views of those who represent the different Treasuries, and no doubt, having been exposed to the

671
full blast of public criticism, they will once more retire into the quiet dark shades of the Treasuries, where they will escape further criticism. If I may indulge in prophecy—I know it is a rash thing to do—I do not believe it is possible that a Parliament like ours, which has won its great position by the control it has over taxation, is going, at this very moment when it has taken away all powers of control over taxation from this House, to hand over so large a portion of its own powers to an irresponsible body like the Exchequer Board. It is proposed to hand over to them these great powers—seventeen I think, in number—and among other things the Exchequer Board have to discover whether the cost of the collection of revenue is greater than the amount of the revenue brought in by a tax, and so on. I believe it is wholly impossible for that to work, and that after a few years of this system there is bound to be some sort of reversal.
I do not believe it possible that by any system of this kind you can really get rid of your responsibility, financial or otherwise, to Ireland. The proximity of these islands is against it. They are too close for this country to throw off its responsibilities to Ireland. If you do separate these two countries, what will happen? We know quite well that it is a mere commonplace that this country is going to move fast along the path of social reform for which expenditure will be required, and is it possible for these two countries to go along side by side, one with a high standard of social reform and the other with a low one, and with a different standard of salaries for their officials? That is quite inconceivable. If you persist in doing that, in spite of the patriotism of Ireland I feel you will draw to this country much of the best brains and intelligence there is in Ireland. That is the way noble Lords opposite seek to reconcile the two countries. The other standards set up would make an invidious comparison between the two countries. With the best will in the world, I am afraid difficulties always must exist. You have the natural envy—shall I say?—of a poor country for a rich one. There is the natural envy of a people who are quick-witted and who think that we are a slow and stupid people, and they are inclined to think that the success that we have made in the world has been due rather to our luck than to our intelligence. These
672
are causes which must tend to raise feelings, I will not say of hostility, but of emulous envy between the two countries. If you are to superadd to those natural difficulties the difficulties that come from Ulster, I am afraid your task is then hopeless. I am of course in full sympathy with the Ulster case. I have read too often pages in our history, discreditable pages as I think, when we have been false to our closest friends. I hope that in this matter of Ulster we are not going to add a fresh paragraph to some of those pages. I cannot imagine that, with the deep and strong feeling that exists in that part of Ireland, you can possibly hope for any lasting or solid conciliation. I know the noble Marquess opposite has sneered at Ulstermen for their narrowness, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack tried to philosophise away the feelings of Ulster—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask the noble Viscount when and how I have jeered at Ulster?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Marquess talked about the narrowness of Ulster in his opening speech.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I used the word "narrowness" in relation to the particular religious school to which a certain number of people in Ulster belong.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If the phrase was more confined than I translated it, I will confine it to the sense used by the noble Marquess. In spite of all these things, the feeling of Ulster stands out as a solid fact on which the smooth theories of Liberalism may break themselves, and I feel it would be an intolerable thing, little as this measure has been subjected to the opinion of England, to try with the power of this country to rivet the Nationalist yoke on the neck of Ulster, a yoke which the Nationalists would never be able to rivet for themselves.
THE EARL OF KENMARE: My Lords, I trust I may be allowed your forbearance in expressing as briefly as possible my reasons for strongly opposing the Bill now before the House. These reasons are twofold. First, I feel convinced that this proposal to set up a separate Parliament in Dublin is against the best interests of Ireland; and, secondly, that it is an

673
experiment which will be fraught with peril to the Empire. So far from this Bill being, as its title assumes, "A Bill to amend the provision for the Government of Ireland," it is in reality a measure calculated to upset and throw into hopeless confusion such Government as already exists in the country without conferring any corresponding advantage. It comes at a time when Ireland has shown some appreciable signs of growth in prosperity under the Union, when the difficulties insuperable from her Government were beginning to be understood by responsible statesmen of the Imperial Parliament, and when it has been made clear by the sympathetic legislation of recent years that there is no substantial grievance which has not been, or which cannot be, remedied by the machinery of Government already in existence.
No one disputes the fact that wrongs have been done to Ireland in the past. But those wrongs cannot be set right at this time by perpetrating fresh wrongs. This Bill without doubt creates a fresh danger and grievance in its proposal to hand over the destinies of the most thrifty and prosperous portion of Ireland to a Government abhorrent to them, and which they most profoundly distrust. The financial provisions of the Bill are alone enough to condemn it. This small provincial Parliament with limited power for good and almost unlimited for harm is called upon to accept all the responsibilities of Government with very inadequate means. The possibilities of raising money by taxation in a poor country like Ireland are necessarily circumscribed. The expenses of Government will certainly not decrease, and the strain of providing money for efficient public services will plunge the country into misery and ultimate ruin. Deprived of British credit and the prestige which attaches to her connection with Great Britain, Ireland could never stand the strain of additional taxation. Mr. Lecky said years ago—
"The one thing which Ireland wants is British security for contracts, commerce, and industry."
That is as true as ever to-day. And it is this British security which Ireland is in danger of losing if this Bill becomes law. If this Bill could be regarded as a final settlement of the Irish question there might be some excuse for it. But, my Lords, it does but accentuate the Irish question, and tends to make it more difficult than ever it
674
was before. It does not even satisfy the sentiment which underlies the whole demand for self-government in Ireland, and it does not satisfy the aspirations of those Irishmen beyond the Atlantic whose ambition has always been to separate the United Kingdom. It is full of possibilities, nay more probabilities, of continual friction between a fettered Parliament in Dublin and a supreme Parliament at Westminster, and it will inevitably lead to a wider breach between England and Ireland than ever existed, if not to final separation.
May I venture to quote the opinion of two eminent men whose outlook upon life was certainly not narrow. Mr. John Bright in the year 1872, writing to the O'Donoghue with reference to the Kerry Election, said—
"Some persons have spoken of me as an advocate of Home Rule in Ireland. I hope no one will say anything so absurd or untrue. To have two representative Assemblies or Parliaments in the United Kingdom would in my opinion be an intolerable mischief, and I think no sensible man can wish for two within the limits or the present Kingdom who does not wish the United Kingdom to become two or more nations entirely separate from each other."
Mr. Froude a few years later, being accused of having become a Home Ruler, wrote as follows—
"I can only answer that my opinion remains what it always has been. Homo Rule will be the first and probably irrevocable step towards the separation of the islands, and will be followed at no distant period by the break-up of the British Empire."
These words of warning were written before the Land Acts had conferred their benefits on our farmers. How much more cautious should we now be lest we plunge the land again into poverty and misery from which it has escaped? Loving Ireland as I do and connected with it, as my family has been for more than three hundred years, I cannot refrain from protesting against the wrong which will be done to my native land should this Bill become law. If such a calamity came to pass, then we must look forward to years of squalid struggle, penury, and ultimate bankruptcy. I most certainly hope your Lordships will refuse to pass the Second Reading of this Bill. I believe that when the Irish people thoroughly understand this measure, when they realise how little they have to gain and how much to lose—when they see, as they must see before long, that they are being fooled into accepting a totally unworkable Bill, resistance will not come to it from Ulster alone but will be equally strong from the Catholics of the South and West and the rest of Ireland.
THE EARL OF KILMOREY: My Lords, I venture on this particular occasion to trespass on your attention for two reasons. First, because I think it is an occasion on which every member of this House with any reasonable claim to its indulgence and having interests at stake in Ireland should explain to your Lordships his feelings with regard to this Bill and the vote which he will give on the Motion so ably made by the noble Duke on the Front Opposition Bench and so admirably supported by the noble Lords on this side of the House who followed him. I am glad to have seen that my opinion on this point is shared by so many speakers. Secondly, because, having by the passing of the Parliament Act materially decreased the power of the Upper House and increased that of the Lower House, the Government think this a fit opportunity to endeavour to force on to the Statute-book a measure full of objectionable and unworkable details, a measure which they dare not put before the electorate of Great Britain for fear of defeat.
All the Parliament and other similar Acts that the ingenuity of the present Government can conceive will never be able to accomplish one thing, and that is the silent submission of this House to the overbearing dictation of the Ministry. They cannot take away from your Lordships the rights or the powers of speech, and so long as we can we will speak and speak out in defence of the oppressed; we will do our level best to right wrong, to check, if we are able, the infliction of grave injustice, and to place before the public at large, and the electorate of Great Britain in particular, things that are kept from them, things which it is their right to know and our duty now to disclose. There is an old French proverb which I think applicable to the present situation, "Tout vient a point a qui scait attendre." Surely your Lordships have known how to wait patiently, conscious of the vital importance of the occasion which, at last, has come so opportunely—the occasion which you now have for the complete exposure to the people of this Bill, of which up till now they have been profoundly ignorant, and with regard to which their opinion has never been sought or their sanction asked.
Home Rule for Ireland may have been casually alluded to at recent elections, but no voter in the United Kingdom ever
676
had this Bill under his consideration. If its contents, or even half of them, had been public property during the last few years this Bill would not have been here at all. It has been reserved for the members of this House to unravel the mysteries of this measure, to lay bare its cleverly concealed irregularities, and to speak out clearly and distinctly to the electorate of Great Britain, so that the ignorant may be instructed, the stupid made to understand, the blind made to see, and the deaf to hear how many and how great are the dangers to the United Kingdom and to the Empire that are herein contained, how their defence, their prosperity, and their very continuance are imperilled by this unwise attempt to disintegrate their unity—an attempt which must be frustrated at any cost. I leave it to more experienced and able men than myself to go into the bewildering details of finance and the other objectionable improprieties with which this Bill bristles. That part of the merciless exposure which your Lordships are undertaking for the benefit of the electorate of Great Britain will not be neglected.
I desire to concentrate my objections to the Second Reading of this Bill to drawing attention to the cruel injustice it does to the loyalist minority in Ireland, which I consider the biggest of the many blots to be found in its voluminous pages. It is on behalf of the loyalist minority in Ireland that I have risen to make a few remarks. An attempt has been made by the leaders of the Nationalist Party to induce us to believe that if this Bill becomes law all fairness will be meted out and all consideration will be shown by the Nationalist majority to the Unionist minority. The Government apparently believe in and trust the leaders of the Nationalist Party. On this, as on many points, the loyalists of Ireland take leave to differ from the Government. They place no trust or confidence whatever in any such preposterous promises, and they decline to be exposed to the consideration and tender mercies of the Molly Maguires. When the loyalists of Ireland hear or read of the safeguards and guarantees which the leaders of the Nationalist Party revel in pointing out, they look back to the way in which the Unionist minority were treated after the passing of the Local Government Act of 1898 and say "Once bit, twice shy." What a grand opportunity there then was for the Nationalist

677
Party to show fair play and a desire to work amicably with their Unionist fellow-countrymen. But they threw it away. What was the result? Outside Ulster there were only fifteen Unionists On twenty-four county councils, while the Nationalists numbered 684. No wonder the Unionists mistrust the Nationalists!
Not only do the loyalists of Ireland mistrust the leaders of the Nationalist Party and disapprove of all their works, words, and ways, but they have their own standard of what they think decent and law-abiding behaviour, which is very different from that of their political opponents. The loyalists of Ireland have three cherished watchwords, short and simple and singularly expressive of the faith and firmness, composition and character of those who accept them. The first is Quis separabit, the motto of the most illustrious Order of St. Patrick, of which I am tumid to be a senior Knight. In an Assembly such as this, overflowing with the rich results of classical education, I need not translate the ancient adage of Rome. The second watchword is "Defence not defiance." Ever since the agitation began this golden rule has been scrupulously respected and obeyed by the Orangemen, than whom no more loyal subjects of the King can be found. And last, but not least, comes the third, also expressed in plain English which admits of no misunderstanding, "No surrender"—no surrender by the loyal men and women of Ireland now, or at any time, to the disloyal majority, and certainly not at the dictation of a Ministry retained in office by the votes of the revolutionary Party.
The loyalists of Ireland acknowledge one flag and one flag only as the national emblem of the British Empire, on which the sun never sets but the unity of which now stands in great peril. That flag is now flying in a murky fog over your Lordships' House. Long may it continue to fly there! What sort of a flag will be hoisted over the Parliament House in Dublin It will not be the Union Jack. The loyalists of Ulster will have no flag bat the Union Jack. As a local poet has written—I will read but one stanza—
"Tis the voice of Ulster calling,
And the hand of Ulster too
(Holding high the flag of England)
Bids it flutter to the blue!
Will you tear it from her fingers?
Will you drag that banner down?
And unfold instead the emblem
Of the Harp without the Crown?"
678
My Lords, do you appreciate what those simple words suggest? They suggest—nay, more, they emphasise—the width of the separation between the feelings of the loyal and the disloyal parties in Ireland. Nothing will ever bridge over that, and the forced surrender of the minority, the loyal party, to the mercy of the majority, the disloyal party, can have but one ending—a bloody struggle, and the usual results of a crushing defeat under the heavy pressure of overwhelming odds. How do the Nationalists treat the Union Jack? To them it is as a red rag to a bull. When they can they pull it down, trample on it, tear it into smithereens and spit upon it. The green flag with the harp without the crown is their banner. And what does that signify? It signifies disloyalty to the Throne of England, it signifies separation, and the ultimate result to be brought about by revolution will be what at heart is the real aim and object of the disloyal and disaffected—namely, an Irish Republic.
In spite of all the seditious and rebellious speeches made by the leaders of the Nationalist Party for years past when they were looking for much needed contributions to their war chest; in spite of the constant repetition of their feelings of hatred of England, of their determination to "throw off the yoke of British Government," of their battle cry "Ireland a Nation," an entirely new card is being played—they now profess loyalty to the Throne. That may take in the Government who are so ready to believe in and trust these men, but time loyalists of Ireland are not deceived. My Lords, we are so familiar with the speeches and sentiments expressed by the prominent Nationalists leaders that we cannot but feel surprised at the latest move. With well assumed gravity the Nationalist leaders claim for their Party loyalty to the Throne! I have a question to ask the noble Viscount who will conclude this memorable debate to-morrow evening. He will, I hope, forgive me if I put it in colloquial English. What price the loyalty of the Nationalist leaders, notably the Members of the Imperial Parliament, on the occasion of the visit of the King and Queen to Ireland? They were conspicuous by their absence.
It has ever been the custom of our political opponents to treat the proceedings and utterances of the loyalists of Ireland with indifference and contempt. They speak of our attitude as ridiculous, of our

679
assertions as "bluff." If those who sneer at us so cruelly had experienced, as many members of both Houses of Parliament and ethers did, the bearing and the language of our welcome guests during the great anti-Home Rule demonstration in Ulster last autumn, they would have been as profoundly impressed as we were. It was "gude for sore e'en" to watch the masses of honest, sober, law-abiding, men, women, and children who attended the divine services specially appointed at their numerous places of worship on Saturday, September 28, 1912, and to hear, in the stillness of the House of God, the voices of the preachers speaking gentle words of comfort and encouragement to their devout but determined congregations; and still more to witness, at the conclusion of these most impressive services, the uprising to their feet of the worthy descendants of the planters of old, who, robbed of the Government protection they are entitled to as loyal citizens of the Empire, stood with uplifted hands and faces, with gestures of supplication and confidence, and laid their case before the highest of all tribunals, bursting into song with soul stirring unison and singing, "Oh God, our help in ages past." I do not think any one who had seen and heard these things could entertain for a moment the idea that we were insincere, and that our proceedings were no more than bluff. The fight is a hard one, but it is going to be fought out to a finish. That I feel sure from all I have seen and heard in the North of Ireland, and I rejoice to think, after having waited so long, that this opportunity has been given to those who want a clear understanding as to what Home Rule is, because I do not think they could get it better than from your Lordships.
Before I resume my seat, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to express my grateful appreciation of the indulgence so kindly extended to me during my somewhat protracted remarks. If, in your Lordships' opinion, the warmth of my language has at any time exceeded the prescribed bounds of Parliamentary courtesy, I can only submit my sincere regrets, and plead as my only excuse the excessive warmth of deep and irrepressible feelings, not only my own, but of those for whom I have this day ventured to hold a brief before this august Assembly. I represent them imperfectly, as may be alleged, but heartily, most heartily, as I trust will be admitted. I represent all the pent up feelings of the
680
loyalist minority in Ireland, their well founded and long-standing hostility to the so-called Nationalist, or, as they know it now, revolutionary majority. I represent their well-placed confidence in the chosen Leaders of the Unionist Party, and their mutual trust in each other, shoulder to shoulder, hand in hand—no new born bond, but one more closely drawn than ever by the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant of September 28, 1912. I represent yet one more deeply rooted feeling— our hopeful, prayer sustained expectation that at last and none too soon we are gaining—may I not say have gained?—the increasing sympathy of the electorate of Great Britain, which, casting aside the apathy of indifference, is waking up to the realisation and serious appreciation of the novel situation of being jockeyed out of its constitutional right to take an active part in the legislation of the United Kingdom.
In conclusion, let me impress upon your Lordships this one important point. Should this Bill or the like of it ever soil the Statute-book, and the loyalists of Ireland, confident in the justice of their resistance, rebel against its cruel dictation, there will be Civil war in Ireland. I am old enough to have been an eye witness of the unspeakable horrors of the Civil War that raged in the then dis-united States of America in the early 'sixties, and God forbid that we should see the like in Ireland! The loyalists of Ireland don't want to fight. They want to live in peace with their neighbours, and join hand in hand with them in the advancement of industry, of agriculture, and the development of their country's resources. The loyalists of Ireland want no preference, no ascendancy, no favouritism, no special advantages. They want to remain as they are, basking in the sunshine of the prosperity which has resulted from the establishment of the Union, and if that is denied us, and blood is shed, the blood be on the head of His Majesty's Ministers if by pressing on this Bill they precipitate the inevitable result. Will the civilised world stand by silently and see a Government reduced to forcing obedience to their unjust and oppressive ordinances by commanding the soldiers of the King to fire on men whose sole crime is loyalty to his Throne.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter to eight, and resumed at a quarter past nine o'clock.]
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I should not like on this occasion, when we are discussing a matter of such supreme and vital importance to my native land—Ireland, to give a silent vote. I know that my vote is unimportant, and indeed, that all our votes in this House are really unimportant nowadays. But still the duty devolves on one since one has a vote to exercise it, and I should not like to exercise it on a matter that must so deeply affect my country, for weal or for woe, without attempting to express my views on it. And I especially desire to do so because my views on this question of Home Rule for Ireland differ, I regret to say, from those of the great majority apparently of my countrymen. That difference of opinion is by no means one which I congratulate myself upon, or that gratifies me at all. It is, on the contrary, a cause of grief and anxiety to me, and of repeated reflection on my part as to how or why it is so—how it comes about that the great majority of my countrymen should take so strong a view with reference to a proposal of such vital concern to my country, and I find myself unable to agree with them. And so, now that. we are face to face with the question in concrete form, I think it becomes one's duty to endeavour to speak out boldly and perfectly frankly in order to try and understand—if there is ever to he an understanding in the matter—why it is that there is this cleavage, this strong difference of opinion, which unfortunately does exist between Irishmen on a matter of such importance to their common country. Therefore it is that I hope your Lordships will bear with me while I endeavour as briefly as possible—and it is not easy to compress one's remarks on a subject which is so very large and complicated—to give some expression to some of the reasons why I have never believed, and do not believe to-night, in the policy of Home Rule for Leland, in either its necessity for Ireland or in its wisdom as a policy for Irishmen to pursue; and why, furthermore, I consider the special exemplification of Home Rule which we have in the shape of the Bill which is the subject matter before the House to-night is in itself most unjust and most unfair to Ireland, and is full of complications and anomalies and absurdities, and grounds for serious confusion and misunderstanding and trouble between the two projected Parliaments of these islands, which must, if the Bill becomes law, have
682
most injurious effects on every part of the Kingdom, and especially on Ireland. And in the remarks which I wish to make to your Lordships I intend to confine my attention entirely to looking at this great question and this particular measure from the Irish point of view. I am, of course, aware—and I desire to say so in order not to be misunderstood—that there are many other important ways of viewing this matter, but we cannot all deal with the various aspects of this question unless we are to make speeches of inordinate length. Also, inasmuch as I am an Irishman and live in Ireland, and practically all my political and social interests are in Ireland, and I have been and am to some extent connected with administration, local and educational, in that country—I submit it is only natural and suitable and possibly agreeable to your Lordships that I should look at the matter solely front an Irish point of view.
There is a further limitation which I wish to put on my remarks. I do not propose to deal with one very serious Irish aspect of this question—namely, the attitude of Ulster. There are other noble Lords in this House who live in Ulster and who know the Irish people living there and their feelings, and who are far more qualified to present that portion of the question than I am. But still there are one or two remarks in regard to the Ulster position which, as a Catholic Unionist, I feel bound to make, because of speeches and statements that have been made on the matter—I do not say in your Lordships' House, unless indeed I make one exception in the case of a speech that was delivered by a noble Lord from Ireland yesterday. To-day the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, made a speech to which I listened with great admiration. He stood up for the view which he represents loyally and boldly and splendidly, but never said one word which could offend any Catholic, and that is why the noble Marquess is admired by friend and opponent in Ireland, in spite of his strong views. But I did hear a speech yesterday which re-echoed unpleasantly in my ears sentiments heard elsewhere, and which I cannot pass unnoticed. The noble Lord—I do not see him present—if I understood at all the tone and drift of his speech, put forward as his main reason for objecting to Home Rule the contention that if there was a Parliament in College Green the members

683
who composed it would probably be Roman Catholics. That seemed to me the real ground of his opposition—so much so that if one could guarantee that a Parliament in College Green would be composed of Protestant Home Rulers he would apparently be in favour of this Bill. I resent, as strongly as I can, and I deplore that way of arguing on this question. There is absolutely no ground for it, and I think it does great harm; as a matter of fact, it has already injured the very cause which the noble Lord seeks, I believe, to support—namely, the Unionist cause in Ireland, because Catholic Unionists in Ireland have openly ceased to be Unionists on account of such attacks made on Roman Catholicism. In the course of his speech, the noble Lord also seemed to plume himself very much on what I think he described as the constancy and loyalty of the Protestants in Ireland to the Throne and Empire. They have never in his eyes had any connection with Nationalist movements or rebellious outbreaks in Ireland. I think the noble Lord must know very little of Irish history. The leader of the very movement which has given rise to this Bill, the political genius who brought about this great Nationalist, movement in favour of Home Rule, was a Protestant, Mr. Parnell. He was a member, too, of a family of the English Garrison in Ireland; and when the noble Lord talks about Protestants being so loyal to the English connection I think he might bear in mind that not alone was Mr. Parnell a Protestant, but—though I do not wish to ascribe motives to Mr. Parnell that are incorrect and I have no doubt that the main motive of his political action was what he considered best for the welfare of Ireland—those who knew him intimately will tell the noble Lord that the underlying cause and purpose and inspiring motive of Mr. Parnell's public life was to be found in his bitter hatred of the English. But he was a Protestant, and a member of the English Garrison in Ireland.
Of course, too, Grattan and the Irish patriots of his time were all Protestants. Then there were men of great literary genius—theoretical Republicans holding very extreme views about Irish matters—such men as John Mitchel and Thomas Davis, and, also, such leaders of rebellion in Ireland as Wolfe Tone and Robert Emmet and Smith O'Brien, and all of these, and many more, were Protestants. In fact, if the noble Lord wants a great Nationalist leader of the Irish people who, besides being
684
a leader of Nationalism, was loyal to the English connection and to the English Throne, and avowedly so, he must go to the few Catholic leaders of the Irish people—he must, for instance, go to O'Connell. His Speeches are famous in this connection. His speech on the marriage of Queen Victoria is well known, in which he wished her every blessing and happiness, and that she might have as many children as his grandmother, and that was twenty-two. But, seriously, I must express my strong objection to the insulting attitude of the noble Lord, and as a Catholic Unionist I feel bound to say—and to say so quite clearly and openly—that in so far as—I do not say how far, because I do not know—but that in so far as the opposition of Ulster to Home Rule, or to this Bill, or to the principle of Home Rule, in any shape is based on religious antipathies and religious prejudices and on fear of injustice from their Catholic fellow-countrymen, I resent and I repel those aspersions and insults, and I say that there is absolutely no ground for them.
Protestants live throughout the length and breadth of Ireland; they live in many parts of Ireland in small numbers, and perhaps as isolated individuals. Ministers of religion follow their avocation in churches where the congregation is large if it is ten, in districts almost exclusively Catholic, and I am satisfied that these clergymen of every Protestant denomination and Protestant laymen throughout the South and West of Ireland, whether they be many or few, live their lives and transact their business wholly unmolested by, and on friendly terms with, their Catholic neighbours. I challenge contradiction on that. A case might be produced of serious and horrible intimidation or boycotting, or outrage, and it might be shown that the victim was a Protestant, but I confidently say that that was not the cause of the persecution, and had nothing to say to it; and ugly as my answer is, I say that I could mention worse cases of intimidation and boycotting and outrage—perhaps at the very chapel doors—to Catholics in Ireland. It is an ugly answer to give, but it is a complete one. In both cases the facts are hideous and terrible, but I submit, my Lords, that the fact that the individual who is the victim is a Protestant has nothing whatever to do, with his or her ill-treatment.
I have said that I shall not deal with the Ulster question beyond giving expression

685
to my resentment at the attitude taken up in so far as it amounts to an attack on Roman Catholicism; and I desire to say, further, that it is my belief that Ulster, the Protestant daughter of Ireland, rich and rare though her gems are, has absolutely nothing to fear from the Catholic sons of Ireland. But while I say all that, I must go on to say that, in my opinion, it is absurd and foolish and unstatesmanlike in the last degree for any Minister or politician, English or Irish, Nationalist or Liberal, to refuse to recognise the fact that, whatever be the cause—I am not going now into the cause—the position and temper of Ulster is a clear and great fact. There is not the slightest use in attempting to belittle or ignore it. If it does not dominate the scene it hopelessly mars the picture. There is no good shutting your eyes to the fact that one-fifth of the people of Ireland are opposed to this policy of Home Rule; they are bitterly opposed to it, and have declared their determination under no circumstances to live and work under this Bill. Noble Lords opposite say, Must we not attend to the fact that eighty Irish Members represent a certain view? Yes, that is very important. But you must remember that twenty Irish Members—and that is no small body out of 100—represent a very strong view on the opposite side, and it is ludicrous and must end in disaster if you do not take that also into account. That being so, if you are going to have a partition of the United Kingdom I say that, if you ignore Ulster, your partition will meet with the fate of the Partition of Bengal, and you will have to revoke or reshape it as soon as it is done.
The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, in introducing this Bill, spoke about the great national spirit in Ireland, and said that it constituted a national demand, but I really do not see how a Nationalist Member even can say with equanimity and satisfaction that this demand for Home Rule is national when you have this question of Ulster and this fact that there are one-fifth, or one-fourth, of the people of Ireland absolutely opposed to the demand, and therefore it is that sincere but thoughtful Nationalists have felt this difficulty and have urged that it was incumbent upon the Irish people to endeavour to convert, or, at any rate, greatly reduce, the minority that was against Home Rule before you could seriously put this demand
686
forward as a national one. The noble Marquess thought that it was absurd to speak of there being two nations in Ireland, but I submit that it is more absurd to speak of there being only one nation, as though you could possibly call Ulster and the rest of Ireland ore national organism. In which case, one would appear to reach the Hibernian conclusion that there is neither one nor two nations; and so we arrive at what is the actual and sad truth—that there is in Ireland a nation, but a nation divided against itself, and we all know what happens to a house or kingdom divided against itself. But important as the question of Ulster is—and it is very important and must be recognised, I submit, by any Nationalist who is really anxious to see this Bill a success or to see Ireland ever acting as one national community whether with or without Home Rule—I might say that, as far as I am concerned, even if every Orangeman were a Nationalist, I would still have grave doubts about the necessity or the wisdom of the policy of Home Rule.
I pass, then, from the question of Ulster and come to the reasons why I have never believed in this policy; but first I should like to refer to three or lour arguments made sometimes—I do not say in your Lordships' House—against Home Rule with which I have no sympathy. I wish to refer to them and to say quite explicitly that I do not agree with them and that they have never affected or influenced me in the least. I see it said, for instance, that the granting of Home Rule should depend on whether Ireland is at the time disturbed or peaceful. That is a very important fact in the history of Ireland and in reference to its welfare, but it is not, as a matte of fact, a consideration that weighs with me when I am endeavouring to consider the great question of Home Rule on its merits and in its essential values. I wish also to say that I do not believe and never have believed in the serious disloyalty of Ireland, and that I attach no importance to any arguments based on any such contention. In that respect I wish to associate myself with what the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, said. But, my Lords, I go further, and I wish to say in reference to another argument that I see sometimes used against Home Rule—that I do not agree with it at all. On the contrary, I deny it and despise it. I refer to arguments against Home Rule

687
that really are only scurrilous attacks on my Nationalist fellow-countrymen. They are spoken of as if they were all scoundrels, unfit to be trusted with the government of Ireland or, indeed, with anything. I wish to disassociate myself from that, and to say that such an idea has never come into my head and in no way whatever has ever affected or influenced me in holding the views which I do about the policy of Home Rule. Again I do not agree for one moment with any argument unfavourable to Home Rule which is based on, to my mind, such a ridiculous contention as that Irishmen are not fit to manage their own affairs. Irishmen are, of course, perfectly fit to govern themselves and their own country, and perhaps more than their own country. I have never doubted or questioned that. But I go further and say from my knowledge and experience of local government and affairs generally in Ireland I am certain some matters would be better managed under Home Rule than they are at present. I come across such matters. I do not wish to refuse to acknowledge the facts. I desire to be candid and fair; and there is no gainsaying that all of us who are conversant with administration in Ireland know matters in reference to which we all say "How much better this matter would be managed under Home Rule." Also my Lords, I have been a member of a county council since local government was established in Ireland some thirteen or fourteen years ago, and, while it is not for me to give a character to my colleagues, still may I avail myself of this opportunity to bear witness to the efficiency and success with which my colleagues (all of whom are Nationalists) manage the affairs of the second largest, county in Ireland. And this is not exceptional. The reports of the local government Board in Ireland and the views expressed by different Chief Secretaries have constantly borne testimony to the fact that local government has been efficiently and successfully carried out in Ireland. My Lords, I wish to explicitly disassociate myself from all these arguments used against Home Rule, and to say quite clearly and frankly that they do not affect me in the least degree in regard to the views which I hold about this policy of Home Rule for Ireland.
But noble Lords will think it is time for me to come to my reasons and arguments I for not being a Home Ruler. And I am
688
not one in spite of all that I have said; in I spite of the fact that the Irish are, of course, perfectly fit to govern themselves; in spite, too, of my having known matters in Ireland which would be better managed under Home Rule than they are now; in spite, even, I shall add, of the fact that the idea of Home Rule is attractive even to Irish Unionists. For I do not believe in the policy of Home Rule or in its necessity or in its wisdom; and, furthermore, I say that I have never seen, and certainly not to-night, any scheme of Home Rule for Ireland proposed except on terms most disadvantageous to Ireland. Now, as regards the necessity or wisdom of the Home Rule policy, let me say that ever since I have had any knowledge of Irish public life it has been my belief and experience—I am referring now to the last twenty-five or thirty years—that the Imperial Parliament was capable of doing and willing to do everything for Ireland that Ireland could do for herself, and was not alone capable and willing to do so, but was in many very important respects able to do so better than an Irish Parliament could. Could I have a more remarkable instance of this than that, although you propose to start a Parliament in Dublin with the whole paraphernalia of King, Senate, and Commons for the control of purely Irish matters, yet huge questions affecting Irish land are to be reserved to the Imperial Parliament. The Irish land question is not apparently an Irish matter, or one that an Irish Parliament in College Green could manage. My Lords, in this and other very important respects affecting the welfare and life of Ireland I submit that it is obvious that the Imperial Parliament is more capable than an Irish Parliament would be. And I agree with Mr. Balfour when he said that the Imperial Parliament could, and would, do for Ireland all, and more than all, that Ireland could do for herself.
And, in this connection it is interesting to note that when the Home Rule movement began, when it was called the Repeal of the Union and was put forward by O'Connell, he did not advocate it as an absolute demand, but as an alternative policy if Ireland did not receive justice from the Imperial Parliament. But how, in the last century, did that policy of "justice to Ireland" fare? I submit that until recently that policy of justice for Ireland was not attended to. Irish

689
grievances were not redressed; Ireland did not receive justice; and it is on account of that that there grew up in the last quarter of the last century the very remarkable movement which we all know as the Home Rule movement. Sentiment, strong as it is in Ireland, would never alone have brought that movement to the success it reached. Sentiment, I grant, has surrounded and enhanced it; but that movement, I submit, was established on, and upheld by, a real foundation and genuine groundwork of grievances to Ireland, and that is why the movement grew and prospered and became so strong. I do not blame the Irish people for having passionately flocked to the banner of Home Rule when it stood to them, as it did, and especially so to the newly enfranchised classes, for change and improvement in their condition; nor do I expect them to desert that banner in a hurry. They fought under it and they won much under it during the last twenty-five or thirty years of Irish history. But what has happened in the meantime? In the meantime the Imperial Parliament has dealt with all these grievances and wrongs and remedied them, and done so as regards the most important of them in a way far better than Ireland could ever have dealt with them herself. And so we arrive at the curious position that the national sentiment, accompanying the movement is still there, but the movement itself is deprived of almost all substance and contents.
Just consider what the Imperial Parliament has done in t he last twenty-live years in Ireland. Does not the great Irish land purchase scheme depend on Imperial credit for its success, past, present, or future? Has the Irish University question been settled? Has not the Department of Agriculture and of Technical Instruction been founded and the question of the Congested Districts been taken in hand, and full local government given? And has not Ireland derived great benefit from those changes, some of which it never could have derived from its own Parliament, such as the Old Age Pensions Act, which is some recompense for the financial injuries of the past? The Statute Book is full of evidence of the desire of the Imperial Parliament to meet Ireland's special needs by exceptional legislation. Then consider how the country is covered with all sorts of popular representative
690
councils and colleges, and every sort of committee, to many of which I have the honour to belong and all of which are founded on a thoroughly democratic basis. I say, my Lords, that in the whole of Europe and America there is not a University founded on such a democratic basis as the National University of Ireland. Nor is there a Department of Agriculture founded on so democratic a basis as that in Ireland. There is nothing like it in England. The members of all these bodies are largely elected on a wide franchise; and these institutions are working well and ale as Irish as the Irish wish them to be. And if reform of the system of Primary Education would be, as it has been said, the first work of an Irish Parliament, I can only say that I am not aware that any opposition to desired changes would come from the Imperial Parliament. And if there are other reforms needed, I see no reason to think that the Imperial Parliament is not willing to carry them out, and probably show its ability, now as in the past, to do it better than an Irish Parliament could. And I think it is worth pointing out, in connection with what has occurred as regards Irish affairs in Parliament, that very important as has been the assistance of the Nationalist Members in carrying out these reforms, they have been carried out not always with their hearty co-operation, but sometimes partly without it, or with their opposition, since at times it was their policy to make the conduct of Irish affairs by the Imperial Parliament extremely difficult, if not impossible, Therefore I say, my Lords, that the Imperial Parliament, in spite of all the difficult circumstances, has grappled with and dealt with all the great Irish grievances and injustices. The Imperial Parliament has steadily removed all grounds for discontent, and all causes of injustice in Ireland. So much is this the case that Ireland has no serious, pressing grievance now. If we asked any one to suggest another Irish grievance of importance which the Imperial Parliament was neglecting I think he would have difficulty in discovering it. He might talk about the amalgamation of unions in certain localities and such matters, but he could not point to a serious, substantial Irish grievance that has not been settled or is being settled; and I submit, in reference to such matters as old-age pensions or the land-purchase policy the Imperial Parliament has dealt with them in a manner far better than

691
Ireland could have dealt with them herself. Therefore, my Lords, I venture to hope that I have proved the first part of what I wished to show—that I do not honestly see ground for believing in the policy of Home Rule for Ireland as either a necessary or a wise one for Ireland to pursue.
But it would not be sufficient, I grant, in considering this question to say that Home Rule in my opinion is neither necessary nor wise. It might still be argued that there were compensating advantages to be found, and so I turn to the particular measure of Home Rule which we are asked to approve of. Now, my Lords, I have never seen or heard of any scheme of Home Rule that did not seem to me impracticable, and that did not above all prove to me that Home Rule was certainly impracticable except on terms most disadvantageous to Ireland; and if I want the best exemplification possible of that I have only to consider the present Bill before us. Look at it first from the legislative point of view and see what the position is. What do the Irish Nationalist Members say as regards Irish legislation in the Imperial Parliament at present? What is their contention about the present state of affairs? They say that there are 672 Members in that Parliament, and that of these only 103 come from Ireland, the rest being English, Scottish and Welsh, and they say how ludicrous it is to have to leave to the decision of such a Parliament the settlement of purely Irish difficulties in reference to, say, the dividing up of farms in the county of Roscommon—how ludicrous to have to bring before such a Parliament such matters. Well, let us suppose that to be as they say. But there are much worse things than that, they add. Take commerce and trade. Ireland wants to develop her commercial and economic and industrial life, and it is notorious that Irish commercial interests are different from English commercial interests, and therefore how monstrous it is to have to go for assistance to this Imperial Parliament which is so constituted that nearly all the Members are British. Then take taxation. The taxation of Ireland, the fiscal policy applied to her, perhaps on a Tariff Reform basis regardless of Ireland's interests, which of course, are often diametrically opposed to England's in this matter, the one being an industrial country and the other an agricultural country—nearly the whole of this taxation is to be decided upon by this
692
Imperial Parliament. How intolerable it is that such a matter as the taxation of the country—the imposition and remission of taxes, the choice of taxable commodities, the finding of ways and means, the Budget, in short, should all be left to the Imperial Parliament of 672 Members with only 103 Irish Members. How can Ireland expect to receive fair play? But, my Lords, by this Bill all these matters—land, trade, taxation—which vitally affect in the deepest way the life and welfare of Ireland are left under the control and management of this same imperial Parliament, and all that this Bill does is to reduce the Irish representation in that same Parliament from 103 to forty-two. That is Home Rule, if you please. The immensely important matters to which I have referred, which are not attended to, it is said, but are neglected and wrongly treated by a Parliament where Ireland has 103 Members, these are going to be attended to by a Parliament where Ireland has only forty-two Members! My Lords, I absolutely deny that in voting against this Bill, this so-called Home Rule Bill, I am voting against Home Rule at all. I am not doing so, but I am proudly voting against a Bill for the reduction of Ireland's representation in the Imperial Parliament, which is to continue to control all the matters which most fundamentally and vitally affect a nation. That is one of the "asides" which I hear or overhear being whispered in this country to the selfish and unprincipled side of the British democracy, in order to commend this Bill to them. I hear them say, "We are keeping absolutely the control of the purse and of everything financial or commercial that could possibly affect you. Your interests are safe. We in England choose and levy the taxes. Ireland cannot budge in commerce or trade without our leave, but I tell you, between ourselves, what we really are doing: it is splendid; we are getting rid of the Irish Members. This Bill is really one to reduce Ireland's representation." May I ask Ireland in time what will become of her Irish interests, land-purchase, taxation, commerce, her cattle trade regulations, &c., when her representatives at Westminster are a negligible quantity, forty-two?
Now I pass to the financial side of the Bill. That has been so fully dealt with by Lord St. Aldwyn that I will only say one word. Under the terms of the Union and

693
by the practice of the last century, Ireland's financial position was bad enough, but it will be ten times worse under this Bill. We were just going to get our rights and some recompense and restitution when we madly agree to be cut adrift. What is the pivotal fact on which oh the whole of the financial scheme in this Bill turns?—an asserted deficit on the part of Ireland. It has never been shown; it has never been proved. It is true that the Treasury says it is so, but I do not trust the Treasury's calculations when Ireland is concerned. I am a member of too many Irish boards to do that. Bow the Irish Members ever agreed to this bargain T do not know. And on the strength of this deficit Ireland is placed in a most prejudicial and unfair position. She is pilloried before the whole world, on the very day that she is to take her place among the nations of the world, as a debtor, a defaulter, a bankrupt nation. And, on account of this deficit, any improvement in her revenue which may take place in the future is not to accrue to her own benefit, but is to go to the Imperial Parliament to reduce this assumed deficit! But even if there is certainly some deficit between Ireland's present cost and revenue, are we, when striking a balance, only to consider the last two years and ignore all the past? If the Treasury have a little White Paper showing the deficit I have a big Blue-Book under my arm with some figures in it. What an extraordinary story it would be if for many years you overdrew your account at the bank to the extent of some £1,000 or so, and that book being finished you began a new book and lodged £50 to your credit and said, "Now there is £50 to my credit, and that other book and its balance against me is all over; that has nothing to do with it; we have got into a new book." What would you think of that? If we are going into the accounts of Great Britain and Ireland and are going to strike a balance and compare financial relations why should we only take the accounts of the last two or three years? What about the account for the last fifty or sixty years? What about the fact that a Royal Commission composed of the ablest English and Irish financial experts found that the Treasury of the Imperial Parliament had been over-taxing Ireland for fifty or sixty years to the tune of nearly £3,000,000? In the year of the terrible famine in Ireland the Treasury took from Ireland wrongfully as many pounds as people died of starvation in that country
694
that year. That has to be accounted for if we are going into this matter with any accuracy or fairness. As far as I am concerned I may tell you that you cannot negotiate with me by consent or by any other means on these financial matters until you have put £150,000,000 down on the counter. What is the position of the Treasury in regard to this matter? For a hundred years nearly Ireland has been grossly robbed. I am not using strong words to express my own feelings only. What I am saying has been proved. Now it has just been discovered that whereas Great Britain's financial treatment of Ireland paid her right well all these past years it is, perhaps, not going to pay her now, and so she hopes to escape from the huge debt she owes Ireland. I say you have drained Ireland. Ireland is sucked. Ireland perhaps no longer pays you more than her proper share or even less, and you say to the mean and selfish side of the British people: "We have drained Ireland; she no longer pays. We will escape our huge debt and our duties to her if we get out of the bargain now; and we will pillory her as a bankrupt nation, and then come forward hypocritically and offer her a little present of money and show how very generous we are." "Let us cut our losses," that is what the Chief Secretary says in England. That is the second "aside" which I overhear being whispered in this country. "Cut down Ireland's -representation," "Cut your losses," these are the "asides" which I warn Ireland are the very foundation and meaning of this so-called Rome Rule Bill.
Those are two of the reasons why I am strongly of opinion that this Bill is most unfair and most unjust to Ireland. There are innumerable other reasons I could go into, and which confirm me in my belief that Home Rule is impracticable except on terms most disadvantageous to Ireland, such as the Transferred Sum, where you hand over sums stereotyped at the present cost of Irish departments as if there never was to be a bit of progress again in Ireland. I am a member of the Board of National Education in Ireland. That is a board on which is cast the greatest responsibility that could be put on any body of men. It has to look after the education of the poor in Ireland, and in view of this portion of this Bill we felt bound to issue to the public a statement full of nothing but facts and figures in

695
order to show that if you stereotyped our finance at its present figure the cause of progress in regard to primary education in Ireland will be absolutely stopped and even our present standard be impossible to maintain. We showed that even the normal increase of expenditure on primary education must in the next few years come to another £100,000 a year. That cost has nothing to do with improvements or changes. It simply must arise in respect of arrangements already in existence. We showed further that another great sum of money would be necessary to meet demands constantly put before the British Treasury by the Board and considered urgent by the Board, and, also, that we foresaw still further expenditure would be necessary in the neat future if we were to keep up with educational progress, and Lord MacDonnell has, from his knowledge of Irish administration, said that all this is applicable to other boards in Ireland. But under the Bill it is proposed merely to Band over the amount of present cost, and if there are to be any improvements there must be extra taxation put on Ireland by the Irish Parliament, or it must, by reducing a salary here and abolishing a post there, find these hundreds of thousands for all these ends, and so meet the demands which there must be if there is to be any progress of any sort in Ireland in the future.
There are many other points which convince me that this Bill is bad for Ireland, but I shall not delay your Lordships longer. Let me only say shortly that owing to the fact that Ireland will no longer be properly represented in the Imperial Parliament, with only forty-two Members who will be looked upon as a sort of foreign excrescence, having no real right to be there, we shall lose all the power and prestige which we enjoy at present while we are a real partner in the government of the Empire. Further, it will act to our detriment, if, as is said, the whole scale of living and expenditure in Ireland is to be on an inferior level to that of Great Britain; and I believe that the best of our sons and daughters will find themselves more handicapped than ever and that they will leave Ireland in increasing numbers. I believe that this Bill, moreover, must result in endless negotiations and misunderstandings between the two Parliaments and between the two countries, and I submit that, as England will have control of the purse and
696
all the real power, Ireland will always go to the wall in all these matters; and as far as I can follow the administrative and the legislative arrangements under the Bill it seems to me that they create in every direction a most undesirable duality of control and duality of responsibility. I can only compare that form of Government to the relationship existing in olden times between landlord and tenant in Ireland, when it was to the advantage of neither party to improve the holding, and when, as a result, the holding, which here will be Ireland, rapidly deteriorated.
I may be asked, How is it that the Irish Members accepted this Bill? I do not blame them, for political exigencies made it impossible for them to do anything else. But the fact remains that they had to accept it, and for that reason their acceptance can be discounted. The Irish Members had absolutely no choice in the matter. They had to accept the Bill. They dared not refuse it; they could not refuse it. The position would have been appalling, as a matter of fact, for Mr. Redmond and the Nationalist Members if they had said, "No, we cannot accept the Bill that Mr. Asquith offers us. We have been doing the dirty work of the Liberal Party for the past two years; we have been doing it though many Nationalist Members and nearly all Ireland were opposed to it and we ourselves hated having to do what we did; but we did it all on a promise, and that promise was Home Rule, and the day we went into the parlour of Mr. Asquith's house to receive the Bill, to have the promise fulfilled, we had no alternative open to us but to accept whatever was offered and say 'Thank you very much.'" That is why this disastrous Bill of so-called Home Rule, but, really one to reduce Ireland's representation in the Imperial Parliament while retaining control of all important Irish matters, and also one for England to escape from the just debts she owes Ireland, was accepted by the Irish Members. And then the Irish people have acquiesced because they have not examined it. They are under the influence, and it is strong ill Ireland, of the magic words "Home Rule." They only look forward to opening a Parliament in College Green. And they may rejoice under the glamour of that, but their rejoicings will, I fear, be short-lived and superficial. Far be it from me not to desire to rejoice with them, to hope

697
that all my prognostications are wrong, and then, as now, to help my native land in any way I can. I know too well how they see even in this absurd Bill the coming-to of Kathleen-Ny-houlihau; how they see our dark Rosaleen again reigning alone on a golden throne, how they see Erin once more great, glorious and free, and hear again the harp in Tara's Hall. My Lords, I can sympathise with these feelings. Perhaps we all do in Ireland, for is it not the prerogative of the Celt to sigh for, aye, and cry out for, that which he would not revive?
But I do most earnestly ask my countrymen in spite of glamour and sentiment to beware. I beg of them to look into and examine this Bill, and I say to them that unless I am very much mistaken they will find that this so-called Home Rule Bill is a Grecian gift, and that it is packed with the myrmidons of the British Treasury. And for that reason I find myself in one respect actually glad of the Parliament Act. I am glad that the vote of this House to-morrow evening will not kill this Bill, for if it had killed it Ireland would always point to this Bill as some beautiful thing that might have been had not the House of Lords killed it. As it is, my Lords, I believe that they will thank this House for having given them breathing space, and I hope sincerely that they will avail themselves of it, to look into and to sound and examine this Grecian gift. If they do they will then thank your Lordships for having blocked the Bill, so to speak, for a few months; just as every Irish Nationalist in heart thanks your Lordships for having thrown out the Home Rule Bill of 1893, under which, if it had become law, the Irish people would not have had the advantages of Imperial credit for land purchase, or the benefits of old-age pensions, and Ireland would also have been taxed some £2,000,000 more than she should. Such, my Lords, are some of the reasons why I am opposed to this measure, and why I believe that when the Irish people come to look into it there cannot but be most serious disillusionment and disappointment and discontent and dismay. And do not let this Parliament or the British people imagine that they will have got free of the matter, for that disappointment and discontent will recoil on the shoulders of the Imperial Parliament and of the British people. Do not imagine for one
698
moment that by this Bill you are banishing the Irish banshee. I believe that if this Bill becomes law you will hear the wail of the Irish banshee louder than ever around the walls of this building. So far from settling the Irish question by this Bill I believe that, if it becomes law, you will find yourselves in real earnest only at the beginning of the Irish question.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): I am sure your Lordships will all agree, quite irrespective of whether or not we share the sentiments of the noble Lord who has just sat down, that the brilliant speech to which we have just listened has introduced a new note into the debate. Indeed, if the brilliant paradoxes of the noble Lord were followed out to their logical conclusion we should probably find that in the Division which takes place to-morrow night all the noble Lords on the other side of the House would be voting in favour of the Bill. For what, after all, did the noble Lord tell us but this, that, the chief result, or one of the two chief results, of this Bill would be that it would reduce the Irish representation in the House of Commons. But, my Lords, we on this side of the House are accustomed to the taunts made about the eighty votes for the sake of which we do and say that which is repugnant to noble Lords opposite. If one of the chief results of this Bill, one of the main results of it, is to reduce those eighty Members to twenty-three, surely noble Lords opposite have every reason to support the measure. The other paradox—I hope the noble Lord will forgive my using the phrase—with which he supported his argument is that the other main result of the passage of this Bill would be that we should no longer have to spend so much money in Ireland as we have done in the past. But if I have read correctly the speeches made by the political allies of noble Lords opposite, the chief bribe which they have offered to Ireland has been that if Ireland remains united to this country they will be prepared to spend more money upon it. But this they would do if this Bill becomes law, and therefore I venture to say that on both the main grounds on which the noble Lord based his opposition to this Bill really, if the logical consequence be followed out, noble Lords opposite would all he found supporting the measure. But we do not expect such a result as that to-morrow night.

699
But apart from the speech to which we have listened, the debate has centred round a comparatively small number of subjects. We have had the argument about Ulster, on which I hope to say something later, and a great duel upon the financial clauses, and then we had also an argument used with special emphasis by the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of York last night, who expressed his anxious desire that His Majesty's Government should promise him a General Election before this Bill became operative. He even went so far as to say that if such a General Election was promised he would vote for His Majesty's Government. I find myself far too seldom in the same Lobby with the most rev. Prelate, and I wish I found myself oftener in the Lobby with him, especially on matters of social reform; but he will probably he the last to deny that his proposal would be a heavy price for His Majesty's Government to pay for the support of a single vote. He told us that his reason for thinking that we should give that General Election was that the people of this country were not really aware of the imminence of Home Rule, and that they were not seized with the gravity of the situation in Ulster. But it is only fair that we should on our side remind your Lordships that, after all, there were two General Elections in the year 1910. In the one the fate of the Finance Bill was decided. But then we were told that nothing else except the fate of the Bill was determined, and there was then another General Election upon the question of the Parliament Act. Let me ask you to remember the circumstances in which the Parliament Act became law. It was not passed as an end in itself, but from the beginning to the end of the controversy we always said that it was passed as a means to an end. Do noble Lords opposite imagine that we went through the long controversy of the Parliament Act merely in order that we might pass under its provisions such measures as the Mental Deficiency Bill or the Insurance Act? Is it not perfectly well known, as a matter of fact, quite apart from any question of method, that the passage of the Parliament Act involved the introduction and furtherance of this measure, and also the Welsh Church Bill, by His Majesty's Government?
The other complaint to which the most rev. Prelate gave vent was that in recent by-elections very little attention was paid
700
to the question of Home Rule. He complained that the Insurance Act and the Food Taxes formed the staple of the arguments on those occasions. That is probably true. But, after all, is there not a very obvious reason for such a state of things? The experienced gentlemen who have charge of the elections on one side and the other in politics take great care to see that in all these by-elections those subjects are mentioned which interest the electors. Those matters upon which they have made up their minds do not receive the same attention as those upon which their votes may possibly make some difference. It is because the people are interested in a particular subject that it becomes the main topic at a by-election. I believe, then, that throughout the country this question was generally considered as involved in the passage of the Parliament Act, and therefore it is that in by-elections that have taken place lately there has been no concentration upon this question of Home Rule. The main alternative, as it seems to me the only alternative, to which the Archbishop's argument would lead us would be that of a referendum, to which His Majesty's Government have already expressed their antagonism.
A great argument against this Bill has been addressed to us by noble Lords upon the point that it contravenes the federal system, and with that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, especially associated himself, and to that he devoted a large part of his speech. Will he allow me before I say anything on that section of his speech to correct one or two misapprehensions, or one or two inaccuracies into which he fell. He told us that his reason for refusing the advice to read the Bill a second time which was offered by my noble friend Lord Emmott in his powerful speech last night, was that this House was prevented from amending the financial scheme by the Parliament Act. There is nothing in the Parliament Act to prevent this House from amending in any way it thinks right the financial scheme of the Home Rule Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The Parliament Act got rid of our claim to have control over such matters.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Earl is entirely mistaken. There is nothing in the Parliament Act which does anything of

701
the kind. The Parliament Act deals with two special subjects. First of all, it deals with Money Bills. Money Bills your Lordships' House are not allowed to deal with. Then the other main part or section of which the Parliament Act is made up deals with matters not at all Money Bills, but Bills dealing with any other subjects which come up at times to this House. The real reason why your Lordships' House might feel unwilling to deal with the financial clauses of the Bill is that they are upon debatable ground which for a very long time noble Lords on both sides of the House have been unwilling to trench upon if they could help it. We have always felt there was a considerable amount of ground on which there was a real difficulty, and it was considered better that the two Houses of Parliament should not enter into controversy with regard to matters which might trench upon that ground.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Earl forgets that there is a clause, as far as I know the first clause, in the Parliament Act which expressly deals with that. It says, "Nothing in this Act shall be taken to derogate from the privileges claimed by the House of Commons."
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Now I think the noble Earl has shifted himself from the Parliament Act.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: But that is in the Parliament Act.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think, if the noble Earl will allow me to suggest it, he should look at the Parliament Act, as I have done during the afternoon, and if he does he will probably see that there really is nothing in the Parliament Act which in any way would prevent this House from dealing as they thought fit with the financial clauses of the Home Rule Bill; and I should be very much interested and obliged to the noble Earl, if he interrupts me again in the course of my remarks, if he would quote the section upon which he relies for his opinion. But there are yet other phrases. The noble Earl told us that the Parliament Act was the only precedent for the limitation of the powers of the Irish Senate. May I refer him in reply, to Article 53 of the Australian Constitution and to Section 60 of the South African Act, both of which limit the powers of the Second Chamber.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am sorry to keep on interrupting the noble Earl, but certainly in the South African Act, and I think in the Australian Act, the Senate is allowed to reject a Money Bill, but in this Act it is not.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If the noble Earl had kindly listened to what I was saying, he would have seen that I quoted him as alleging that the Parliament Act was the only precedent for the limitation of the powers of the Irish Senate. When speaking earlier this evening the noble Earl did not make any special reference to the way in which the powers of the Irish Senate were limited. He told us the Parliament Act was the only precedent for the limitation of those powers. He will find; if he will kindly refer to the instances I have mentioned, that there are other precedents for that limitation.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am sorry to again interrupt, but, I am quite clear about what I said. This Irish Government Bill forbids the Senate both to amend and to reject a Money Bill. I understood the noble Marquess who leads this House to say that there were precedents for this.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: No, I do not think I ever made that observation.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Then I misunderstood the noble Marquess. But dealing with the point that I supposed to have been made, I said the only precedent I knew of forbidding a Second Chamber both to amend and reject a Money Bill was the Parliament Act.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Earl was dealing with a point which he thought had been made by my noble friend behind me, but was not made by him. Therefore I think, having made that original mistake, he will allow me to adhere to my statement that there are precedents for a limitation of the powers of the Irish Senate such as he did not when he spoke mention to your Lordships' House. Then the noble Earl told us there was nothing to prevent the Irish House of Commons tacking extraneous provisions on to Money Bills. If the noble Earl will kindly refer to Clause 10, subsection (4), he will see there is a provision in the Bill which would prevent that from being done. I think I

703
am correct again, as he will find. Then I turn to the point the noble Earl made upon the question of the unitary system. I am sure we all of us have listened with very great interest to what the noble Earl had to say upon the unitary system of federalism.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have to apologise to the noble Earl for again interrupting, but I do not wish to be misunderstood, and as we are both being reported, we may as well put it right. Clause 10 says, in subsection (4)—
"Any Bill which appropriates revenue or money for the ordinary annual services of the Irish Government shall deal only with that appropriation."
There is no provision as there is in the Parliament Act as to the Speaker's certificate to ensure that that is observed.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If the noble Earl thought anything further than that was necessary it would have been perfectly open to him to suggest it when we came to the Committee stage. But the noble Earl is not, if he will allow me to say so, entitled to say that there is nothing to prevent the Irish House of Commons tacking extraneous provisions on to Money Bills. There is this subsection which was intended to do it, and I think your Lordships' House is entitled to some explanation from the noble Earl of why he thinks that that Clause, which in the opinion of His Majesty's Government is sufficient, should not be sufficient for that purpose.
Now to come back to the unitary system, or the federal system of which the noble Earl spoke. The noble Earl speaks on that subject and on subjects of that kind with particular authority; but if he will allow me to say so, interesting as his speech was, it did not quite seem to me that any scheme such as he foreshadowed was likely to be immediately practicable. It is in the dim and distant future; but this Bill deals with what shall happen in the meantime. Surely when there is such a situation as we have in regard to Ireland it would be foolish on our part if we were to decline to deal with it till, perhaps, some day in the dim and distant future with the consent of all the Dominions. We want to deal with the situation as we find it to-day and as it has been existing for so long, and although I criticise any remark of the
704
noble Earl's with some diffidence, will he allow me to make yet one more criticism? He told us that it was inconsistent with federation that the relation of all the subordinate Parliaments to the centre should not be the same.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is right.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am glad at last to have been able to quote the noble Earl rightly.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think I used the word "fundamental."
EARL BEAUCHAMP: However, let me suggest that the noble Earl must know from his experience in the Colonial Office that various schemes have been suggested by certain people interested in the great Dominion of Canada for the inclusion of Newfoundland. Whether that be right or wrong it is not for us here to say this evening, and it is not necessary. But surely there will be nothing inconsistent with federation if on special and very different terms we give to that great Colony, if she should, in her own good time, think it well that she should join in that system of federation, liberty to do so. Therefore I think that it needs something more than the mere fact that there is something different in this Bill from that which might exist in other Bills, if they were brought in with the object of securing general federation, to prove to us that this Bill is inconsistent with federation.
Then I turn to the argument dealing with the safeguards, and that is especially connected with the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry. If he will allow me to say so, I am sure everybody on this side of the House listened with the greatest interest to the eloquent and sincere speech in which he attacked the Bill to-night. He especially wished some representative of His Majesty's Government to explain to him what would happen if the safeguards proved inadequate. I am not quite sure that his interpretation of the word "inadequate" would correspond with mine. He seemed to think that if an Irish Parliament were to pass a certain measure which did not entirely recommend itself to either House of the Imperial Parliament then, ipso facto the safeguards would be inadequate. That, would not be

705
my view. Supposing that the Bill which had been passed by the Irish house of Parliament was entirely within the corners of the Government of Ireland Bill, and that there was nothing in it which could in any way be said to he inconsistent with the terms of that Bill. In those circumstances there surely would be no need of any safeguard, although the opinion of this House and of the other House of Parliament might temporarily not be the same as that of the Irish House of Parliament. The fact that the Parliaments differ is surely not the essence of the safeguards. The point is that there should be nothing passed by the Irish House which is inconsistent with the terms of the Government of Ireland Bill. I really think the time has now come when noble Lords opposite must make up their minds which of the two arguments they are going to rely on. Some of them tell us that these safeguards are perfectly worthless and are not worth the paper on which they are written, while other noble Lords, on the other hand, tell us that they are so important and so great that no nation which is bound by them is worthy of being called a nation. These safeguards cannot be both one and the other, and I think it is quite time that we should hear from noble Lords opposite which of those two arguments they intend to rely upon in the future.
If I may be pardoned a personal reference, I am, I sometimes think, one of the few members of your Lordships' House who were in this House in the year 1893, and it does seem to me that a great change has come over, not only the constitution of this House, but also the way in which this matter has been discussed. I remember being dragged from somewhat fruitless undergraduate studies at Oxford to swell the majority which defeated the Bill on that occasion. No doubt my vote added one to the immense majority, but I do not know that it added anything to the moral influence of your Lordships' Horse when the Bill was rejected. But at any rate I see a very real and a very great difference between the way in which this matter has been discussed during these last few days and the way in which it was discussed then. We have discussed far more points of detail during these three days and far fewer points of real underlying principle than were discussed in those great days of 1893. We have not really discussed to-night what was
706
discussed then—the question as to whether Ireland was entitled to self-government or not, and I suppose that one of the great reasons for that is that the attitude of the people in this country towards self-government has changed, because wherever they have seen it tried they have found that it has been proved to be a success. There are twenty-eight Parliaments, I believe, within the British Empire, and noble Lords opposite wish us to believe that the twenty-ninth will work destruction to the whole Imperial system. I do not wish to lay too much stress upon or to make too much of any likeness between the grant of self-government to the Transvaal and the grant of self-government to Ireland, but I do think that the people of this country who have seen the brilliant success which has attended the grant of self-government to the Transvaal are willing and ready to try the experiment upon the old sore of Ireland.
After all, my Lords, we all of us in this country believe in government by and with our own consent, and I believe that noble Lords opposite would rather be governed, or perhaps misgoverned, by Radicals than governed by Conservatives if only those Conservatives were foreigners. They would prefer misgovernment by their own fellow-countrymen rather than what they would think good government by aliens. That is really the position so far as it applies to Ireland. We are anxious that they should have the privilege which we have ourselves. We wish to know why that privilege should be denied to the Irish which we have ourselves. Nobody can say that the people of Ireland do not want it. It may be that an occasional visitor who spends a week-end at Killarney or a day or two at the Dublin Horse Show comes back and tells us that the people of Ireland are wrongly represented by their Members of Parliament, who do not a bit understand what is the desire of the people of that country. These people tell us that the House of Lords knows far better what is the real wish of the Irish peasant, and that it is the duty of the House of Lords, therefore, to reject this Bill. They tell us that the character of the Irish is fickle, and that it is only in this country that you can find consistent politics. Surely the facts are exactly contrary to that. We are amongst the most fickle people in matters of our ordinary politics. Almost on every occasion the people change

707
their rulers, and it requires either the crisis of a great war, such as that in 1900, or a great constitutional mistake, as in 1909 to make the people of this country renew their confidence for a second time in those who have governed them during the past few years. We change, but not Ireland. From the time when O'Connell spoke of repeal and Butt translated it into the great Home Rule question, through everything—and the broader the franchise has been the more certain and less hesitating has been the voice—Ireland has asked for the right to manage her own affairs. Whatever has happened nothing has confused the issue in Ireland. Noble Lords opposite, I grant, have tried, as the phrase is, to kill Home Rule by kindness, but Home Rule is as much alive to-day as it was when they began their policy.
The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition was convinced, certainly more than thirty years ago, that Home Rule was a temporary and superficial desire on the part of the people of Ireland. But evictions and emigrations have scattered the people of Ireland throughout the world, famine and disease have reduced their numbers, and what could he done has been clone to drive the people from the soil of Ireland; but the Irish are as anxious to-day for the right to manage their own affairs as they were a hundred years ago. Is there any other subject which has been asked for so constantly by the people of this country which your Lordships have not given long ago? Your Lordships' House has refused one reform after another which has been asked for by the people of this country, but you have always given it in the end. Home Rule you have not yet granted. The extension of the franchise, the opening of the ballot, the freedom of the Press, even the passing of the Budget, and, greatest of all, your Lordships have agreed to the curtailment of your own powers—all these things which have been asked for in the past you have yielded though you did not agree with them yourselves. Home Rule is the one subject to which through all these years you have opposed a resolute negative.
My Lords, we do not understand the reasons for which you refuse to give this Bill a Second Reading. It is not that you say that the people of Ireland are unfit to manage their own affairs. Irishmen all through the Empire have shown that they
708
can manage and administer what Irish soldiers have won in battle throughout the Empire. It is not that the people of Ireland do not want to manage their own affairs, or that they are not capable of doing it. You cannot point, I believe, to a single instance anywhere where self-government as a system has failed. The only obstacle is the small minority in one corner of Ireland who persuade your Lordships to refuse to the rest of Ireland what four-fifths of her people want. We say that such a claim on the part of so small a minority is an intolerable claim, and one which we cannot allow. Noble Lords opposite would all admit that the ability of the Nationalist is no less than that of the Unionist, that they are just as trustworthy as your own allies. The noble Lord who has just sat down, devoted the larger part of the first portion of his speech to a defence of his co-religionists, and that is a defence with every word of which noble Lords on this side of the House cordially agree. We are forced back to the position that the real opposition to this Bill comes from the small minority of Ulster. [Opposition cries of "No, no."] Let us turn then and see what it is. We say that this small minority has dictated your refusal. Let us take the Province of Ulster and see exactly how it is constituted. At the present moment there are sixteen Members on each side of the House of Commons representing Ulster—sixteen Unionists and sixteen Nationalists.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Seventeen Unionists.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: There is one more election to be decided, I think, within a day or two, but it is a small majority either way. I have here a paper drawn up from the last Census which shows exactly the numbers of the Roman Catholics and non-Catholics there are in Ulster. It shows that Ulster contains nine counties and two county boroughs. In five of the nine counties and in one of the two county boroughs the Roman Catholic population is actually in the majority, while in two of the remaining counties the Roman Catholic population is considerably more than one-third of the whole. Therefore your Lordships will see that the proposed exclusion of Ulster would be bitterly opposed by about one-half of the population of the Province. Further it is asked that five counties are to be excluded from the benefit of the

709
Bill, which is supported by a majority in each, because a Unionist majority in Belfast and in the immediately surrounding counties is opposed to the measure.
Ulster is in no sense homogeneous. It is not like the other provinces in Ireland, winch are all occupied on the same things. Taking Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan, the religious divisions do not correspond with those in Belfast. It far more resembles the division in Leinster. The table shows that there is a very large majority of Roman Catholics. So that in order to protect the minority in these three counties you propose to do a thing which would be disliked by the majority in those counties; and yet at the same time you abandon your minority, which is just as large proportionately, in the counties of Wicklow, Kildare, and Dublin, and in the county borough of Dublin. It is a great mistake to speak of Ulster as one great hive of industry and of the rest of Ireland as a community of small farmers. The Census figures show that as regards the main classes of occupation the proportion of the population engaged in each class is as follows: Commercial class, in Ulster, 2·6; in Leinster, 3·7; Agricultural class: Ulster, 16·2; Leinster, 13·9. Industrial class: Ulster, 18·7; Leinster, 14·7. If you take, again, the number of town dwellers in Ulster and compare them with the town dwellers in Leinster, you will find the proportion of the urban population is certainly larger in Leinster than it is in Ulster. The number of town inhabitants in Ulster is 622,325 out of a population of 1,581,696, and in Leinster 559,846 out of a population of 1,152,829; that is to say, the town dwellers in Ulster farm only 39 per cent. and in Leinster they form 48 per cent. of the total population of the Province.
Then there are also some interesting figures dealing with the non-Catholic population of Ireland, and the effect which the exclusion of Ulster would have upon them. The number of non-Catholics in the Provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught is 256,669; so that the exclusion of Ulster from the Bill would involve the abandonment of these 256,669 persons, who would be represented in the Parliament at Dublin. Again, if the entire part of Ulster is not excluded from the Bill but only the North-east corner of Ulster—that is to say, the four counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, and Londonderry, and the
710
City of Belfast—the number of non-Catholics in the remaining part who would be left at the mercy of the Irish Government would he 439,273 whilst the number of non-Catholics who would be protected by the exclusion would be only 708,275 out of a total of 1,147,549 non-Catholics in Ireland, or less than two-thirds of the whole. When we are asked by noble Lords opposite what the attitude of His Majesty's Government is towards Ulster and Belfast, our answer consists of these figures which show the impossibility of separating Belfast and the surrounding districts around Belfast from the rest of Ireland.
Then noble Lords ask us what it is that His Majesty's Government will do. I do not know that it is so much a question of what His Majesty's Government will do as of what noble Lords opposite and their political allies are going to do. We hope they will pause before they give any encouragement to lawlessness and disorder in the North of Ireland. It is not impossible that a scheme far more revolutionary than anything in this Bill will be brought forward by noble Lords opposite, and that they may try to force it upon an unwilling section of the population of this country. It might be that, after two General Elections and consultation with the Dominions throughout the Empire, they might try to force a tax upon food and industry upon an unwilling industrial England. Let noble Lords beware of what may be said by the industrial community of the North if the South and the Midlands try to force upon them things which in the opinion of the industrial North are far worse for them than anything which the Irish Parliament may do in regard to Belfast, or they may find that a resistance which they have not discouraged in Belfast may yet create difficulties for them in the North of England.
For my own part, I venture to think that few people have done more for the cause of Home Rule than Sir Edward Carson. What would be the position of noble Lords opposite and of Sir Edward Carson if, from these Benches, they were faced by the spectacle of hostile Irishmen, four-fifths of whom were claiming the right which Ulster claims to-day, of resisting laws to which they might happen to object? When we are asked by noble Lords opposite what it is that we propose to do, our answer is perfectly simple. We want to know whether any action

711
is to be taken before the new Parliament has done anything at all. If so, it is obvious that Ulster places itself in an impossible position. But supposing—what is, after all, the most likely thing—that the new Irish Parliament, amongst its first acts, does something for labour in Belfast, something to encourage trade and industry in Belfast, what then would be the position of noble Lords opposite? If they wait for an attack they will have to wait for ever. If, on the other hand, instead of waiting, they take the initiative themselves, then indeed we think they will lose entirely the sympathy of the people of this country.
I notice one very great difference between the discussions which took place in 1893 and the discussions which are taking place now upon this Bill. In 1893 noble Lords opposite brought down upon the supporters of the Bill charges of sedition, disloyalty, and lawlessness. Now we find that it is the allies of noble Lords opposite who have refused to discountenance disorder in Belfast. That by itself constitutes a very great difference between the situation then and the situation to-day. For ourselves, my Lords, we are persuaded that when the people of Belfast realise the actual position and intention of the people of Ireland they will no longer be so frightened as some are anxious to make them to-day. We have not only to think of the position in Ireland or the position in this country. There are also the people throughout the Empire to be considered. The Dominions throughout the Empire have all got self-government, and they are wondering why in this country we have not given Ireland that system by which they themselves have profited. Your Lordships know that public opinion in the Dominions is almost unanimously in favour of granting Home Rule, and nearly all their Parliaments have passed resolutions in favour of some measure of Home Rule.
Therefore now we have got this position, that Scotland and Ireland and Wales and the industrial part of England and a large part of the Empire are almost unanimously in favour of this Bill. Large and increasing majorities in the House of Commons have passed this Bill through its Second and Third Readings, and this long controversy, so far as one can tell, is likely to be closed within a comparatively short period. We do not wish to claim any credit from it.
712
We would far rather that this right was given to Ireland with the consent and goodwill of both political Parties. If you want more safeguards let us know what they are, and we will gladly consider whether it is not possible to come to some agreement. As I have said, we would far rather that this was given to Ireland with the goodwill of all parties. Your Lordships' House may delay but you cannot prevent the passage of Home Rule. I could wish that, even at this late hour, there was some hope that this Bill might be read a second time to-morrow night. The eloquent speech of the noble Lord opposite concluded by a passage which, I think, struck all noble Lords on this side of the House. He talked of Ireland as a nation divided against itself. That, he said, was the source of its weakness. We venture to think that the passage of this Bill would heal the old sores and strengthen Ireland and the United Kingdom and the whole of this Empire.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I am quite convinced that this is a bad Bill, and one that will not bring contentment to Ireland. Though there was a great deal said about the question of Home Rule at the last two General Elections, I must say this, without labouring the point very much, that those elections did not bear directly upon the question of Home Rule, not in the same way as the two other General Elections when the question was put before the country and the Liberal Party were beaten upon it. The noble Earl who has just sat down said there was no reason whatsoever why we should not amend the financial clauses of this Bill; but, my Lords, directly we began to touch the financial clauses privilege would have been claimed. Then the noble Earl quoted the Parliament Act, but there is a distinct clause in that Act dealing with the question of privilege. I refer to the section which says that nothing in that Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons. I know that when attempts have been made here to interfere with the financial arrangements in Irish Bills, we were immediately told that privilege would be claimed. It is no use, therefore, for the noble Earl to tell us that we are permitted to amend the financial clauses of this Bill when there is in the Parliament Bill the section to which I have referred, and when the privilege of

713
the House of Commons, as defined by the Speaker, has been claimed over and over again.
The noble Earl the First Commissioner of Works says that Ireland asks for the right to govern her own affairs. Under this Bill do we manage our own affairs? Are we allowed to manage any part of the finances? Are we allowed to have the land? No, we are not allowed to manage those things. Then he asked what our Party were going to do in future; would they bring in a Bill against all the ideas of the working-classes of this country, against all the ideas of the industrial classes? Of course, he was alluding to Tariff Reform. But I want to ask him, What are you going to do about Ulster? You have never answered that question. None of the noble Lords who have spoken on the other side of the House have said a word as to that. The resistance in the Province of Ulster is one which will have to be dealt with.
Who, in fact, really wants Home Rule? We know who does not want it pretty well. We know quite well that the Unionists scattered in the South and the West of Ireland do not want Home Rule. There are meetings held in every county in those parts of Ireland, and it is clear that they do not want Home Rule in any shape or form, and especially in the form of this Bill. Ulster does not want it. I do not wish to deal with that any more. But who now wants this measure passed? The Liberal Party, of course, want it passed, but I am not quite sure that many of that Party would not be very much happier if they had not had to deal with this question at all. And what is the position of the Party at present? They are absolutely under the domination of the Nationalist Party in the House of Commons, and if they did not grant this measure they would be in this position, that they would be turned out of office without the smallest compunction by the Nationalist Party. They are, moreover, in this position. They were saved, I think, twenty-two times last session by the votes of the Nationalist Party—not on any questions with regard to Ireland whatsoever, but on questions totally apart from Ireland and apart from Home Rule. The Irish Party did that because it was necessary in order to get the Home Rule Bill. Then this session the Government would have
714
been defeated again on the Welsh Disestablishment Bill but for the Nationalist Party. Therefore you have the spectacle of the great Liberal Party depending upon the Irish Roman Catholic Party to disestablish the Welsh Church. I do not know that that is a position of which they are very proud. Now, do the Irish Parliamentary Party want Home Rule? They want power, and they want patronage. There is no doubt that this Bill will give them power and it will give them patronage, and that is one of the great reasons why they want it; and I do not blame them for it.
Now I should like to say a few words, as I live in Ireland, with regard to the attitude of the mass of the Irish people towards Home Rule. The noble Lord, Lord Killanin, very truly said that there has been in Ireland for many years tremendous sentiment about this granting of Home Rule and a Parliament on College Green. It is thought that all sorts of things are going to happen when we get Home Rule. As an old countryman of mine said the other day, "We will be very rich when it comes, but it is a long time coming." My experience is that there is not nearly the enthusiasm in Ireland about Home Rule that there was in days past. The people are becoming apathetic about it. I said to one of my tenants the other day, "Well, what do you think about Home Rule? I suppose you think you will get it?" "Oh, yes, we shall get it; I suppose we shall have to give it a chance," he said. Then I asked a country gentleman in my neighbourhood, "What are you going to do when you get this Home Rule Bill? How are we going to live under the financial clauses of the Bill?" "We shall have to economise," he replied. "We can only do that," I said, "by turning out officials in the Departments at present in Ireland and starving those Departments."
The real truth is that those farmers in Ireland who have bought their land, the peasant proprietors, are afraid that Home Rule will bring trouble to the country. They are quite contented now, and in the part of Ireland that I know they do not attend the political meetings. There has been an attempt to create enthusiasm on the matter. Mr. Winston Churchill came to Belfast, which made Belfast excessively cross and annoyed;

715
then we had the visit of the Prime Minister to Dublin, and Lord Ashby St. Ledgers was present and was very much impressed with the enthusiasm at that meeting. But Irishmen are always enthusiastic at public meetings, no matter what the question is. Mr. Gladstone never went over to Ireland to make speeches about Home Rule, but it is absolutely necessary now to stir up an enthusiasm which really does not exist in the mass of the Irish people with regard to this Bill. One would think that if the Irish people were so keen about Home Rule they would support in a material way the Party that has been working for it. But what is the real truth of the matter in that regard? Mr. Redmond said himself in Tipperary on February 10, 1910—
"I tell you here, and there is no reason why I should not be perfectly frank, the Irish party would have been bankrupt in this Election were it not for the success of the campaign in America which yielded over 50,000 dollars."
The Irish Party on that occasion would not have been able to pay the Returning Officers' fees if they had not had American money, and they have had money from Australia since. It is not like the old days when the people of Ireland used to subscribe. They do not now subscribe to time funds of the Party which is going to get them Home Rule. Therefore the Liberal Party are kept in office—and I hope they do not mind my saying so—by this very Party that is subsidised with American money.
Now, my Lords, I should like to say a word with regard to the Bill itself. You will admit that there have always been two Parties in Ireland—I am not talking of political parties—but there have always been two parties in Ireland, one the Roman Catholic party and the other the Protestant party, and we, as Unionists, object to be placed by this Home Rule Bill under the rule of a Nationalist Party majority. An Irish Parliament would be totally different from the Parliament at Westminster. The two great Parties, although they differ considerably in policy, know that a rough kind of justice exists which balances the periods of Office and of Opposition. The minority is only a temporary minority, and the majority is fully aware that its period of power is limited. But in our Irish Parliament we, the Unionists and Protestants, would be always in a minority. We should be governed by Mr. Redmond
716
and his Party, and, what is more, by Mr. Devlin and his Party. Reference has already been made to the Ancient Order of Hibernians, of which Mr. Devlin is the head. That is not a pleasant prospect to which to look forward. I repeat what has been said before, that under the Local Government Act for Ireland we did not get a chance of being elected on the Councils. Only sixteen Unionists were elected to the county councils in the whole of the South and west of Ireland. I remember perfectly well the then Chief Secretary, Mr. Gerald Balfour, calling upon the gentlemen of Ireland to stand for those councils, and we have only to go upon the experience we have had in regard to those councils to see what would happen in our Irish Parliament. I know my own experience. I stood for my county council and got seventeen votes. I then stood for the district council. They said, "Surely your Lordship will not stand for such a small body?" But I said I would stand. They then said, "If you say you are a Home Ruler we will elect you at once," and of course I said I would not have anything to do with it.
If this Home Rule measure is such a good and wise thing, why have not the Nationalist Party explained its provisions to the people of Ireland? Everybody has talked in generalities, but nothing has been said about the great advantages that are to accrue to Ireland if this Bill is passed. The Nationalist Party know perfectly well that it is a bad Bill and that its financial provisions are exacting and unjust. As to the other parts of the Bill, no doubt the Government have put in as many safeguards as their Nationalist allies would permit them to. There is Clause 31, which says that the religion of the Lord-Lieutenant need not be a bar to his taking up that office. The clause is so worded that the Lord-Lieutenant can be of any religion whatever. I only mention that because I think it is a most extraordinary provision to have been put into a Bill. Lord Ribblesdale, in his speech on Monday night, made some remarks with regard to the statement that the Bill had not been discussed properly, and he read out a list from the Morning Post of certain things in the Bill which he said it would require an actuary to understand. But there is another matter, and I think it is rather an important one, which is not safeguarded. It is this, that the Irish Parliament would

717
have power to repeal the Malicious Injuries Act, which is a great safeguard. That has not been mentioned at all, and you know that under that Act a County Court Judge can put these injuries on the district in which they have been committed, and the ratepayers have to pay. That is a great safeguard, and if it is taken away I do not think that some parts of Ireland will be very pleasant places to live in. Another matter which is not safeguarded is this. A lump sum is handed over to the Irish Parliament for certain services, but what safeguard is there that the money will be properly distributed? None whatever. They can starve one service and give money to the other services. I think that should have been safeguarded. I do not know whether there was time to discuss it in the House of Commons, but at all events it is not safeguarded, and the Irish Parliament can deal with it.
It is rather presumptuous to say anything about the financial clauses, but, as I feel strongly upon the matter, if your Lordships will allow me for a few moments I must say something about those clauses. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House in his opening speech said—
"The system which the financial clauses embody may appear to be intricate, but I think it will he found after debate to be as simple as any of which the circumstances permit."
I think, with all due respect to the noble Marquess, that that was damning the financial clauses with faint praise. I wish to say something now with regard to the Exchequer Board. Your Lordships are acquainted with the way in which it is to be composed. I do not know how the members are to agree. The Board will consist of two Irishmen, two English Treasury officials, and a chairman who also, no doubt, will be a Treasury official. And there is this most extraordinary provision, that if any one is dissatisfied with the decisions of the Exchequer Board the question can be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. What will the Irish Parliament care for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in this country? Are they going to obey the mandate of that Committee? How are you going to enforce it? Not content with setting up a financial system for Ireland by which her revenue is all taken, this Board is set up as a sort of watch-dog, and so far as I can
718
make out their duties will be to bark at everybody and make themselves as disagreeable as possible. It is quite true you have given the Irish Government something to play with, and that is the £500,000 for three years to begin with, diminishing each year after that by £50,000 until it gets to £200,000. If during any three years Ireland begins to prosper and the Exchequer Board report and their report is laid before the Imperial Parliament and the Irish Parliament, and the presentation of such a report is to be taken as a ground for the revision by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of the financial provisions of the Act.
And now, my Lords, the fun begins, because twenty-two Members of the Irish Parliament are to be summoned to Westminster, and these with the forty-two there make sixty-four, who are to sit, to revise the financial provisions of the Act. Their interests must clash with those of the representatives of the British taxpayers. There are sure to be "wigs on the Green," over this matter. You may be sure that, unless the Irishmen get the best of it, the money by which Ireland is prospering will go into the English Treasury. It is conceivable that the Government in power might be in a minority on the revision of the financial provisions of tile Act. Is that a provision in a Home Rule Bill which is likely to make for peace between the two countries? We shall always be at loggerheads with regard to finance. I have often wondered how on earth Ireland under this Bill is to raise money for any special purpose. What have we got to hypothecate in order to raise a loan? All we have to hypothecate is the £500,000 with which we begin to work. Surely that is like cutting off a bit of a dog's tail to feed him with. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is shaking his head because he does not agree with me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The whole of the Transferred Sum—£7,000,000 a year and more.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I thought that £7,000,000 a year was for the different services now existing in Ireland.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is secured, only you can hypothecate. An express provision is made for doing so through the Exchequer Board.
THE EARL OF MAYO: You can hypothecate that sum, but you have to starve your services surely?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not if you pay your interest.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Well, you have got to pay your interest out of the Transferred Sum. I may be quite wrong about the matter, but what I understand is that the only money we have got that is not allotted to anything else is the £500,000 we begin with. The truth of the matter is that the obtaining of cheap money has been the reason for Ireland's prosperity during modern times and in the past. The money lent and advanced under Land Purchase Acts has been regularly and faithfully paid back, and also the loans made under the Board of Works. Under this Bill the Board of Works loans cease entirely. That is stated in actual terms in the Bill, though I do not know anything that has done Ireland so much good for many years past as the borrowing of money through the Board of Works for the drainage of the country, for the improvement of the farms, for the building of cottages, and for the improvement of farm buildings. That is all to cease; and where is the money
720
to come from except we borrow it at a much higher rate of interest?
From Ireland's point of view this is, I consider, a bad Bill. I cannot see how the country is to progress. I think she will stagnate, fettered by these financial provisions. We do not want this Bill. We do not want any Bill like it. And, as I said before, I cannot find any enthusiasm about the Bill in Ireland. I venture to say that if this Bill becomes law—and I hope it never will—I believe in my heart that the rising generation of Irishmen as they grow up under this Bill will not remain in any way loyal, but will become absolute separatists. They will want the entire management of their affairs, the collecting of the taxes, and the proper spending of the money. That is what I foresee in this Bill, which I consider from an Irish point of view is a Treasury economist's Bill. I shall therefore follow the noble Duke into the Lobby and give my vote against the passing of this Bill with the greatest pleasure.
The further debate adjourned until to-morrow.
House adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock, till to-morrow, Three o'clock.