Sitting of 2 April 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Leyland Gas Bill,
Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Port of London Authority Bill (by Order), Read the third time, and passed.
Cavan and Leitrim Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 30th April.
Northern Junction Railway Bill (by Order),
Middlesex County Council (Western Road and Improvements and Finance) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Alexander Scott's Hospital and the North of Scotland College of Agriculture Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Alexander Scott's Hospital and the North of Scotland College of Agriculture." Presented by Mr. McKINNON WOOD; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY ACT, 1913 (PROVISIONAL REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of The Mental Deficiency Act, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 178.]

DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
Copy presented of Order numbered D. I. P. 94, dated 28th March, 1914, de-
1318
claring the area described in the Schedule thereto to be an infected area for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order, dated 31st March, 1914, made by the Insurance Commissioners under Section 54 of The Southend-on-Sea Corporation Act, 1913, entitled the County Borough of Southend-on-Sea (Insurance Committee) Order, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 31st March, 1914, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Claims for Exemption) Regulations (England), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 175.]

BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of the Fifty-ninth Annual Report on the Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland for 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.
Copy presented of Report on the state of the Finances of the University, made by the University Court, for the year 1912–13 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 176.]
Copy presented of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Edinburgh for the year 1912–13 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 177.]

BANKRUPTCY (ENGLAND) (RULES).
Copy presented of the Bankruptcy Rules, 1914, dated 23rd March, 1914, made pursuant to the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 to 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

BANKRUPTCY AND DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT ACT, 1913 (ENGLAND) (RULES).
Copy presented of the Deeds of Arrangement Rules, 1914, dated 23rd. March, 1914, made, pursuant to Section 25 of The Bank-

1319
ruptcy Act, 1890, and the Second Schedule of The Bankruptcy and Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

ARMY (MILITARY WORKS).
Copy presented of Approximate Estimate of Expenditure under the Military Works Acts for 1914–15 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
1. Bankruptcy and Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1913 (England) (Supreme Court Rules),—Copy of the Deeds of Arrangement Act Rules, 1914, dated 30th March, 1914 [by Act];
2. Bankruptcy and Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1913 (Supreme Court, England) (Procedure) (Rules), Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court Bills of Sale Acts, 1878 and 1882, Rule 13, dated 30th March, 1914, as to Registration of Assignments of Book Debts under Section 14 of The Bankruptcy and Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1913 [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Bulgaria, Greece, and Servia.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Report of His Majesty's Consuls shows that religious and civil freedom has been established in Bulgarian, Greek, and Servian territory for those who do not desire to declare themselves members of the Churches of those States?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): If the hon. Member is referring to the territories recently annexed from Turkey, the religious and civil freedom of the inhabitants of those districts is safeguarded under Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin and although I have received no special Consular report on the subject I have no reason to suppose that the annexing States dispute that the provisions of that Article are of binding force. I am instructing British Consuls, now that a more settled condition of affairs may be expected than was possible till the war was over, to send reports on this subject.

  Tibet.
  Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information concerning fighting between Tibetans and Chinese in Eastern Tibet?
  Sir E. GREY: Both the Chinese and Tibetan Governments have agreed to a cessation of hostilities pending the conclusion of the negotiations now proceeding in India. I have reason to believe that orders issued for this purpose by both Governments have occasionally been disregarded by subordinates on both sides, and that skirmishes have taken place, but as far as can be ascertained there has been no fighting of a serious character.

  Albania.
  Mr. AUBREY HERBERTasked whether the Hellenic Government has carried out its pledges as regards the evacuation of South Albania?
  Sir E. GREY: The evacuation of the district in question was, by international agreement, to have been completed by 31st March. It was proceeding up to a few days ago, when the Greek Government suggested to the Powers the advisability of delaying the withdrawal of their troops, in the interests of public order, pending the conclusion of negotiations between the Albanian Government and the provisional Government of Northern Epirus. No reply has, as yet, been returned to this proposal and, at the present moment I am unable to say whether the evacuation has in fact been completed.
  Mr. AUBREY HERBERTasked whether regular Greek troops have assisted Komitajis in pillaging Albanian villages?
  Sir E. GREY: No such information has reached me.

  Opium Convention.
  Sir CHARLES NICHOLSONasked whether Great Britain has ratified the Opium Convention of 1912; whether any further conference is to be held at, The Hague; and, if so, when such conference will be held and who will represent Great Britain?
  Sir E. GREY: Great Britain has not yet ratified the Opium Convention of 1912. A

  1321
  further conference is shortly to be held at The Hague to consider the question of putting the Convention into effect, which is distinct from the question of ratification. His Majesty's Government have as yet no information as to the exact date on which the conference will assemble. They will be represented at the conference by Sir William Collins, who has again most kindly consented to represent us, and Mr. W. G. Max Müller.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked which foreign Powers, respectievly, have up to the present time signed, agreed to ratify, and actually ratified the International Opium Convention; and whether any and, if so, which Powers have refused to sign or to ratify the Convention?
  Sir E. GREY: With regard to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 7276, Miscellaneous No. 2 (1914), which contains a list of those Powers which had signed or ratified the International Opium Convention up to the end of January; since then I have not been informed of the adherence of any Powers then outstanding. I am not aware that, since the meeting of the International Conference of last year, any Power has definitely refused either to sign or to ratify the Convention.
  Mr. T. C. TAYLORasked whether any, and if so, what, action is being taken to induce the Powers that have not yet adhered to the International Opium Convention to do so; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to proceed to ratify the Convention even should it fail to induce some of the Powers to adhere to it?
  Sir E. GREY: The Powers that have not yet adhered to the International Opium Convention are being constantly pressed to do so, and it is confidently hoped that the difficulties which stand in the way of their adhering may shortly be overcome. It is very desirable that the ratification of other Powers should be secured as well as that of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. T. C. TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the latter part of the question, "whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to proceed to ratify the Convention even should it fail to induce some of the Powers to adhere to it"?
  Sir E. GREY: If my hon. Friend presses me on the point, what we hope is to be able to induce other Powers to ratify, and if I give a definite undertaking that we will ratify whatever they do, I am afraid I shall very much diminish the possibility of joint action.
  Mr. T. C. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that while in most of the provinces of China the sale and smoking of opium are being severely penalised, its sale and use are protected and encouraged in Shanghai and in British and other foreign concessions in China; is this in conformity with the International Convention; and, if not, what steps His Majesty's Government is taking to repress the vice?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no official information regarding the present position of the opium traffic in the foreign concessions in China. The subject is dealt with in Articles 17 and 18 of the International Opium Convention, to which I would refer the hon. Member. It will receive the careful attention of His Majesty's Government in common with the other Articles of the Convention when the Convention comes into force.
  Mr. T. C. TAYLOR: Is the Government actually taking any steps to put an end to this scandal?
  Sir E. GREY: I understand we have already taken sonic preliminary steps on our own behalf. It needs the consent of other Powers as well. I am in entire sympathy with the objects of my hon. Friend.

  Arbitration (United States and Great Britain).
  Mr. SILVESTER HORNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to state whether he can lay before the House the terms of the draft treaty of arbitration between the United States of America and this country?
  Sir E. GREY: The drafts submitted to us by the Government of the United States are those of treaties signed between them and one or two other States, but I believe they have not been published by any of the States concerned, and I cannot therefore make them public. But I may add that one of the drafts submitted to us by the United States appears to be generally

  1323
  acceptable; one or two Amendments would be required to meet the case of the self-governing Dominions, and these are now under consideration in consultation with the Colonial Office.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Patrick Murphy, Fermoyle, Emlaghmore, who is eighty-six years of age, is an applicant for an old age pension; that he has been fourteen years in Ireland since his last visit to America, and that when particulars were taken by the pension officer Murphy, who is hard of hearing owing to old age, he did not properly understand his questions; and whether inquiry will now be made with a view to granting a pension to him?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Patrick Murphy's claim for an old age pension was disallowed by the Local Government Board on appeal on the 9th January, 1914, on the grounds that in their opinion he did not comply with the statutory conditions as to residence in the United Kingdom. The Board have no information as to the allegation that the claimant was unable to understand the questions put to him by the pension officer. He made no statements of the kind in any of his communications to the Board, and in any case he was unable to furnish satisfactory evidence to show that he was qualified for a pension. The Board have no power to reopen consideration of a case already decided.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether, in the absence of a register of births, the Local Government Board for Ireland accept the evidence of persons over seventy, corroborated by dates of marriage and birth of children, in support of a claim for an old age pension; and, if so, why this evidence, tested and accepted by the Coole Pension Committee, in Mrs. Peppard's case has been rejected by the Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already informed the hon. Member, the Local Government Board have regard to all evidence of age submitted to them in connection with old age pension appeals, but it is
  1324
  impossible to lay down hard and fast rules as to the type of evidence that could be accepted as satisfactory in all cases, as each case must be dealt with on its merits. As regards Mrs. Peppard's claim, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his previous question on this subject.
  Mr. GINNELL: May I ask whether the Local Government Board is making any inquiry in this case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: We have made inquiry. If there is any further point I shall be glad to answer it.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether the pension officer, before appealing against the old age pension granted by the Coole Committee to Mrs. Julia Peppard, or the Local Government Board before disallowing the pension, had searched the Census Returns, or have searched them since; if no evidence adverse to the claim has been found there, will he say what evidence is before the Board to displace that tested and accepted by the Coole Committee; and, since age and poverty entitled to a pension even a person unable to give technical evidence, whether the pension will now be allowed in this case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Census Records were searched for evidence of age in Mrs. Peppard's case, but without result. It devolves on claimants for old age pensions to furnish satisfactory proof of age, and, as I have already informed the hon. Member, Mrs. Peppard was unable to do so.
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that pension officers in Ireland have for some time past estimated the cost of living at 12s. 6d. per week in the cases of aged applicants for an old age pension; whether he can say by what means or method of calculation is the sum of 12s. 6d. arrived at; whether he is aware that the average working man in Ireland has in most cases to support himself, a wife, and large family on a smaller sum per week than 12s. 6d.; and, if so, how can he justify the pension officers' estimate of 12s. 6d. per week for the support. of an aged man or woman, which amount debars them from a pension?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It is the practice of pension officers, both in Ireland and elsewhere, to estimate such value according

  1325
  to the actual facts in each case, and not at 12s. 6d. per week or any other arbitrary sum. In Ireland the amount arrived at on this basis is rarely anything like so high as 12s. 6d. a week.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how workmen in Ireland, with wives and families averaging eight in number, are to support them on 8s. a week, when the pension officer fixes the amount at 12s. 6d.?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member asks whether it is the practice to take 12s. 6d. a week. It is not the practice in Ireland or elsewhere, and in Ireland, as the hon. Member states, the figures are much lower than that.

  Royal Canal (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that complaints have been frequently made against the neglect of the Royal Canal by the Midland Great Western Railway Company in the interest of its own traffic, and that in every instance those complaints have been found on investigation to be justified; whether a board of control of the canal was appointed to see that the company discharged its duty; whether he will specify the authority under which the company has again superseded the board; when, and in what manner, the board concurred in its own supersession or in the procedure practically amounting to supersession; under what authority the Board of Works concur in giving exclusive control in a disputed matter to a party found to have neglected its duty in that matter; and whether he will have a meeting of the board of control of the Royal Canal convened forthwith to consider its position in relation to the business for which it was appointed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already stated, there have been no recent complaints of neglect of the Royal Canal. Some complaints which were made in past years were found to be justified. The board of control still exists, and has not been in any way superseded by any other body. The Board of Works have no control in relation to the Royal Canal, but their staff, by leave of the Treasury, give their services to the board of control. This Board will meet if any business requiring such a meeting should arise.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether there is any record in the offices of the Land Commission showing that some of the tenants now seeking advances to purchase their holdings on the estate of Lady Chapman applied to have a fair rent fixed and failed because, in the opinion of the Court, they had no legal status as boná-fide occupying tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The records of the Irish Land Commission show only one case upon the estate referred to where the tenant's application to fix a fair rent was dismissed upon the question of occupancy. In this case the lands in question have, with other lands forming the "estate," since been sold under the Land Purchase Acts, and the holdings vested in the several tenant purchasers.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he has given any attention to the opinions of numerous bodies of tenants and public bodies in Ireland that the Irish Land Bill of last Session could not complete and would probably retard the completion of land purchase, and suggesting amendments; seeing that these are for a purpose with which all parties express agreement, whether they will be embodied in the Bill this Session; and whether the Bill will be put down for Second Reading sufficiently early in the Session to make discussion and amendment possible?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have received a great number of suggestions for alterations in and additions to the provisions of the Irish Land Bill of last year, but very few, if any, of these suggestions would meet with the approval of all parties. I propose, therefore, to reintroduce the Bill to-day, practically in the same form, and shall give careful consideration to any proposals or amendments that may be put forward by agreement between the parties most interested.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question asking when the Bill will be put down for Second Reading?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I should like to know what prospects there are of proceeding with a Bill of this kind before I give an answer to that question. I cannot answer until I know from the proper authorities what they will be.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the tenants of Viscount Gough had maps prepared and a survey taken of the town holdings in the town of Gort, at the suggestion of the Estates Commissioners, with a view of purchasing their respective holdings; whether he is aware that a number of the tenants have land attached to their houses which would afford sufficient security for the advancement of the purchase money; and will he interpose with the Estates Commissioners to have them carry out the arrangement originally entered into between the landlord, the tenants, and the Estates Commissioners in respect to the purchase of this estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners did not ask the tenants to prepare any maps. The question of the security for advances is a matter for the Commissioners who have decided not to sanction any advances for the purchase of the premises in the town of Gort. The Commissioners entered into no arrangement to purchase these premises.
  Mr. DUFFY: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me what are the difficulties that stand in the way of the Estates Commissioners in dealing with town tenants in the same way as agricultural tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member knows that it is by no means an easy matter for the Commissioners to deal with town tenancies, with all the different under-letting, and the like, in the same way as with agricultural tenancies; but, if they could do it, they would.
  Mr. DUFFY: May I ask whether, in view of the definite understanding arrived at between the landlord and the tenants, the right hon. Gentleman will ask the Commissioners to take some steps in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; the Estates Commissioners have entered into no arrangement.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary if he can explain the circumstances under which the Estates Commissioners decline to carry out the promise made to the town tenants of Gort to the effect that facilities would be afforded to the town tenants to acquire their holdings conjointly with the agricultural tenants on the estate; whether he is aware of the nature and character of the holdings in
  1328
  Gort town which prevent the Estates Commissioners from co-operating with Viscount Gough to carry out a sale of the town property; and will he explain what the difficulties are?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No promise was made by the Estates Commissioners to make advances under the Land Purchase Acts for the purchase of the town holdings in the town of Gort. As regards the refusal of the Commissioners to make advances in respect of such holdings, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on the subject on the 14th August last. Such decision in no way prevents the occupiers purchasing for cash direct from the owner or through the district council under the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899.
  Mr. DUFFY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will cause the Estates Commissioners to send a representation to the tenants on this estate pointing out in what position they stand in reference to the purchase of their houses?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will see whether the necessary information can be given.

  National Gallery, Dublin (Lane Collection).
  Mr. LARDNERasked when and under what circumstances a number of pictures forming what is known as the Lane Collection were brought to the National Gallery, Dublin; whether they are still there, and, if so, under what terms or conditions, if any?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Director of the National Gallery infertile me that no pictures belonging to the Lane Collection are, or ever have been, in the National Gallery, Dublin.

  Tuberculosis, Ireland (Schemes for Treatment).
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary whether any of the county authorities in Ireland, in preparing schemes for the treatment of tuberculosis, propose to treat non-pulmonary tuberculosis; and, if so, will he state the names of such authorities and say whether such treatment is proposed to be at the patients' homes, by dispensaries, or in sanatoria?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Provision for non-pulmonary tuberculosis is generally in-

  1329
  cluded in county schemes, and the county infirmaries of Armagh, Waterford, Louth, Londonderry, Dublin, Mayo, Queen's County, King's County, Tyrone, Carlow, Leitrim, Galway, Cork (2), Fermanagh, Sligo, Meath, and Antrim, have been approved by the Local Government Board for the purpose. Treatment will be provided institutionally or otherwise, according to the circumstances of the case.
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary what counties in Ireland are providing their own sanatoria for the treatment of tuberculosis under the National Insurance Act, Part I., and how many are contracting for accommodation for their patients in proprietary institutions; whether any of the county sanatoria are in full working order; and, if so, will he state the counties, and will he state the total number of beds provided under each system?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The county boroughs of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork, and the counties of Clare, Limerick, Cork, Galway, Tipperary (North Riding), Dublin, Sligo, Tyrone, Armagh, Down, and Monaghan will have their own sanatoria. Twenty-three counties are contracting for accommodation (including arrangements of a provisional character) for their own patients in other institutions. The sanatoria in Dublin County Borough and County, Cork County Borough and County, and Clare County are in full working circlet'. As regards the number of beds provided, the figures (including institutions in contemplation) are: County institutions, 932 beds; contracted beds, 270.

  Seditious Libels (Ireland).
  Mr. JAMES CAMPBELLasked the Chief Secretary whether, at the recent Assizes for Belfast, three men named James Toomey, Patrick Dempsey, and John Carney were awaiting trial upon the charge of publishing seditious libels of an insultng character on the Army and Navy of His Majesty the King; whether the sworn informations of the police upon which these men had been returned for trial by the stipendiary magistrate proved that each of these men had been caught in the act with which they were charged; whether, notwithstanding the gravity of the charge and the manifest guilt of the accused, the Crown declined to prosecute the charges; if so, upon whose authority was this course taken and what were the reasons for it;
  1330
  and in how many instances in Ireland during the year 1913 has the same course been adopted by the Crown in reference to offences of a similar character?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Five men, or boys, in all, including the three mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member, were detected by the police and returned for trial in Ireland in 1913 for posting upon walls or distributing leaflets inciting persons not to join the Army and Navy, which conduct exposed them to be tried on the charge of sedition at common law. The Attorney-General for Ireland considered, and I concurred, that having regard to the circumstances of the time, and to recent occurrences it would be unwise to put a few humble boys and young men on trial for an offence which has no real effect upon the public mind in Ireland or upon recruiting. The same course was adopted during the year 1913 in two other cases of the same character as those referred to by the right hon. Member.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: May I ask the age of these so-called boys?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I know that "boys" is a term of wide application in Ireland. I do not know their exact age.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will persist in the refusal of the Executive to enforce the law in these cases?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think I can admit the term "persist."
  Mr. HAYDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of them was an ex-law officer of the Crown?

  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Mr. DUFFYasked if the Commissioners of National Education have yet fully considered the question of awarding higher-grade certificates to national teachers of exceptional ability and training; when they propose to issue those certificates; how many national teachers have made application for them; and whether it is proposed to grant a bonus or other monetary consideration to the successful applicants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The question as to the award of higher certificates to teachers of marked ability is under the consideration

  1331
  of the Commissioners of National Education. The date of the issue of the certificates cannot be stated at present. About fifty applications for these certificates are before the Commissioners. It is not proposed to grant a bonus or other monetary consideration to the successful applicants, but the holding of such a certificate would have due weight with the Commissioners when considering the advancement of a teacher to a higher grade or promotion to the rank of inspector.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting in Loughrea on the 27th March, protesting against the prohibition of the Loughrea Fair on that day, and calling attention to the losses inflicted on every interest in the county through the promulgation of this Order; whether he is aware that, in consequence of the smallness of the size of the farmers' holdings, and the consequent scarcity of hay and fodder, it is indispensable that they should now sell their stock, which consists entirely of store cattle; whether he realises that the small farmers will not be able to plant their crops this spring unless facilities are afforded them to dispose of their stock, as the custom of the county is to pay off in April the debt for manures incurred in the previous year before a supply for this season is given; has he received a representation from the people of Athenry in reference to the removal of the restrictions on their fair to be held on Friday, 3rd April; and what facilities does he intend giving to enable this fair to be held?
  Mr. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The Department did not prohibit the Loughrea Fair, but the recent Order prohibiting the movement of animals out of the part of Ireland south of a defined line running from Drogheda to Oranmore, had the effect incidentally of preventing cattle being railed from this fair, the railway forming the boundary line and being outside the scheduled area. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware the object of such Order is to allow of stock being shipped for immediate slaughter from parts of Ireland north of the defined line. It is regretted that the Order while considered necessary in the general interest
  1332
  should involve any hardship to farmers in the Loughrea neighborhood. It should, however, be realised that there is no bar to fairs being held in this locality. Movement from south of the boundary line to a fair north of the line is, however, prohibited as well as the movement on the railway line forming the boundary, of any stock from south of the line, but it is still open to owners south of the line to rail their stock southwards, say from Craughwell. A fair is to be held at Athenry on the 3rd instant for stock from north of the boundary line.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is likely that any change will be made in connection with this boundary line so that the four important towns of Mullingar, Athlone, Ballinasloe, and Athenry will be to the northern side of the boundary?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I do not wish to go into details about the matter. I have received to-day a deputation of Irish Members interested in the question, and the whole matter is now being considered in Dublin with the view to a proposal being submitted to the President of the Board of Agriculture.
  Mr. DUFFY: In connection with this matter, which is of supreme and vital importance to a large number of people in the West of Ireland, I wish to give notice that I will call attention to it on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-night.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he is aware that orders were given by the officers of the Agricultural Department, Dublin, to the Loughrea and Athymore Railway at Loughrea not to carry any stock purchased at the Loughrea Fair on the 27th March over their line; can he state under what authority the stationmaster at Loughrea was wired to not to rail any more store cattle purchased at the fair; and will he explain why timely notice as to the prohibition of the fair was not given to the chairman of the town commissioners so that steps might be taken to advise the public, and thus save trouble, loss, and inconvenience to buyers and sellers?
  Mr. RUSSELL: An effect of the Department's Order prohibiting the movement of animals out of the southern part of Ireland

  1333
  is to make it illegal for a railway company to convey live-stock from the southern area on the line which forms part of the boundary of that area. The railway companies concerned were advised in the usual course of this effect of the Order, and the Midland Great Western Railway took steps accordingly to decline live-stock traffic from Loughrea Fair, which was held on the day the Department's Order came into force. It was not possible, without discounting the value of the Order, to give advance notice of its effect.
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked why the restrictions in connection with foot-and-mouth disease should be extended to Queen's County, as no cases of the disease have occurred therein; and why the port of Birkenhead is not to be opened for cattle for immediate slaughter from unaffected counties?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the Templemore neighbourhood in the north of county Tipperary have necessitated the scheduling of a district of approximately fifteen miles' radius extending beyond the boundaries of that county and embracing in Queen's County of Roscrea (No. 3) Rural District and a number of electoral divisions in the Abbeyleix rural district. Similarly in scheduling a district in connection with the recent outbreak in county Kildare it has been found necessary to take in a part of the extreme east of Queen's County. It is gratifying that the disease has not up to the present spread to Queen's County, but in defining the area from which shipments to Birkenhead and the other two selected British ports might begin, it has been necessary to adopt a boundary well removed from the vicinity of the scheduled districts. In these circumstances it has not been possible to include Queen's County within the region from which stock may be shipped.
  Mr. MEEHAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman not remove the restrictions on cattle not intended to be exported from the unaffected areas in Queen's County to districts north of the line?
  Mr. RUSSELL: No. It is not possible to remove cattle from the south of the boundary to the north.
  Mr. DELANYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has received copies of resolutions passed at a public
  1334
  meeting held in Ballacolla, Queen's County, on the 29th March, requesting the Department to relax the restrictions imposed on the district on the grounds that it is twenty-three miles distant from the nearest point where a case of foot-and-mouth disease has broken out, and pointing out the loss and inconvenience caused to owners of stock, especially milch cows and pigs; and can he say when the restrictions will be removed?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Only portions of the south-west and extreme east of Queen's County are now subject to restrictions. Ballacolla has been retained in the scheduled district on account of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the neighbourhood of Templemore, which in a direct line is only a little over fifteen miles away. If no further outbreaks occur in the locality the Department would hope to be in a position to effect a considerable reduction in the area of restrictions in a short time, but it is not possible to say definitely when such a reduction will be practicable.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, according to expert opinion, a radius exceeding fifteen miles is never necessary?
  Mr. RUSSELL: That is the radius that we have adopted.
  The following question stood on the Notice Paper:—
  Mr. GINNELLto ask the Attorney-General if he will state what action the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken with reference to the introduction of infectious cattle disease at. Birkenhead, and with reference to the sending of men in close contact therewith to Ireland to spread the disease there, to the loss and inconvenience of the public; and, if no action has been taken, will he say why and whether any will be taken?
  Mr. GINNELL: I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Attorney-General is entitled to refuse to answer questions relating to the administration of the criminal law? He refuses to answer question No. 41, and refers me to a civil Minister. On principle I decline to put the question to a civil Minister.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I hope that all Ministers are civil. I suppose that the Attorney-General thinks that this is a matter which does not concern his Department.
  Mr. GINNELL: It is the administration of the criminal law.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think that it would be better to get the answer, and then we shall be in a better position to judge.
  Mr. GINNELL: I beg to postpone the question until Monday next to the Attorney-General.
  Mr. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether he is aware that the restrictions imposed by the Department on the important cattle fair of Mullingar, due to be held next Monday, which restrictions he has described as being satisfactory to the local people, are denounced in telegrams from those people as wholly unsatisfactory and unjust, there being no disease in Westmeath or near it; and whether he will state what the restrictions are, and what reason there is for them in the absence of disease?
  Mr. RUSSELL: What I stated in reply to a question the other day was that the deputation which waited on the Department to arrange this matter were quite satisfied with the arrangements made, and recognised that they were the best that could possibly he made in the present circumstances.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will not the right hon. Gentleman explain what the restrictions are with which the people are quite dissatisfied?
  Mr. RUSSELL: They chiefly amount to this, that there must be two fairs instead of one—one on Monday next, I believe, on the northern side of the boundary, and the other a week hence on the southern side.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the nearest centre of disease to Mullingar? Is it not 50 miles away?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am not prepared to say off-hand.

  Fethard Harbour.
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that various applications have been made to obtain a Grant for Fethard Harbour
  1336
  during the last twenty years; whether he admits that in the present state of the harbour it is impossible for the Fethard fishermen to pursue their calling with any hope of success; and whether, seeing the courage and self-sacrifice shown by these men in their attempt to save the crew of the "Mexico," and although nine of them who manned the lifeboat lost their lives, the five survivors, undeterred by the fate of their comrades, persisted in their efforts, and succeeded in saving the crew, he will consider the inadvisability of driving such men from the country by refusing to give proper accommodation for their fishing boats; and will he again press the Development Commissioners to give the necessary Grant for Fethard?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Department arc aware that many applications have been made for the improvement of Fethard Harbour; also that the harbour in its present condition is unsuitable for larger boats than those now using it. The Development Commissioners are not prepared to consider any further application for a Grant for the improvement of Irish fishery harbours until the period of five years for which the existing Grant was made elapses.
  Mr. FFRENCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the harbour is most unsafe for the fishermen's boats, and will nothing be done for those fishermen?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am quite aware that the harbour is in a very bad condition, but it cannot be improved without money, and the Department have no money for the purpose, and the Development Commissioners will not give it.

  Sugar Beet (Ireland).
  Mr. FELLasked if any experiments were made last year in the cultivation of sugar beet in Ireland; and if any Report has been issued giving the results obtained?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A Report on the experiments is at present in course of preparation for publication in the forthcoming issue of the Department's journal.

  Marriage Laws (British Colonies).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the nationality of British women marrying

  1337
  foreigners in the different British Dominions and Colonies is regulated in all cases by the existing Imperial law on the subject; or, if otherwise, would he accede to an Address for a Return, showing the short effect of the laws affecting the nationality of British women marrying foreigners in the self-governing Dominions?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The rule laid down in Section 10 of the Naturalisation Act, 1870, is in force in the different British Dominions and Colonies.

  British East Africa.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether, in view of the decision of the Nairobi High Court that British East Africa is in effect a foreign state, and that therefore Uganda, Nyasaland, and Bechuanaland are in the same position, the Government intends to make formal annexation and proclaim territorial sovereignty over these dominions?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on the 26th March. It applies also to Bechuanaland.

  New Hebrides.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he has received during the last three years the records of the joint Court established under the provisions of the condominium in the New Hebrides; if so, whether he will publish the same; (2) whether he has received a Report on the conditions of labour on the Stewart and Wright plantation made by the labour inspector at the instance of Mr. Mahaffy, the Acting Resident Commissioner of the New Hebrides, in February, 1913; whether he will publish the same; and (3) whether he cabled to the British resident at Vila, in the New Hebrides, directing that the Rev. Dr. Campbell Nicholson, a British subject, should apologise to the French Commandant Rogue; and whether Dr. Nicholson's only action consisted in resisting an attempt at an illegal raid by French officers on his station on the island of Tanna?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have received reports from time to time upon the work of the joint Court, but I am not at present prepared to publish them.
  1338
  I have received the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers in question No. 39, but I do not propose to publish it at present at all events.
  The incident referred to in question No. 40, has formed the subject of discussion with the French Government, and I do not consider it desirable to make any statement with regard to it at present.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are we not entitled to see the public records of a public Court in one of our Colonies? They are public records.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am not sure that they are public records. I would not wish to dispute the right of the House at the present time to see the records. All I say is that I am not prepared at present.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the House desires to see these public records, can it not see them when it desires, and not when the right hon. Gentleman desires?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Probably, if there was a right. I did not admit the right. But there is no doubt that at some time or other I shall be able.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the third of my questions which relates to the action of the right hon. Gentleman in ordering a British subject to apologise?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The incident has formed the subject of discussion with the French Government. I do not consider it desirable to make any statement with regard to it at present.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Meantime, will the right hon. Gentleman not send out any further instructions to this British Commissioner to apologise to the French commander?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think that I can enter now into the communications that have passed.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If I raise the question on the Adjournment on Wednesday night, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to deal with it?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am bound to say on my responsibility that it would be contrary to the public interest to discuss this matter at the present moment.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary whether any councils of counties or county boroughs in Ireland have agreed to pay half of any expenditure on the treatment of tuberculous insured persons over and above the money provided for sanatorium treatment under the National Health Insurance Act, if so, will he give the names of such authorities; will he state whether any insurance committees have represented to the council of their county or to the Treasury that the amount available for defraying the cost of sanatorium treatment to insured persons resident within their area was already, or was likely to be, insufficient to meet the estimated expenditure; if so, will he give the names; whether any Grants under Section 17 have been made in Ireland; and, if so, will he state the amounts and the authorities to whom made?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): Up to the present time one county council in Ireland, namely, Meath, has agreed to meet one half of an anticipated deficiency under Section 17; the other half will be met by the Treasury in due course.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Insurance Commissioners have power to vary the Clause in the National Insurance Act which states that a person in a sanatorium who has no dependents is not entitled to sickness benefit; if he is aware that many persons have suffered hardship through this restriction, seeing that personal expenses may accrue whilst a person is an inmate of a sanatorium and not in receipt of wages or income; and if he is prepared to take action to enable societies to pay at least a portion of the usual weekly amount of sickness benefit?
    Mr. BENN: The Commissioners have no power to vary the terms of the Act in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend.

    OFFICIALS AND SALARIES.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state, as nearly as can be ascertained, the total cost of bringing the National Insurance Act into operation and working it to the 31st March, 1914; and the number of officials of all grades, with their aggregate annual
    1340
    salaries as now fixed, engaged in connection with national insurance in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, respectively?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The information asked for in the question is, so far as it is available, contained in the Appropriation Accounts for 1912–13 and the Estimates for the current year, and for 1914–15, which have been presented to Parliament.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION.
    Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state at what offices in London girls are employed in a temporary capacity on the work of the National Health Insurance Commission, the number of girls at each office, with the limits of age and rates of pay, and at what age the girls are dismissed from the service; whether any effort is first made to absorb them into other branches of the Civil Service, where their training and service would be of use; and if any money compensation is made to these girls who arc dismissed on attaining a certain age?
    Mr. BENN: Girls are employed in a temporary capacity at the Maida Vale and Leonard Street branch offices of the National Health Insurance Commission. The numbers employed are 56 and 102, respectively. No definite age limit has been laid down for these employés. The ages of those at present engaged range front fourteen to seventeen years, and the wages vary from 12s. to 14s. per week for the elder girls, and 9s. to 12s. per week for the younger. The work is purely of a temporary character, and the other points in the hon. Member's question have not yet arisen. I may add, however, that some girls have already been advanced to the grade of temporary woman clerk, with wages varying from 18s. to 25s. per week.

    Irish Church Temporalities.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the present net amount, after satisfaction of all charges, of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, with which Section 20 of the Government of Ireland Bill endows the new Irish Government?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my predecessor on the 12th November, 1912.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will that answer amount to the fact that this endowment for the Irish Parliament is an empty eggshell?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member had better look at the answer first.

    Labour Exchanges (Salaries).
    Sir CHARLES NICHOLSONasked if the female lower-grade clerks transferred from the Post Office to the Labour Exchange and unemployment insurance service at their existing salaries can have those salaries retrospectively adjusted to the scale of age-pay for new entrants, when such salaries are below this scale?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): This has just been done, to take effect as from 1st June last.

    Prime Minister.
    Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Home Secretary who will be authorised, in the absence of the Prime Minister, to carry on the duties of Leader of the House and to furnish authoritative information on matters arising from time to time?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, in his absence, the Home Secretary.

    Royal Commission on Civil Service.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Home Secretary whether advance copies of or extracts from the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service have been sent to the heads of any Government Departments; and, if so, why a similar courtesy was not extended to those associations of Civil servants which submitted evidence to the Commission and whose interests are equally vitally affected by the Report?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am informed that the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.

    Elementary Education (Financial Statistics).
    Mr. CASSELasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Return of financial statistics relating to elementary education in the year 1911–12, recently issued by the Board of Education, from which it appears that the Grants to London in respect of
    1342
    elementary education amount only to 28 per cent. of the total expenditure as against 52 per cent. for the rest of England and Wales, and that the total expenditure per child in London is £3 3s. 7d. higher than in the rest of England and Wales, and that the Grant to London is 2s. 6d. per child lower than in the rest of England and Wales; and whether, on the readjustment of the relations between Imperial and local finance, the special position of London will be taken into consideration?
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Islington Borough Council to the effect that, having regard to the demands of the Board of Education authority of London, which demands have been almost entirely responsible for the inordinate increase from £3,919,673 in 1904–5 to £6,286,320 in 1913–14 in the cost of London education, and to the fact that London is receiving Education Grants from the Government equal to only 28 per cent. of its expenditure on elementary education, whilst the Grants for the rest of the country approximate 50 per cent., the Islington Borough Council urge upon the Government the necessity of fulfilling its promise to lighten the burdens of the ratepayers of London by means of more liberal and equitable Grants from the Imperial Exchequer; and, as the Departmental Committee appointed to study the system of local taxation in England and Wales have now made their final Report, with specific recommendations on the question of Education Grants, is he yet in a position, or can he say when he expects to be in a position to deal effectively with the increasing inequalities and admitted grievances from which the London ratepayers are suffering?
    Mr. MONTAGU: With the permission of the House I will also answer the question addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My attention has been called to the Resolution and Return referred to. As regards the latter part of both questions, I must ask the hon. Members to await my right hon. Friend's annual financial statement. I understand that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education is to-day receiving a deputation on this matter from the London County Council.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman in the preparation of that statement bear in mind the figures relating to London?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend, in the preparation of his financial statement, will take into consideration all relevant figures.

    Smoke Abatement.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will now state the names of the Departmental Committee which will inquire into the question of smoke abatement; and whether such Committee will include a representative of the agricultural industry?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The constitution of the Committee is not yet complete. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman state at an early date the terms of the reference to the Committee?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will do so as early as possible.

    Poor Law Institutions (Staff).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will have a Return made showing the hours of duty of the indoor subordinate staff of Poor Law institutions?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.

    Vaccination Officers.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he received a letter, dated the 13th February last, on behalf of the executive of the National Vaccination Officers' Association, asking that he would give immediate attention to the loss of income suffered by vaccination officers throughout England and Wales owing to the operation of the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907; and, in view of the financial position of many of these officers and the fact that the executive of that association were confident that he would take the necessary steps to fulfil the promise made in the House of Lords on behalf of the Government when the Vaccination Bill of 1907 was being considered by them, whether he has yet given the matter his attention; and, if so, what action does he propose to take?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have received the letter referred to and have given close attention to the matter. The
    1344
    Board have considered on its merits each case of loss which has been brought to their notice, and will continue to do so. I do not propose to take any general action.
    Mr. YEOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that, owing to the somewhat confusing wording of the vaccination schedule which is given to parents at the time of registering the births of their children, and also on Form Q issued by vaccination officers, many parents are led to suppose they can make a declaration of conscientious objection to vaccination within four months and seven days of the birth of a child; and whether he can see his way to have the schedules and forms in question so altered as to make it unmistakable to parents that they must make their declarations within four months of the birth of their children?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware that difficulties have arisen, and am taking steps to obviate them.

    Homeless Persons (London).
    Sir CHARLES NICHOLSONasked the President of the Local Government if he can state the number of homeless persons found in the streets or on staircases in London on the occasion of the Census taken by the London County Council in February of each of the last four years?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am glad to say that the number of homeless persons found in the streets or on staircases in London has shown a very remarkable decrease. They were on a selected day in February:—

    1911

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,026

    1912

    …

    …

    …

    …

    983

    1913

    …

    …

    …

    …

    491

    1914

    …

    …

    …

    …

    434

    Daylight Saving Bill.
    Mr. PETOasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the public support of the proposals of the Daylight Saving Bill disclosed at the deputation he received on 24th March, including 710 city corporations and town and district councils, among which are the City of London and twenty-six out of twenty-eight Metropolitan boroughs and the corporations of Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Glasgow, Dundee, Dublin, Bel-

    1345
    fast, Cardiff, and Swansea he will ask the Prime Minister to give a day for the Second Reading and to give facilities for Members to vote independently of party considerations?
    Mr. McKENNA: As I informed the deputation which I had the pleasure of meeting, should be glad if the House could be afforded an opportunity to consider the Bill, but it is quite impossible to give Government time for it. When the Bill is reached, Members will be invited to vote without regard to party ties.

    St. Helens (Corporation By-Laws).
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSHasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to certain proposed new by-laws to be applied at St. Helens, Lancashire, requiring persons organising or responsible for processions or public meetings to give a preliminary notice to the watch committee, which must be delivered at the office of the town clerk and at that of the chief constable seven clear days before the proposed date of meeting; whether he is aware that the proposed by-laws require the full name, place of abode, and description of the persons giving the notice, the body or organisation holding the meeting or arranging the procession, the place of assembly, the route proposed, and the destination of the procession, the music, vocal or instrumental, to be sung or played, the emblems or weapons to be carried, the books, newspapers, handbills, tracts, pamphlets, photographs, etc., to be sold, offered for sale, distributed, or exhibited, together with many other restrictive conditions that, in the opinion of many citizens of the borough of St. Helens, constitute an interference with the liberty of the subject and jeopardise the right of public meeting; and whether he will cause a full inquiry to be made before the proposed by-laws are sanctioned by his Department?
    Mr. McKENNA: No by-laws such as those indicated have yet been submitted to me by the town council of St. Helens. If and when they are submitted, I will go fully into the merits of the proposals they may contain.

    Suffragist Prisoners.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether Mary Richardson, a suffragette prisoner, is now being forcibly fed; whether her doctor certified on her
    1346
    last release from prison after being forcibly fed that she was suffering from appendicitis, and that a renewal of forcible feeding might again set up the mischief and jeoparlise her life in a few hours; and whether copies of this certificate have been received by him and by the prison authorities?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. Mary Richardson's medical attendant wrote to me in December last to the effect that she had warned her patient that to repeat her refusal of food and water in prison and to be subjected to forcible feeding would entail grave risk, and she has repeated the same opinion in subsequent communications. Every care is taken by the medical officers of Holloway Prison to prevent the prisoner injuring herself, but it is their plain duty as medical men to feed her even at some risk of self-inflicted injury rather than to allow her to commit suicide by starvation.
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: Is the forcible feeding going on at present?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir.

    Home Office Contract (Fair-Wages Clause).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether Messrs Baxter and Thrippleton, dyers and finishers, of St. Ann's Mill, Birstall, Leeds, are contractors to the Department; if he is aware that this firm are paying a less rate of wages than that prevailing at other firms, in accordance with the agreement entered into by workmen's associations; and if he will intimate to the firm that the rate current in the district must be adhered to?
    Mr. McKENNA: This firm have a contract with the Prison Department. I am not aware that they pay a lower rate of wages than other firms, but I will inquire into the matter.

    Lunacy Act, 1890.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Home Secretary with reference to the requirement of the Lunacy Act, 1890, Section 8, Sub-section (2), that where a lunatic who has not been personally seen by the judicial authority has been received as a private patient by the manager of an institution for lunatics, or by a person taking charge of him as a single patient, such manager or person

    1347
    shall, within twenty-four hours after reception, give the patient a notice in writing of his right to be taken before or visited by a judicial authority, if he can state how many cases have occurred in the five years last past of this direction of law not having been obeyed; whether there has been any instance of a prosecution for the misdemeanour having been instituted by or on behalf of the Lunacy Commissioners; and if he will state in what way the liberty of the subject is protected in the case of such incarceration where the above requirement has been ignored and the protection of judicial authority avoided?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Lunacy Commissioners are unable to state definitely the number of cases in which notice in writing has not been given, but they believe them to be very few. Where any failure has occurred the person in default has been seriously warned, but there has been no case in which, in their opinion, a prosecution was called for. Where there is a failure to give the notice, the patient is protected by the report which has to be made to the Commissioners, and by the visits and inquiries which the Commissioners make.
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Home Secretary, with reference to the requirement of the Lunacy Act, 1890, Section 8, Sub-section (2), and the statutable misdemeanour of disobedience thereto, whether there is any rule or practice whereby a Lunacy Commissioner, who may afterwards discover that the patient has not been informed of his right to be taken before or be visited by a judicial authority, can condone the disobedience; and on what law such condonation is based?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is no such rule or practice. If any case comes to the knowledge of the Commissioners they will prosecute if they consider that the circumstances require them to take that course.
    Mr. HINDSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Police-constable Davies. 706 W Division, was transferred from Clapham station to the Croydon station on the 3rd day of February, 1913; if he is aware that only a few days previously the Commissioner of Police had upheld the constable's appeal against the transfer; if he is aware that the said constable submitted, through Superintendent West of the W Division, a second appeal
    1348
    reminding Sir E. R. Henry of his decision in the matter of only a few days previously; will he state whether the second appeal was forwarded to the Commissioner of Police; and whether he will grant an inquiry into Police-constable Davies's case and into the administrative control of the canteen funds at the Clapham and Croydon stations, respectively?
    Mr. McKENNA: Police-constable Davies was punished for misconduct, and his transfer to another station was directed. He appealed to the Commissioner against the order of transfer, and the Commissioner, while upholding the transfer, varied the incidence of the cost thereof. A further representation was made by Police-constable Davies, but his request was not acceded to by the Commissioner. There is no sufficient ground for any further inquiry into this case, and I am advised by the Commissioner that there are no grounds for an inquiry into the control of the mess funds at Clapham and Croydon stations, which are administered by responsible committees.

    Post Office Employés (Allowances).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General whether the marriage allowance of 3s. a week on reaching the age of twenty-five to postmen and others promoted to positions as telegraphists, sorters, etc., made in 1905, has since been discontinued; if so, will he state when the change was made, and under whose instructions and the reasons therefor; and whether any substituted allowance or payment was given in lieu of the grant of 3s., and the nature thereof?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): The allowance which the hon. Member has in mind ceased automatically on the introduction in 1908 of the revised scales of pay recommended by the Parliamentary Committee on Post Office Servants which had reported in 1907. Those scales were considered at the time to provide adequate remuneration for the work to be performed. They have lately been revised by a further Committee.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask if in 1905 this 3s. was not granted, and if, following the Hobhouse Report in 1908, this 3s. was not withdrawn and 8d. given in lieu thereof?
    Captain NORTON: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. F. HALL: That is in the question.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what are the terms of the licence to the Hull Corporation to work its own telephone system; and whether the grant of such licence indicates a policy of decentralisation in the telephone service?
    Captain NORTON: The terms of the proposed new licence to the Hull Corporation are still under discussion. They will not differ materially from those of the licence under which the corporation worked its telephone system up to the end of 1911, except that the term of the new licence will be twenty-one years from the 1st January, 1912. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The only other municipal telephone system, which belongs to the corporation of Portsmouth and has a licence to 1926, is about to be taken over by the Post Office on purchase.
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Postmaster-General if he has decided to instal a telephone exchange in Bloxwich; and, if so, when he expects it to be open for use?
    Captain NORTON: The establishment of an exchange at Bloxwich has been sanctioned, and negotiations for the necessary accommodation are now in a forward state. It will not, however, be possible to open the exchange for some months owing to the amount of new construction work on hand.
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to state when the extension of the trunk telephone system will be extended from Tralee to Listowel?
    Captain NORTON: I regret that I am not yet in a position to give the information desired. I am awaiting a Report on the financial aspect of the scheme, and hope to be able to give a decision in the matter shortly.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this question has been under consideration for three years, and will he expedite the matter as much as possible?
    Captain NORTON: We are endeavouring to expedite the matter, but we are in great difficulties in reference to these arrangements, more especially as regards Ireland.

    Post Office (Holt Committee's Report).
    Mr. BUTLER LLOYDasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst the Post Office employés of all grades with the recommendation of the Holt Commission Report; and whether he will use his influence to obtain an opportunity to discuss that Report?
    Captain NORTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which have recently been given to similar questions.

    Oxford Parishes (Ecclesiastical Commissioners).
    Viscount VALENTIAasked the hon. Member for the Doncaster Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the scheme embodying the proposed arrangements in connection with Oxford parishes of which in his answer of 24th March he stated that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were cognisant?
    Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON: A statement of the proposed arrangements as known to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall be laid upon the Table of the House.

    Hay and Straw Imports.
    Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can give the amount of hay and straw imported into this country this year, with the corresponding amount last year; and if he can say from what countries it is being sent?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The quantities of hay and straw received in the first three months of 1913 and 1914, respectively, were as follows:

    1913.

    1914.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    Hay

    21,699

    4,506

    Straw

    1,346

    555

    The hay imports came in 1913 from Sweden, Norway, Canada, and the United States, and in 1914 from Norway, Sweden, and Canada. The straw imports came from Sweden, Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands in each year.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Does that include the imports for the military?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As far as I know, it includes all imports.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman cognisant that there is no foot-and-mouth disease in any of those countries from which hay or straw is being imported?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is our information.

    Milk Sales (Railway Stations).
    Mr. MOUNTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can give information as to the amount of surplus milk on sale at the various railway stations, in addition to the prices at which it is sold, in the Return of market prices issued weekly by the Board of Agriculture?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that no record is kept of the quantity of surplus milk on sale at the various railway stations each day, and that it would be difficult to obtain reliable figures.

    Tobacco (United Kingdom).
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture how much has been expended out of the Development Fund on the encouragement of the growth of tobacco and the growth of sugar beet in the United Kingdom during each of the last three years?
    Mr. MONTAGU: No sums were issued out of the Development Fund for the purposes referred to before the financial year 1913–14. In that year the following sums were issued:

    Tobacco-growing in Great Britain, £5,700.

    Tobacco-growing in Ireland, £2,500.

    The organisation and instruction of farmers in the growth of sugar-beet in England, £11,000.

    Civil Servants (Pensions).
    Mr. COWANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a statement has been received by the Treasury from the United Association of ex-Naval and Military Civil servants embodying an estimate of the cost of granting pensions, taking into account Colour service as well as Civil service, to ex-naval and military Civil servants; if so, whether he has taken any steps to check the accuracy or otherwise of the estimate given; and, if not, whether he now proposes to do so?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My right hon. Friend has been unable to trace the receipt of any such statement.

    Local Taxation Committee.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government must be taken to have rejected in advance the Report of the majority of the Local Taxation Committee on the Rating of Land Values, or whether they will be willing to reconsider the position in the light of that Report?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to his previous statements on this subject.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is it the case that the Report of this Committee against the rating of site values is contrary to the policy to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged himself at Glasgow in advance of the Report?
    Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at the statement to which I have referred him, he will see what it is, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Is it the fact that there are two Reports, one signed by seven Members of the Committee and the other by six Members of the Committee; and the Minority Report contains a statement in support of the taxation of land values, and is much more intelligent than the statement of the majority?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is there any precedent for a Government taking its policy from a Departmental Committee?
    Mr. CASSEL: Is there any precedent for a Government not waiting until a Departmental Committee has reported?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CAMP QUARTERMASTERS.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in the Army Council arrangements for Artillery practice at Home during 1914, riding masters have been appointed to the post of camp quartermaster to the detriment of the warrant officers whose training entitles them, and not riding masters, for these positions; and that this affects 181 warrant officers who are led to expect these opportunities to serve as camp quartermasters as the need comes round each year; and will he call the attention of the Army Council to this complaint of warrant officers serving with the Colours?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): This is a temporary duty for which officers are detailed: the officers selected are, as a rule, quartermasters or riding masters. Warrant officers have never been employed, and I do not think they can have been led to expect that they would get these appointments.

    FRENCH ARMY (VOLUNTARY RECRUITS).
    Sir C. HUNTERasked what number of soldiers the French maintain, either at home or abroad, recruited voluntarily?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Written Answer given to the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division On the 30th ultimo.

    PENSIONS (SERGEANTS).
    Major GASTRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the present rate of permanent pension for an Army sergeant who has been in the Service for the full maximum period of twenty-one years, but whose service, as a sergeant, amounts to eleven years 300 days; whether the pension he is entitled to in such circumstances is any larger than if he had held the rank of sergeant for nine years; what proportion of the sergeants leaving the Army receive the maximum pension to which soldiers of this class are entitled; and whether he will consider the desirability of rearranging the scale of pensions graduated to shorter intervals than three years?
    Mr. TENNANT: The rates are: For quartermaster-sergeants, 2s. 6d. a day; for colour-sergeants, 2s. 3d. a day; for sergeants, 2s. a day. The answer to the second part of the question is "No"; and to the third part, that 60 per cent. receive the maximum rate of their class. The cost of making the rearrangement suggested in the last part of the question would be, I am afraid, prohibitive.

    COMMISSIONS FROM THE RANKS.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Under-Secretacy of State for War if he will state the number of men in the Regular Army who have obtained commissions from the ranks during the eight years ended 31st December, 1913; the number of commissions similarly granted in the preceding eight years; and if he will consider as to the appointment of an expert committee to consider and report as to the
    1354
    conditions obtaining in regard to the grant and holding of commissions with the object, so far as may be compatible with the efficiency of the Service, of extending the opportunities of obtaining commissions to persons whose lack of means otherwise prevents them entering the Army except through the ranks?
    Mr. TENNANT: During the period ended 31st December, 1913, 119 commissions as second lieutenant have been given and 378 as quartermaster and riding master. The corresponding figures for the previous eight years are 203 and 552. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for East Perth-shire on the 26th and 31st March.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reply to which he has referred does not answer the question? Will he therefore give a reply?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that it does not reply to the question of the hon. Member.

    ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH (OVERTIME).
    Mr. CROOKSasked when the messengers engaged at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, will be allowed to draw overtime pay after working the normal week of forty-eight hours which is in practice in all the working departments of the War Office?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The fact that these men are liable on some occasions to be called upon to work extra hours without overtime payment is taken into consideration in fixing their wages.

MONASTIR (BRITISH VICE-CONSUL).
Mr. BAIRD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether there is any truth in the report in the newspapers to-day that His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Monastir has been beaten by the authorities of the province?
Sir E. GREY: The notice of the hon. Member, owing to an oversight, has only reached me at this moment. The answer is that I have received no information confirming the report.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIRING ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. GODFREYLOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the retirement allowances offered in the Government of Ireland Bill to existing Civil servants who decline to take service under the new Irish Government have been condemned as inadequate by large bodies of Civil servants in Ireland; and whether the Government have been requested by these Civil servants to allow in the present Bill the same retirement terms as were proposed in the Government of Ireland Bill of 1893 and the Irish Councils Bill of 1907?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Civil Service retirement scheme contained in the Government of Ireland Bill is more favourable to the service as a whole than the scheme in the Bills of 1893 or 1907. It was framed after communication with a committee representing 5,000 Civil servants in Ireland, and although amongst so large a body there may be several individuals who think that their particular cases might have been treated differently, I believe that it is recognised by the service generally that the present scheme is, I will not say generous, but, at any rate, fair and reasonable, and preferable to the schemes of 1893 or 1907.

  JOINT EXCHEQUER BOARD.
  Mr. GOULDINGasked the Chief Secretary whether he can now announce the name of the chairman of the Joint Exchequer Board under the Government of Ireland Bill?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.
  Mr. GOULDING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the name will be announced before the Bill leaves this House?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think I can answer that question.

  IMPORTATION OF ARMS.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked under what Act of Parliament Michael Davitt was charged with importing arms into Ire-
  1356
  land and sentenced, in July, 1870, to fourteen years' penal servitude; whether the same law is still on the Statute Book; and if so, why similar proceedings are not taken against others who are alleged to be at present engaged in committing similar offences?
  Mr. McKENNA: Michael Davitt was charged with feloniously compassing to dethrone the Queen and levy war against her under the Treason Felony Act, 1848. That Act is still on the Statute Book, and may be used if any persons are found to be committing similar offences.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Put it in force at once.

  TRANSFER ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say when, where, and how Irish Members of Parliament are to be afforded an opportunity of considering with any effect Irish Transfer Orders in Council under Section 47 of the Government of Ireland Bill, which Orders are to have the force of the Act itself; and, seeing that they will affect Ireland chiefly, if he will afford Irish representatives this opportunity by submitting the Orders provisionally within the present Session?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to Clause 48 of the Bill which provides for the Orders in Council being laid before Parliament and for the Orders being annulled on address from Parliament. As to the second part of the question, the answer is in the negative.
  Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not said how the Irish Members are going to have an opportunity of considering these Orders since the Irish Members, on the theory of the Bill, are not to be here then?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Irish Members will have no difficulty whatever in considering them.
  Mr. GINNELL: How?
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

  1357
  whether any Orders have been issued, are likely to be issued, or will be issued for the coercion of Ulster by the forces of the Crown?
  Mr. McKENNA: The policy of the Government in this matter was clearly explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his speech on Tuesday last.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would be able to give me a more specific reply if I inserted the word "immediate" before the word "coercion"?
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Have the Government changed their policy between the delivery of Lord Haldane's speech and its publication?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. When read with the context, I think it is quite clear that what my Noble Friend said in another place did not differ from the policy of the Government as stated in this House.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as amended?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member puts his amended question on paper.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: May I ask whether the hon. Member for Sheffield would be likely to get the information he requires from the Moderator of the General Assembly?

  CURRAGH OFFICERS.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Home Secretary if he will state why, in contemplation of military duty in Ulster, an option to disappear was given to officers domiciled in Ulster but not to non-commissioned officers and men in the same position?
  Mr. McKENNA: Should the occasion arise any such option as is referred to in the question which might be given to officers would be given also to non-commissioned officers and men.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Why was it not given on the occasion when it did arise?
  Mr. McKENNA: The point had not been considered. It had not reached the stage on that occasion at which it might have been considered.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Did not the Prime Minister tell this House that though it might be a new precedent it was one which the Government had directed should be always followed?
  Mr. McKENNA: That was the substance of the answer I have given.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then why, in this case, was it not followed?
  Mr. McKENNA: Because the occasion had not fully arisen.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Had not the occasion arisen to ask the question, or to give the option to the officers, and since occasion had arisen to give the option to the officers, why had it not arisen to give it to the non-commissioned officers?
  Mr. McKENNA: Because proceedings had been begun with the object of ascertaining the number of officers who might claim the option, but proceedings had not gone further.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: How was it, if the occasion had arisen for considering the consciences of the officers, it had riot arisen for considering the consciences of the men?
  Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked what instructions were given to Major-General Sir C. Macready when he was sent to Belfast; and if the same instructions were given to the general commanding the troops there?
  Mr. McKENNA: Sir Nevil Macready was sent to report on certain points to the Government. He has now returned.
  Mr. J. WARD: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that this general received instructions to visit the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
  Mr. J. WARD: Did he do so?
  Mr. McKENNA'Sreply was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked whether on any day in March prior to the 20th March any, and, if any, what instructions were given to Sir Arthur Paget to convene a meeting of the officers under his command for the purpose of obtaining an undertaking as to their course of action in the event of the military forces of the Crown being employed in Ulster?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what instructions were given?
  Mr. McKENNA: The only answer that I can give to the question on the Paper is in the negative.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked whether General Gough has resumed command of the Cavalry Brigade at the Curragh; and whether he now serves under any terms or conditions different front those of other officers in relation to the contingency of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming an Act of Parliament?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.
  Mr. CASSELasked Whether hypothetical questions as to what they would do in certain contingencies have been asked of officers other than those at the Curragh, and, if so, where and to what extent; and were any such questions put on written or printed forms or in writing?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Government have no knowledge of any such questions.

  GENERAL SIR ARTHUR PAGET.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask whether the Government have any further telegrams to communicate to the House from General Paget in regard to the resignations?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. As promised by the Prime Minister, I have here all the telegrams which were sent, but some of which were not included in the original Papers because they were not regarded as relevant. The first is: Sent midnight, 20th March, 1914. From Secretary of
  1360
  State for War to General Sir Arthur Paget.
  "Your second telegram just received. It is not clear whether any officers of 4th Hussars implicated or whether you have any reason to complain of officers commanding that regiment. Please reply at once."
  From General Sir Arthur Paget to the Secretary of State for War. Received 6 o'clock 21st. March, 1914.
  "All officers 4th Hussars doing duty are implicated. Believe colonel is present, but will wire again."
  From General Sir Arthur Paget to Secretary of State for War. Received 10.37 a.m., 21st March, 1914.
  "Am going myself this morning to the Curragh and will send a full telegraphic report later. Colonel 4th Hussars is implicated."
  From Secretary of State to General Sir Arthur Paget, Dublin. Sent 11.30 a.m., 21st March, 1914.
  "You should instruct colonel, 4th Hussars, to report himself, as in case of the others, to the Adjutant-General, War Office."
  From Sir Arthur Paget, Dublin, to Adjutant-General. Received Saturday evening, 21st March, 1914.
  "Hogg has withdrawn his resignation."
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the telegrams which the right hon. Gentleman read from Sir Arthur Paget dated the 21st (Saturday) is one in which he states he is proceeding himself to the Curragh and will send a full telegraphic report. Was that telegraphic report ever received here and, if so, will that be read?
  Mr. McKENNA: All the reports received I have now read. Those which I now read for the first time were not included in the White Paper because they were not regarded as relevant.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Are we to understand that the promised telegraphic report of the result of Sir Arthur Paget's visit to the Curragh was never sent?
  Mr. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman would perhaps put a question on the Paper. I shall have to consult the documents.
  Mr. J. WARD: Arising out of that answer, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, after all, it is impossible to suppress full discussion on this subject, and had he not better publish the whole-of these Papers?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have explained to the House that that has been done. All the telegraphic messages have been published, and there is nothing further to add.
  Mr. J. WARD: Arising out of the further reply of the right hon. Gentleman, is it not a fact, that a similar statement to what he has now made was made before, yet there were other telegrams which were not published?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; my hon. Friend must not misunderstand the point. The statement was made previously that all relevant telegrams had been published. I think anyone who studies the telegrams which I have now read, and which include all the telegraphic matter which has passed, will say that the later telegrams now published are not really relevant to any question which was in issue at the time.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask whether the action of the colonel of the 4th Hussars was not relevant?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. It was not because, as the right hon. Gentleman will see by the last telegram, "Hogg"—that was the colonel of the 4th Hussars—"has withdrawn."
  Colonel YATE: Is it usual and customary for the Secretary of State, on matters of discipline, to telegraph direct to the General Officer Commanding and not through the Adjutant-General?
  Mr. McKENNA: I shall have to have notice of that question.
  Mr. AMERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that these telegrams do not yet make it clear how the dismissal of the officer commanding the 16th Lancers—not the 4th Hussars—was ordered by the War Office on the assumption that he had been implicated?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think if the hon. Gentleman examines the original Army Paper, he will see that on the evening of the 20th March, 7 o'clock, a telegram was sent—
  "Officer commanding the 5th Lancers states all officers except two, and one doubtful, are resigning
  1362
  their commissions to-day. I much fear same conditions in 16th Lancers. Fear men will refuse to move."
  The next telegram, received at 11.35, goes on to say:—
  "Regret, to report brigadier and fifty-seven officers, 3rd Cavalry Brigade, prefer dismissal if ordered North."
  The number fifty-seven shows that it must include all the three regiments; but inasmuch as the 4th Hussars had not been mentioned, a specific question was, directed as to the 4th Hussars. I have read the series of telegrams which relate to that regiment. It is quite clear, and anybody must so infer from the number given, that both the 5th and 16th Lancers were involved.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see, from what he has just read out, that all the information the War Office had to act upon when they dismissed the colonel of the 16th Lancers from his command and appointed his successor was that General Paget said he feared they would take the same step, and does not he know that as the fifty-seven officers mentioned did not include all the officers, it was absolutely impossible for them to be sure that the colonel of the 16th Lancers was included?
  Mr. McKENNA: From the information at their disposal the War Office concluded—and rightly concluded—that the officers concerned amongst the fifty-seven names included the colonels of the 5th and 16th Lancers.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is quite true that the assumption of the War Office was correct; but does the right hon. Gentleman deny that if that is all the information they possessed, they actually dismissed this. officer from his command when they had no information that he had done anything deserving dismissal?
  Mr. AMERY: May I ask if the right lion. Gentleman is aware that there were sixty-five officers in the brigade, and could the War Office have been aware without knowing how many—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put down a question.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask whether the Government will now pro-

  1363
  duce, not only all the telegraphic messages, but all the written dispatches and all communications that have passed?
  Mr. McKENNA: There are no written communications, or dispatches, or telegraphic messages relating to the matters in question which have not been produced.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the original instructions given to General Paget are consistently refused to this House, and by whom they were given?
  Mr. McKENNA: That question has been answered twice in the course of this afternoon. The instructions were given by the Secretary of State on the responsibility of the Cabinet, and they have been published.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: The original instructions?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes; the instructions of 14th March.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There must be a limit now to this cross-examination.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any naval officer was sent from the War Staff at the Admiralty to be attached to the staff of General Sir Arthur Paget; whether cables were laid and connections made with the existing telegraph and telephone system from a man-of-war at Kingston connected with the military Commander-in-Chief's headquarters; and, if so, with what object?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: A naval officer has for some time been attached to the General Staff of the War Office, and this officer was, on the 20th of last month, attached temporarily to Sir Arthur Paget's staff, at his request, to advise on any question connected with the embarkation or disembarkation of troops. Nothing is known at the Admiralty of the matters mentioned in the second part of the question.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked whether Sir Arthur Paget was summoned to London on any day in March, prior to the 20th March, to receive instructions as
  1364
  to the conduct of military matters in Ulster; and whether, in connection with the instructions which were given to him, the protection of military stores was a matter of secondary importance?
  Mr. McKENNA: Sir Arthur Paget was summoned to London for a general consultation on the state of affairs in Ireland. No verbal instructions on the matters referred to were given to him which were inconsistent with or went beyond the written instructions of the 14th March. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked whether, in connection with the summoning of Sir Arthur Paget to London, and in connection with the instructions which were given to him, the ex-Secretary of State for War was acting on his own responsibility or on the authority of the Cabinet, or with the knowledge and assent of any and, if any, of which of the Members thereof?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Cabinet were responsible for the instructions which were given to Sir Arthur Paget on the 14th of March.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will lay upon the Table of the House General Sir Arthur Paget's reply to the letter from the Army Council dated 14th March, 1914?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir. [See Written I Answers this date. ]

  FLEET MOVEMENTS.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty upon what date the Prime Minister was first aware of the order regarding the subsidiary movements of the 3rd Battle Squadron and the two divisions of the 4th Flotilla?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): I must refer the Noble Lord to the reply I gave to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on Wednesday last, in which I stated that the movements were authorised by the Cabinet on the 11th March.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if the Prime Minister was informed of it or knew of it at the time?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Prime Minister presided at the Cabinet on that occasion.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister in a letter to the Press on Monday week stated that there were only two cruisers ordered?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The movements were of a general character and did not relate to the specific movements for reinforcing the depots with regard to which the Prime Minister's communication was issued.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Why were they stopped?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I explained very fully to the House the reason why the ships were stopped was because no emergency had arisen out of the movement which had been successfully accomplished, and because of the prevailing excitement their movement might have been misconstrued.
  Mr. F. HALL: May I ask whether the Prime Minister actually knew of this movement before instructions were given for the movement of the squadron or was only informed of it afterwards?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: At the Cabinet, on 11th March, a week or ten days before the movement actually begun, authority was given by the Cabinet for such a movement to be made, the Prime Minister being present at the time.
  Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Mediterranean Fleet has been ordered home suddenly; and if it is usual for this Fleet to come home for Easter leave?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Sir, there is no truth in the report.

  MR. ROWLAND HUNT'S CIRCULAR.
  Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will lay upon the Table the document furnished to him by the War Office relating to the British Army and Ulster written on House of Commons notepaper?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. I will circulate with the Votes a copy of the letter which was sent in a House of Commons envelope with the compliments of the hon. Member to officers and non-commissioned officers of various British regiments. [See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he tried to make the point with such unnecessary inexactitude in stating that the letter was written on House of Commons notepaper?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very sorry if I have done the hon. Gentleman any injustice in that respect. The letter was a large document printed on a kind of flimsy notepaper, which is not similar to that provided by the House of Commons, but it was sent in a House of Commons envelope, so I do not think there is any difference between us on the question of principle.
  Mr. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he said and made the point that the document was written on House of Commons notepaper. Was the letter written on the envelope or on the paper of the House of Commons?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope I may infer from these inquiries that the hon. Gentleman is ashamed of his conduct.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he ought to be ashamed of his conduct because he stated a fact that was not true?

  HYDE PARK DEMONSTRATION.
  Mr. PONSONBY: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether he is aware that in connection with the Unionist demonstration which takes place in Hyde Park on Saturday, 4th April, an officer of the National Reserve has circularised the members of that corps, inviting them to attend the demonstration wearing their medals and badges, and stating that they will be as far as possible brigaded together; and whether he is aware that members of the Territorial Force in North Islington have been asked

  1367
  to march to Hyde Park in uniform in return for a payment of 1s. 6d. each? If he is not in a position to give the information, will he make inquiries?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no information at present, but I will make inquiries into the matter.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).
Sir Harry Samuel reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

COMMONS REGULATION (GOSFORD GREEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

STOURBRIDGE NAVIGATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Parliamentary Elections (Polling Day) Bill): Mr. Buxton, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Trevelyan; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Sir John Barran, Mr. King, and Mr. Herbert Samuel.
Report to lie upon the Table.

COMMONS (ELMSTONE HARDWICKE COMMON FIELDS INCLOSURE).
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence relative thereto, brought up, and read;
Special Report brought up, and read;
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 179.]
Minutes of Evidence to be printed. [No. 179.]

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate and amend the
1382
enactments relating to British nationality and the status of aliens." [British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers on the Whitwell and District Gas Company." [Whitwell and District Gas Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers on the Skegness Gas Company." [Skegness Gas Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to extend the limits of supply of the Leighton Buzzard Gas Company; to authorise the company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Leighton Buzzard Gas Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Newport to construct a bridge over the River Usk and tramways and other works; and for other purposes." [Newport Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Valley Rural District Council to obtain a supply of water from the stream known as the Bodsuran stream, and from springs and streams in the neighbourhood thereof, in the parish of Llechcynfarwydd, in the county of Anglesey, and to supply water in the parish of Llanfaelog; and for other purposes." [Llanfaelog Water Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend The Nottingham Mechanics Institution Act, 1912." [Nottingham Mechanics Institution (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for empowering the British Gas Light Company, Limited, to expend further capital at Kingston-upon-Hull." [British Gas Light Company (Hull Station) Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the urban district council of Mablethorpe, in the county of Lincoln, with respect to certain lands locally known as sandhills or dunes, and situate within the urban district; and for other purposes." [Mablethorpe Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]
Whitwell and District Gas Bill [Lords],
Skegness Gas Bill [Lords],
Leighton Buzzard Gas Bill [Lords],
Newport Corporation Bill [Lords],
Llanfaelog Water Bill [Lords],
Nottingham Mechanics Institution (Amendment) Bill [Lords],
British Gas Light Company (Hull Station) Bill [Lords],
Mablethorpe Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Resolved, "That the Proceedings on the Government of Ireland Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Home Secretary what business will be taken in this House the week we resume after the holidays?
Mr. McKENNA: On the Tuesday that the House reassembles we propose to take the Epileptic and Defective Children (Education) Bill, the Criminal Justice Administration Bill, and some smaller Orders on the Paper.
As to Wednesday and Thursday, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would put a further question to me on Monday.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary —I presume I shall address him, though I gave private notice yesterday to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—whether the Government can now give any indication of the date on which the Budget Statement will be made?
Mr. McKENNA: There is every hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to make a statement on a day in the week beginning 19th of April.
Mr. AMERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he hopes to be able to bring forward the Imperial Naturalisation Bill?
Mr. McKENNA: The Bill is being introduced in another place, and we hope to bring it on here as soon as it comes down.
Mr. IAN MALCOLM: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any assurance that the Welsh Bill will not be taken the week after?
Mr. McKENNA: I cannot give any assurance.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  DISORDERLY HOUSES BILL.
  "To amend the Disorderly Houses Act, 1751, and the Laws relating to brothels." Presented by Mr. HARRIS; supported by Sir Harry Samuel and Mr. Lawson; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 16th April, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]
  OSBORNE ESTATE BILL.
  "To authorise the extension of the classes of persons for whose benefit part of Osborne House is to be used; and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN; to be. read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]
  IRISH LAND BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the occupation and ownership of land in Ireland; and for other purposes relating thereto." Presented by Mr. BIRRELL; supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary McKenna, Mr. Herbert Samuel, and Mr. Attorney-General; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 160.].
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Intermediate Education in Ireland; and for-other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. BIRRELL; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Order read for resuming adjourned' Debate on Amendment [31st March] to Question [9th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words" upon this day six months."—[Mr. Walter Long.]
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." Debate resumed.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. PIRIE: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question. Yesterday the Chair, in reply to a question,

  1385
  expressed regret that the question of the Army versus the People was introduced into a Debate on the Government of Ireland Bill. May I ask whether the House should not be reminded of this expression made by you presiding over our Debates in order that we may get, on the Speaker's authority, a better settlement of the question which the House is now discussing?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid it does not rest with me to guide the Debate. I was asked yesterday by an hon. Member for my view, and I said I thought it was rather regrettable that as we had spent considerable time on the other topic, attention should not be devoted more directly to the Home Rule Bill. Any matters of course which I consider to be relevant to the Home Rule Bill, I should allow, but if I thought the discussion was proceeding into matters which were irrelevant it would be my duty to interfere.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I can perfectly understand, Sir, both the question of the hon. Gentleman, and your reply, and I feel that you, Sir, in all your long experience in the Chair must have seldom listened to a Debate whose main essential was more remote from the subject under discussion than the Debate to which we have listened yesterday and the day before. If that be an offence, and I do not think it is, probably the greatest offender of all was the Minister for Foreign Affairs who never from beginning to end of his speech, referred so far as my recollection goes to the merits or the demerits of the Home Rule Bill. I do not think, if I may say so, he was to blame at all except in so far as he was one of those responsible for the passage of the Parliament Act, because evidently the situation—the absolutely unexampled situation—in which we find ourselves is the direct result of that measure. It was supposed by the authors of it, and by some of those who supported it, perhaps it was even thought by some on this side of the House, that in the course of three years we should in successive Sessions discuss the merits of the Bill, and that may happen, and has happened, for example, in the Welsh Church Bill. Why has it not happened in this Bill? Why are not we discussing, and why cannot we discuss, in detail the merits or the demerits of the Home Rule Bill? Why? Because the situation has absolutely changed since that Home Rule Bill was introduced.
  1386
  Nobody's thoughts are this moment fixed upon the merits or the demerits of that Bill, but upon the impasse, the hopeless muddle, into which the Government, this House of Commons, and the country have been driven by the policy of His Majesty's Government.
  We are nominally discussing a Bill for the Better Government of Ireland; we are nominally discussing a Bill which was intended, so we were always told, to bring peace to Ireland. What are we actually discussing? We are actually discussing how war is to be avoided; we are actually discussing how a message of peace is to be prevented lighting a conflagration in the North of Ireland, such as this country has not known for centuries. Well, no wonder those accustomed to the ordinary conduct of our procedure are astonished to find, through no desire to transgress any Rules of this House, but from an overmastering force of circumstances, anybody who talks about the Home Rule Bill is regarded as dealing with irrelevant matter. Does anybody doubt that? I listened to the speech delivered by my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir Robert Finlay) the Member for the Edinburgh University yesterday. In the greater part of that speech he dwelt, as we have all dwelt, as we feel bound to dwell, upon the problems forced upon our attention by the present Ulster crisis. At, the end my right hon. and learned Friend wandered into the subject before the House, and actually ventured to give certain, as I think, admirable and conclusive reasons, why the Home Rule Bill is a bad Bill for Ireland, why it was a bad Bill for Britain, and not least of all why it was a bad Bill for the South and West of Ireland. The whole House then felt he was talking about something in which they had no further interest. How conies that about? It comes about because while nominally this House is called together to discuss a new plan of Bill, a new and, as the Government think, an improved legislative structure for Ireland, in reality what we are all rushing to prevent, is the whole building coming down upon our heads and crushing those in it. That is a most lamentable state of things, and I do not know really how it is possible to avoid, or how the House would tolerate any responsible speaker avoiding this main question which has no more to do with the merits or demerits of the Home Rule Bill for Ireland, than it has to do with the merits or the demerits of the Bill which this House recently passed for South Africa. No, Sir, what is in the

  1387
  minds of all of us at this moment is not the merits or the demerits of this Bill, but how on earth, with decent credit to ourselves, we can avoid a rational catastrophe.
  I heard the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) yesterday. He began by saying that he had never heard in all his experience of this House a Debate so admirable in tone and temper and in the conciliatory spirit displayed than the one which took place here within these walls two days ago. Well, Sir, does that mean that we are agreed? No, Sir, it means that we were frightened. It means that there are great catastrophes in which all minor differences no doubt sink into relative unimportance, but at the same time their absolute importance remains wholly undiminished. We think as fervently as we ever thought that there never was a worse policy than what is called Home Rule for Ireland, even as regards the South and West, and we think, as we have always thought, that if you are to have Home Rule, this is the most preposterous, the most ill-conceived, the most ill-constructed, and the most inconsistent measure that was ever sought to be forced through the House of Commons. These are strong views to hold, and we hold them passionately, fervently, as we always have done, yet such is the pass which the Government has brought us to that we can hardly listen with patience to each other, while we debate the true difficulty, at any rate, if not the true difficulty, the immediate and over-mastering difficulty in which we find ourselves. We all endeavour to avoid some great catacylsm. What are the smaller differences that in happier times divide us? What do they matter? I have no doubt that there are people who suppose that the difficulties in which we find ourselves, and the Government find themselves, are due to the Army. I need not say I regret the line taken up about the Army by Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. They are in a less responsible position than Ministers on the Government Bench. I regret also, not merely the wild words of the First Lord of the Admiralty, but the even relatively sober declaration of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, because even he, with his characteristically moderate manner, allowed certain phrases to fall from him the day before yesterday, in which he actually seemed to imply that, to his mind, this notion of the Army dictating the
  1388
  policy as an Army to this Government or any Government was impossible at the present or any possible future time, and he used words which almost suggested that we were on the eve of a revolution.
  If the people of this country want revolution, they are the masters, and they can have it. But a hundred revolutions, even though they be as often as revolutions in a Central American Republic, will not alter the facts about the Army if you have an Army. That Army must either be a voluntary Army, or it must be an Army raised by compulsory conscription, or it must be a mercenary Army. If you are to have any Army at all, it must be on one of these three plans. Hon. Gentlemen opposite—and here I am in less opposition to them than on many other questions—think that a compulsory Army is, at all events, at present unnecessary. Then they must either have a voluntary Army or a mercenary Army. If you have a voluntary Army, how can you have it otherwise, or on different lines from the present Army? You cannot have it. There is no favouritism exercised as to the admission of the recruits or the officers—
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Oh!
  Mr. BALFOUR: The difficulty is to get officers, the difficulty is to get recruits. Nothing, I suppose, would satisfy the hon. Gentleman opposite, who interrupted me just now, but that you should require every officer, in addition to showing competence in military affairs, to pass an examination in the principles of the Liberal party and the followers of the hon. Gentleman. These men and officers are chosen at random from all sections of the population who are prepared to join the Army. How on earth can you alter that system? You can destroy it. It is difficult enough now under a voluntary system to keep your supply of men and officers up to the level admittedly required by the interests of this country. You can destroy that, but you certainly cannot make it other than it is. You cannot, in other words, prevent a man and an officer still being one of our fellow countrymen, brought up in the same surroundings, as we all are, brought up in the same traditions, as we all are, having presumably the same ideals as those common to Britons here and across the sea. That you cannot help. If you want to help it, there is only one way. Surround yourself like some Oriental potentate with a mercenary bodyguard of men who have nothing whatever to do with this country,

  1389
  who do not belong to our race, who have no share in our rights and traditions, and there you get the idea of the hon. Gentleman. It is not my business to discuss, and I am not discussing whether the People versus the Army is a good or a bad cry. There are some hon. Gentlemen who merely seem to think that the art of statesmanship and the art of manufacturing cries are one and the same industry. I am not concerned in that. I am concerned with much bigger and deeper things, and I only regret—and I most profoundly and deeply regret—that this class of discussion has been forced upon us. I think it most deleterious. I think it most unhappy and most unfortunate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then turn it off."] I said so with all the earnestness in my power on Monday week, and I repeat it now. I say it is most unfortunate that these questions should have to be raised at all, but when they have been raised, do not let us go away with wild and erroneous notions.
  At all events, let me, for my own sake if for nobody else's, say what to me appears the true state of the case. It is obvious, it is plain and it is admitted, that the business of the soldier is to obey orders. It is admitted, it is plain and it is obvious that in this country, ever since the time of Oliver Cromwell, or at all events, ever since the time of James II., the Army is, and must be, under civilian control. That is to say, the orders must ultimately come with the authority of the people of this country as represented by the Government of the day. The Government of the day is sometimes misrepresented, but that is not the point. The Government of the day are for the time being the depositories of the authority. I hold that view. I think, further, that the idea that the Army is not to support the civil authority is nobody's claim, certainly nobody on this side of the House. That is the plain, commonplace, day to day code which ought to regulate the relation of the community and its Army. But everybody nows, and everybody must know, that if either through the fault or the misfortune—call it which you like—of those responsible for power at the moment, you force the whole community, including the Army, to say to themselves, and each man to say to himself, "Obviously, my first duty is to obey orders; I am a soldier. I obey, and that is my duty. But here questions have been raised which go, or seem to go, beyond the day to day code which regulates me, and which must regu-
  1390
  late every Army. What am I to do? Am I to obey these orders, or am I to leave them and take the consequences?" Can anybody deny that such cases may arise? Nobody can deny it. And mark you, it is not a question of deciding what an Army ought to do, it is for each man, be he civilian or be lie soldier, to say what he ought to do. The idea of corrupting the Army and asking it as an Army to do this, that, or the other, different from what it is ordered to do by its chief, I call that criminal. Yes, Sir, that statement of the plain day to day code carries with it by a necessary implication that the Government of the day does not press such questions, and does not require the Army to do such a thing as to compel the individual soldier, be he officer or be he private, to do that which is against his conscience. That is my view It is folly to say that that is undermining the discipline of the Army.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does that apply to Indian soldiers who are asked to fight on the frontier?
  Mr. BALFOUR: Have I ever suggested that an Indian soldier has not got a conscience?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: It applies to Indian soldiers, then?
  Mr. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt, it would be more to the purpose of this Debate if he would say which of my propositions he differs from. Which of the doctrines—which I have no doubt very imperfectly expounded, because it is difficult to deal with these subtle questions with absolute accuracy—which of the propositions I have laid down does he or anybody else differ from? I believe the case I have ventured to lay down certainly does not encourage indiscipline, and does not suggest that no soldier ought ever to be asked to deal with civil difficulties. I never suggested that. There are questions where it would be difficult to say where the line is to be drawn. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Of course, that is the whole point. That is absolutely the whole question. That is why I say it is a profound misfortune that these problems have been raised, because you cannot lay down an absolute line. I can imagine two officers or privates—it makes no difference which—saying, "While I am violently against Home Rule, and I think Ulster is monstrously treated by this Bill, I think I am bound, in spite of that, to obey any orders, even if it leads

  1391
  me into the most violent and bloody collision with those in whose cause I believe." Another man may say perfectly equally conscientiously, "I never take much interest in these questions about the constitution of the country, but I would rather sacrifice my commission and my career, my pension, and all that I value, and all that is necessary for the support of my wife and children, rather than go and get mixed up in a trouble of this kind." And those two men may be equally conscientious, although taking directly opposite courses. Who is to say from the outside which is right and which is wrong? You ought never to put the Army in that position.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: What about Irish evictions?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I have tried to lay down principles which have no national application. Wherever men have consciences, wherever men have a sense of military and civil duty, these questions may possibly be forced upon them. When they are, then I say those who are responsible for that condition of things have brought about an evil which it may take many years to repair. That was intended to lead up and does lead up to this further statement. I say your difficulties are not due to anything that has either occurred or will occur in the Army, but they are due to the fact that Ulster is determined not to be under the Home Rule Government, and the majority of Englishmen agree with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Those are really the two root difficulties. The reason why we are discussing this question in an entirely different atmosphere front that which prevailed last year and the year before is because this state of things has only just come home to the Government and its supporters. That being the root evil, I do not believe that anything will give you security for peace except the exclusion of Ulster. Seeing that the exclusion of Ulster is the cause of all your troubles, I do not see that unless you exclude it you will get out of it. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told us that in his view force was no remedy, and that force, either now or hereafter, under any circumstances, would not solve this question; that if you shot down Ulster by your troops—which, of course, from a purely tactical and strategical point of view I suppose the thing could be done, you have enough men—but if you did it, you would not have
  1392
  solved the Ulster question, and that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman.
  He admitted, if I understood him rightly, that an Ulster forced into this unnatural union would be a danger to Ireland and a danger to Great Britain. Very well, then, why force it? That is a very simple elementary question apt to be lost sight of in all these discussions as to how to get round this difficulty in this way or that, but that is the root question, and everything else is subsidiary to it. I am the last man to deny that these subsidiary questions, which are those I shall try to discuss, are of enormous importance, and the most important of them all by common consent is as to whether and when the people of this country should be consulted as to the policy which is to be pursued in Ulster. That is the question to which I think in the main the right hon. Gentleman devoted himself, and on that, perhaps, he will allow me to say a few words. Our proposal is a very simple one, and I should have thought to a House of Commons that prides itself on being democratic, the simplest and the best of all. It is that before carrying your Bill into law, which you now admit in its present shape will produce civil war [HON. MEMBER: 'No!"] I was referring to the Prime Minister. On a Bill which in its present shape would produce civil war—[HON. MEMBERS: "No; the Prime Minister did not say so!"]—well, on a Bill which, if it passes in its present shape, would produce something less than perfect peace and happiness, it would be a right thing to consult the country who, by universal admission, shared the ignorance of the Government on the attitude of Ulster when the last election was taken. I am not going over the old ground of asking in how many Ministers' addresses Home Rule was found, because there never really has been any reply to our allegations, and I am quite prepared to leave the matter where it stands. It is quite enough for me to deal with facts which are undisputed, and it is absolutely undisputed that it was never believed by the electorate or by the Government themselves that the opposition of Ulster would have the least resemblance, either in character, degree, or intensity, to that which we now know it possesses.
  We, believing ourselves to be democrats, but not really understanding the inner essence of the doctrine, think the best plan is that, under those circumstances, you should ask the people what they do think, and that you should ask them before

  1393
  the Bill passes into law. Why is not that policy carried out? It is not carried out for the fundamental reason that it would destroy "the fruits," as they are called, "of the Parliament Act." The Parliament Act, I understand, is the charter of democratic liberties, and it certainly is a very singular result of this charter of democratic liberties that it makes it quite impossible for the Government of the day to consult the people. But, so anxious are we to do everything to prevent the catastrophe which on all sides of the House we fear, that it has been pointed out that by two separate methods that loss to the Government could be avoided. Either your pride or your vanity or your patriotism make it necessary for you to go back to the constituencies saying, "We passed the Parliament Act. Look at the good things we have got from it!" Very well, it is a strange frame of mind, but we accept it. We take account of it, and we have suggested two methods by which all that you desire can be preserved for you, if the people are on your side, and which we would be ready to accept. At any rate, two Gentlemen on this bench—the Leader of the Opposition, speaking for the party, and my right hon. Friend, speaking for himself, and I think with general agreement—have both suggested that.
  One, of course, is the Referendum. I am a believer in the Referendum, and I believe, even if you do not have the Referendum as a general part of your institutions, it is eminently suited for this particular crisis. I will tell you why. It is eminently suited for this crisis, in the first place, because it does not rob you of the fruits of your precious Parliament Act. In the second place, it is eminently suited to this crisis because it enables you, from your point of view, to get rid of the plural voter, and from our point of view to get rid of the necessity of a redistribution of seats. We think that to abolish plural voting without a redistribution of seats is a gross and palpable act of gerrymandering tyranny. But it is an elaborate process. This saves it all. No redistribution is required to get the opinion of the country direct. What is the objection? It is most amusing to see Gentlemen on the other side wriggling on this particular pin. The Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) says that it is the most antidemocratic invention you could conceive—in other words, to ask the people a definite question and to get the answer is really an insult. The Foreign Secretary takes a somewhat different line. He says
  1394
  that it is an experiment. That is one of his arguments. This Government has done nothing but make experiments in constitutional building for which there is no precedent anywhere in the world. We are only asking for an experiment in a procedure which has been tried under the sanction of this House in all British Dominions, and which has long been part of the practice of various States in the United States of America. It is an experiment in this country, but it is not an experiment in constitutional procedure among men of our own speech and our own race.
  What is the other argument of the right hon. Gentleman? He said that perhaps only 30 per cent. would vote, and then you would not get the opinion of the community. I can perfectly understand, when a matter has not been discussed, thrashed out, dealt with in all the papers, or been the subject and topic of universal debate, that it may be wrong to spring upon the country a Referendum on that which they have never considered or thought about at all. Who can say that the Home Rule Bill is in that condition? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Since the last General Election—indeed, in the last four months? Supposing, under those circumstances, only 30 per cent., which is a ludicrous supposition, voted, how do you get the opinion of the country better by asking the people in the form of a General Election, and forcing them to give an opinion upon Home Rule by voting upon something else? Your theory is that you will get 70 per cent. of the whole if you ask them on every question under heaven, and that then you will really know what they think about Home Rule, but that if you only ask them about Home Rule and only 30 per cent, vote you will not get their opinion. I do not think that I have ever heard any argument quite so absurd, but the Government will not have it apparently. Will they have the other proposal, a proposal thrown out by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long)? He suggested that we could, either under the Parliament Act, as some contend, as it now is—and I see Lord Selborne contended rightly or wrongly—take a General Election without imperilling your three successive Sessions, or pass an amending Act by consent ad hoc for this purpose, and so that you might go to the country without imperilling your three Sessions. That would get over all

  1395
  the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman. What objection has he to that? He spoke, remember, after my right hon. Friend. He had heard my right hon. Friend's suggestion, but he did not make any reference to it. He left it severely alone. It is open even to the charitable to suppose that he did not give an answer because he had not an answer forthcoming. That is our proposal, simple, in accordance with constitutional usage, democratic in the true sense of the word, and, if that were carried out, then, although in my opinion the crime of coercing Ulster would not be diminished, the guilt of the crime would be distributed more widely than it is now. Instead of being carried out by an irresponsible junta, it would be the deliberate act of constituencies of this country, and the difference made no doubt in the situation, both here and on the other side of St. George's Channel, would be incalculable. That is our proposal, and it has been rejected.
  What are the two rival proposals with regard to an election? There is the two-elections plan. That is the plan which the Prime Minister started, and which apparently commends itself, or did commend itself, to the Government. Ulster was to be out of Home Rule for six years, during which there would be two General Elections, and in Home Rule afterwards. I am not going to discuss whether or not Ulster was wise in, as I understand, the absolute horror which it expressed at being put by Statute under a Dublin Parliament in this form or in any other form. I am now on the point of how you are to get the opinion of the people. Do consider these two elections from that point of view, and not from the point of view of Ulster. Are those two elections to be on the question of Ulster or not? Both hypotheses have been accepted by different speakers. I heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo on this subject. I think it was most interesting and instructive, and, if he will allow me to say so, extraordinary. He said, "How foolish it is for Ulster to reject this, because it is incredible that both elections should be held about Ulster. In one of those two elections it is almost incredible that the Radical party would not be kicked out of office. Why should not Ulster take it?" Is that consulting the people of this country about Ulster? Is that the democratic method of asking the people of this country whether they think Ulster ought to be forced under
  1396
  Home Rule? You are going deliberately on the theory of the two elections to have these two elections, not only not being certain that they will be on the subject of Ulster, but being certain that they will not. The whole defence of the hon. Gentleman was that they would not be on Ulster.
  Mr. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely misrepresenting what I say. I said this: Surely the Tory party would have some other articles in their programme besides Ulster, and, according to their view, the addition to the rest of their programme of the question of the coercion of Ulster would be a great electoral advantage.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Have I substantially misrepresented the hon. Gentleman? I should be very sorry to do so, but have I done so? His contention, as amended, or, at any rate, as stated to-day—I have no doubt accurately restated—is that Ulster will be so diluted by other topics that practically we may be sure that the electorate of this country will decide in favour of Ulster. They will be so sick of this Government after two elections that, whatever their views on Ulster may be, Ulster will be relieved. That is one theory, but it is not a good way of taking the opinion of the democracy upon the Ulster question. It may be a very good way from some points of view, but not from that point of view. Now I take the other theory. The other theory is that at both elections Ulster will be the topic of debate. If Ulster is the topic of debate in both elections, it must be the topic of debate between the elections as well. You cannot have the whole attention of the public directed to one set of questions between the elections and then suddenly when the election comes round diverted in a different channel. Therefore, for two elections, we are to think of nothing but Ulster, and this is the way in which the British Parliament is to be relieved of the incubus of Irish questions. I wonder whether the Government have looked back on the speeches in which they introduced the Home Rule Bill. That Bill was to do two great things: It was to give peace to Ireland, and it was to prevent us always, in this House, having to discuss Irish questions. What has it actually done? What actually up to date has been done has been to give an immediate prospect of war in Ireland, and what it will do, if the Government plans are carried out, will be to make us consider the question of Ulster, to the exclusion of all other questions, practically until these

  1397
  two previous elections have been held. I cannot understand that ever being put forward as a serious plan by serious politicians. It must have been launched by the Prime Minister as a mere ballon d'essai, as a mere subject for debate and discussion, and I cannot imagine that any human being would accept such a plan or ever thought of it. Very well, that plan seems to me to be hopeless.
  Now I will take the last of the three plans which deal with Dissolution, and which are suggested as alternatives to our simple, orthodox constitutional plan. The only other plan is, first, to put the Bill on the Statute Book and then ask the country what they think of it. May I say that, after that, the Government appear to me to have absolutely cut off all connection with constitutional tradition in this matter. We used to pride ourselves in this country and in this House that as far as possible continuity of legislation should be maintained, and that a Bill, once on the Statute Book, should, if possible, not be immediately cut off—excised if the opposite party come into power. The Government are now making discontinuity the corner stone of their policy. Their idea of legislation is first pass the Bill, and then see whether you like or wish to repeal it. But you should see whether the country like it before you pass it. The evils in all cases of this method of instantaneous reversal are great, but in the case of Ireland they are overwhelming. Think of what they are as regards the South and West. You will give to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway what they bargain for, and what I presume they have got in writing. You will give them what I have no doubt they have got in black and white definitely, namely, a promise that the Bill should become law before the General Election. That is your promise.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I denied that in the House in answer to a question.
  Mr. BALFOUR: If I had heard the right hon. Gentleman I should never have thought of misrepresenting him.
  Sir E. GREY: It was in answer to a question put from the other side, whether there was any written obligation. I said there was none whatever.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Of course, if I had heard that I should never have used the
  1398
  word "written," I should have said "definite" instead of "written." I unreservedly withdraw the word "written" and I substitute the word "definite"—a definite understanding that the Bill should be on the Statute Book before a General Election. There is no other possible explanation of the violent aversion of the Government to any of the schemes suggested on this side for having a General Election without depriving them of any privileges they have obtained. I think I am, perfectly justified in assuming that. Observe how monstrous this new policy of the Government is—the policy first of passing the Bill and then asking the country what they think of it. It is, I think, a great shame to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway—at all events to those who support them in Ireland, because you will have raised their hopes and expectations to the highest pitch; you will have put on the Statute. Book something they believe is going to be the permanent law of the country, and whatever disappointment might occur, if before the Bill became law, the country showed its objection, whatever disappointment might happen in the South and West of Ireland, would have been increased tenfold by having dangled this thing before them in the shape of an actual Statute on the Statute Book, and then seeing it snatched from them as the immediate result of a General Election. Therefore I think it very unfair to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway; but it is monstrous as regards Ulster.
  And here I must say a word or two about what the right hon. Gentleman said in another part of his speech. Having told us in the earlier part of his speech that force was no remedy, having explained that the idea of forcing Ulster into a union with Dublin was perfectly chimerical, he then went on to explain that, nevertheless, if, after the Bill was passed, anything in the nature of a provisional Government were started, of course, the Government would use all the forces of the Crown to deal with that situation. I suppose it was in consequence. of that statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the Lord Chancellor went back upon his speech, which undoubtedly represented the opinion of the Cabinet when he made it, a speech which was the corner stone in the Debate in which it was made, and which was taken up and applauded by Gentlemen who think with us in the House of Lords—plaudits

  1399
  which were taken without qualification or explanation by the Lord Chancellor. Naturally, after the speech of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he could do nothing but go back and write quickly, like the unjust steward, words which entirely altered the sense of the statement which, on Monday week, was universally regarded, and rightly regarded, as representing the then opinion of the Cabinet. I think the policy in deference to which that editing of "Hansard" took place is monstrous to Ulster, and I also think the threat of the right hon. Gentleman dangerous in itself.
  Let us conceive the position. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Why should Ulster complain of the Bill becoming law if nothing is done under it?" Of course something must immediately be done under the Bill. The whole reason why the Appointed day is put off for a year is because an enormous number of things have to be done under it before the full machinery of the Bill is in working order. From the moment that the Bill passes Ulster is legally excluded from the Union. I offer no opinion whether that does or does not justify setting up a provisional Government, but I do say that it is monstrous, simply because you have given this definite pledge to the Nationalist party, that you should put these men under the stress and temptation of saying, "This Bill is the law: we are no longer full citizens of the United Kingdom by Statute, but we must hold our hands until a General Election is taken." Their leaders may be able to induce them to do it, but why put them under the temptation? What is your justification? If, after you have done that, you find some regrettable incident occurs, as those things may occur when tension rises to breaking point, do not you think you will be responsible? You send your troops; you carry out all the military policy adumbrated by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Will not you yourselves feel responsible? You will be responsible. You admit that the country must be consulted before the Home Rule Bill comes into operation. That was admitted by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. But after having admitted it, you so arrange your plans that every temptation to outbreak is given to Ulster before the opinion of the country is taken. I call that a dangerous, a most dangerous, if not a most wicked policy, and I am surprised that the Member for East Mayo
  1400
  (Mr. Dillon), who followed the Secretary, of State, did not express, in the clearest language, his abhorrence of it. May I read what fell from the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) in an interview with a Radical paper on this point in September. "And what," asked the interviewer of the "Daily Chronicle," "about the idea of a General Election between the passing of the Bill and its coming into force?" "That," replied Mr. Redmond with decision, "would be still more unthinkable and preposterous. It would be a stupid and a cowardly action. I am perfectly satisfied the Government never has had, and has not now, any such intention." I have not the wealth of epithet at my command which comes readily to the practised tongue of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. I do not describe it as "unthinkable and preposterous," nor even as "stupid and cowardly," but I do think that a greater violation of constitutional usage, a greater break in the legislative traditions of this country, a revolutionary procedure more unfair to the South and West of Ireland, represented by hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, and more unfair to the people in the North-East of Ireland, never was devised. I cannot believe, and I do not believe, when the Government come to think it over, that they will feel that that, in its naked simplicity, is a possible policy. There was a phrase, to me at the time and indeed now quite unintelligible, which fell from the Foreign Secretary which, when developed, may possibly contain some reference to this point. I will read it. He repeats, not for the first time, that the Bill must be put on the Statute Book, and he goes on:—
  "The Bill might be placed on the statute hook in a way which I believe would be perfectly fair, as between both parties, whichever won the election."
  5.0 P.M.
  What does that mean? Has it any meaning? I think it has. I think in a speech like that, delivered by a practised diplomatist like the right hon. Gentleman, a phrase of that sort was not merely uttered to fill in a sentence, but to express—perhaps I ought to say conceal—some important suggestions. I do not know what that suggestion was. Whatever it means, it is very difficult for him to think it could be one which would not leave untouched any cure of the two dilemmas of which I have spoken, namely, the cruelty to the South and West of Ireland of seeing a Bill on the Statute Book reversed if we won,

  1401
  and the strain and temptation on the North-East of Ireland remaining patiently after they have been severed by legislation from the United Kingdom. I have surveyed these various questions of an election, and I have not touched upon the others. It is a way of getting at the opinion of the people of this country that I am mainly discussing to-day, and I have discussed all the alternatives of which I know. I am driven back, as I am always driven back when I think of this question, to some modification, be it what it may, of the scheme of my right hon. Friend, something which will enable the electors to decide without depriving hon. Gentlemen opposite of their plunder of a Church or any other of the things to which they attach real importance.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough, in his very interesting speech, to deal with the optional Home Rule that is offered?
  Mr. BALFOUR: To the hon. Gentleman I may have been obscure, but that comes under the two elections scheme. Had the hon. Gentleman studied the eloquence of the Admiralty, he would know that is their main point.
  Sir W. BYLES: It seemed to be germane to your argument, Sir.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think we have some right to complain of the position in which we are placed. Hon. Friends of mine have talked and thought a great deal about an issue to this question which could be found in some form of federalism or devolution. I ought to say that, as I understand it, federalism means so many things that it would be presumptuous for me, and trespassing too much on the time of the House to discuss it. I have never been myself a believer in cutting up the United Kingdom, but if some moderate form of devolution, such as was suggested by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) meets with universal favour and is to solve this difficulty, then I am not going to stand in the way of anything which would prevent the horrors which otherwise I foresee. But how on earth are you going to approach this question from that side? Remember—it is essential—that you cannot have a general scheme consistent with the view of the Government that this precious Bill must be on the Statute Book. It took I do not know how many years to mature the Constitutions of Australia, South Africa, and the United States. Infinite trouble and infinite pains must be
  1402
  taken before you deal with this question, and to deal with it piecemeal, if by any unhappy chance it may be necessary, can, never be described as good legislation or good statesmanship. At any rate, if you have to approach it piecemeal—that is to say, if you have to deal with the problem of Ireland before you touch the problem of Britain, you must obviously begin by treating the North-East of Ireland separately from the South, otherwise you solve no difficulty at all. You must treat them separately. They must be regarded as separate units in this structure which is some day to be built—a very extraordinary way of proceeding, but the only way if that were agreed upon.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean permanently?
  Mr. BALFOUR: At all events, until the final structure is completed. I, personally, should have thought if you are to have that kind of scheme at all, that your division ought to have been permanent. That is my own personal view, but it is not necessary to the argument. What is necessary to the argument is that you cannot put Ulster under Dublin provisionally,. saying, "Some day you will form part of a general scheme, which you will really like when you know it." You cannot really do that. That really may be wholly and truly absolutely dismissed. If, therefore, you are to have a provisional devolution, part of that devolution must be to make Ulster and the rest of Ireland separate units. I do not know what the view of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway is now. A few days ago it was violently hostile to that.
  Mr. DILLON: Hear, hear!
  Mr. BALFOUR: I did not hear, but I read the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo following upon my learned Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), in which he said that that was am impossible solution.
  Mr. DILLON: So it is, absolutely.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Apparently he thinks so still. If they will not have it, how is devolution to take place Nobody in their senses can suppose that if your object is to prevent civil war in Ulster, that end would be gained by saying to Ulster, "You must join with the rest of Ireland, until, in the course of ages, we find a way of getting a good Second Chamber, and also carrying out this system for the whole of the United Kingdom." A second

  1403
  Preamble will not help us. I understand that the President of the Local Government Board is going to follow me. I do not ask him to agree with all I have said. I do not ask him not to object too violently and not to attack, if he pleases, much that I have said. He must differ from it violently, but I do ask him to take the House at large into his confidence, telling us on what broad and general lines he has some hopes of coming to a settlement. I have endeavoured, with perfect candour, but at inordinate length, to deal with what appeared to me to be quite plain and insurmountable difficulties in certain plans that have been proposed. That is not with a view to ruling out plans, but of concentrating on plans that will succeed. Let the right hon. Gentleman help us in that task. We have almost given up the idea, at least, I have almost given up the idea that in this House and on this question we are going to try and turn out good legislation. That is an ambition far beyond our powers and our capacities. Let us content ourselves, and be happy if we succeed, if we can turn out legislation which does not bring upon us, even in a few weeks or months, calamities, the unspeakable calamities of civil war.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The note of this Debate hitherto has been one of a desire for accommodation. Hon. Members from both sides of the House who have taken part in the Debate have voiced, in earnest and cogent speeches, the desire which I think is widely felt both in the House and in the country, that some settlement of these grave issues should be found. Although the right hon. Gentleman's speech was, for the most part, almost of a purely negative character, still I thought I detected—I hope I was not over sanguine—in his last few words, that he too, a life-long opponent of Home Rule as he has been, would desire and would welcome some means of escape from this impasse, to which both parties might give their assent. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that the House in this Debate had not really addressed itself to the merits of this Bill. He did not complain—he said that the circumstances made that inevitable. Indeed, I am sure that no Member of the House would wish to repeat over again the long six months' discussion of its merits and details which occupied our attention two years ago. Our
  1404
  business now—that is the purpose and intention of the Parliament Act—is to discuss whatever new considerations may have arisen in the interval, and that is why the House has directed its attention, and if I may say so respectfully, naturally and properly directed its attention to the question, above all, of Ulster, and how we can best avoid the use of force in the North of Ireland. That was the main topic of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
  If this Bill were dropped, would the House now be discussing any other question than how to avoid the use of force in Ireland? If this Bill had never been introduced, would not this House have been discussing years ago how best we could cease from using force in Ireland? Who would have thought, listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that he himself for ten years had been the protagonist of coercion in Ireland? Are his recollections of those bitter years such as to make him wish that that experience should be repeated? What is his forecast of the future—twenty, thirty, or fifty years hence? Can he conceive that Ireland would be governed still under a system of unified government against the will of the vast majority of her people? The right hon. Gentleman has been in this House for forty years, and we congratulate him, if we may be allowed to do so, on the anniversary that falls this year. The only thing, if I may say so with all respect, that makes it possible for any of us to realise that he has been in this House so long, is his opinions. The voice is the voice of 1914, but the opinions are the opinions of 1874! Whatever changes there may have been in opinion, whatever movement there may have been in Ireland or in this country, whatever vague longings and gropings there may be towards the development of a federal Constitution for this country, the right hon. Gentleman remains where he was, as a new Member of this House, forty years ago. I recalled the fact that he himself, when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, and when he was Prime Minister, found it necessary to use force, and found it necessary to use the troops for the coercion of Ireland. What would he have said then if officers in the Army had come to him and said that their consciences did not allow them to take part in the operations to which he summoned them? Suppose the officers of the garrison in Ireland at that time had declared

  1405
  to their superior officers that they regarded the Act of Union as having been obtained by force and fraud, that the Irish people were right in resisting it, that the Irish Land system was, as is now recognised, the worst in the world, and that the agrarian agitation was founded on reason and justice, and so far as they were concerned they could not in their consciences raise their hands, as officers of the Army, against those who were resisting the law—what would the right hon. Gentleman have said? He would have said, "That is not your business, that is for me and for the House of Commons, on whose confidence the Government depend, and your duty is to obey the orders, whatever they may be, of the authorities which are constituted over you." So, again, with the case of strikes, an illustration which has been so often urged. But if these new doctrines to which the right hon. Gentleman gave his adhesion, namely, that the Government ought not to ask officers to do that from which their consciences revolted—is not that the right hon. Gentleman's doctrine?
  Mr. BALFOUR: Do you hold the opposite?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Is that your doctrine?
  Mr. BALFOUR: There are things which a Government may ask a soldier to do which his conscience prevents him from doing. Do you doubt it?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman's doctrine this, that the Government in framing its policy and in issuing its orders ought to take into account, as one of the governing considerations, that officers and soldiers in the Army might object, on conscientious grounds, to obeying those orders?
  Mr. BALFOUR: If we are to bandy questions, let us do it. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that if the Government of the day told the Army to come and "take away that bauble," they ought to do it?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is a question whether or not such a command would be lawful. I believe it would be lawful, and the officers ought to do it. I believe the remedy does not lie in an officer disobeying orders, but in the House of Commons ejecting the Ministry that gave such an order.
  Mr. BALFOUR: After the bauble is removed.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am answering the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He propounded certain doctrines which I have endeavoured to repeat. He has not stated that I have repeated them inaccurately.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I say you are misleading the House.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not desire to misrepresent in the slightest degree the principle of policy which the right hon. Gentleman has propounded to the House. I understood him, and I think the House understood him, to say that cases might arise in which officers had conscientious objections against taking a certain course of action, and that the Government of the clay was doing a wrong thing in putting those officers and soldiers in such a position as to place in conflict their conscience and their duty. Am I wrong in so interpreting the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. BALFOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the consciences of the soldiers and the officers is not a thing which the Government ought ever to take into account?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am answering the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to induce me to make a statement of my views, which I shall be very happy to do at at the right and proper time. At the present moment I am endeavouring, with such resources as I am able, against a master of dialectics, to lead the House to consider to what the right hon. Gentleman's doctrines lead, and I do not propose to be diverted from that course. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is the last man to wish to run away from any proposition which he has laid down when it is being examined and analysed. I am sure on consideration he will not wish to confuse the issues by retorting with a series of questions. I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman has told the House that in his view, which is of importance, Governments would be doing a wrong thing if they put officers and soldiers into a position in which they had to choose between their conscience and their duty, with special application to the case of Ulster. I ask where does that doctrine lead us to? The mess-room would become in future a debating society. This officer says, "I consider that Ulster is being hardly treated. I agree with those who say that the Government has no mandate from the country. In my conscience I hold it is a wrong thing for us to be employed to put down their resist

  1407
  ance." His neighbour at the table says, "I disagree. I hold the opinion of the Prime Minister that there is a mandate, and that we are justifiably used in putting down resistance." Where arc you going to draw a boundary line between conscience and political opinion? The mess-room will become not, indeed, a debating society, but a legislative chamber, and in it will be decided what laws are to be enforced and what laws are not to be enforced. The right hon. Gentleman said very truly that military men are chosen from the mass of the population. They are certainly not chosen on account of their political competence. The Army is the arm of the State; it is not the brain of the State, and it ought not to be allowed to usurp that position. I say further that the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman and some others have laid down is a doctrine which puts these officers and men in a cruel position. So long as you had the old rule that no political question was a matt r for the Army at all, so long as you had the simple rule that each man obeys the orders given to him by constituted authority from above—
  Mr. BALFOUR: I cannot quite understand the doctrine. The law clearly lays down that a soldier is entitled to obey an order to shoot only if that order is reasonable in the circumstances.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If it is lawful.
  Mr. BALFOUR: If it is reasonable.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is not a question which arises in this case. The right hon. Gentleman is again confusing this issue. The question whether an order is, in the circumstances, lawful as given by the individual officer in command of a regiment or a detachment is not a question that arises in this issue, and the point I am putting is that it has hitherto been fully understood that these political matters are not matters for the Army to consider in any degree. Where they are ordered to go, there they go. The right hon. Gentleman and others who allow the question of conscience to be entered into are putting these officers in a cruel position, because for the first time they are being told by public men of distinction that it is their business to draw distinctions in particular cases as to whether or not they will obey orders or be dismissed. This is a topic into which I have absolutely no desire to enter to-day, and which
  1408
  I had not intended to enter upon to-day. I have been compelled to do so because the right hon. Gentleman devoted a large part of his speech to this particular question. I believe that the House of Commons will be doing the greatest disservice to the Army and to the State if it continually debates this particular topic. I earnestly trust, and I say it with absolute sincerity, that this will not become an issue before the constituencies, and I would far rather that the Liberal party were beaten on other issues than win on this one.
  I turn with much relief to the other topic of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Leaving the question of the Army he came to the various proposals for ascertaining the opinion of the country on this question of Home Rule in Ulster, and first he urged the claim of the Referendum. Of the Referendum as a principle, he, as we all know, has long been a partisan. He believes in the Referendum as a good constitutional expedient for settling difficult matters and for ascertaining the opinion of the country. We do not believe in it. You cannot, in fact, limit the use of the Referendum to this one issue. If we adopted the Referendum now, inevitably that would be a precedent for other cases. If for Home Rule, why not for Welsh Disestablishment; if for Welsh Disestablishment, why not for woman suffrage, for our land proposals, and for each great controversial matter in turn. And then you would find that as there is, as a rule, one great controversial Bill almost every year, you would have to take a poll of the people almost annually on some great question that vexes the mind of Parliament. Frequent polls do not in their working mean more democracy, but less. You weary the democracy. You find, again, that after a time a minority of the electors goes to the poll, and this minority is given the power to overrule a legislature elected by a much larger number of the electors. In addition, you have confusion of the issues; you cannot, in fact, disentangle one issue from the others before the electors, and finally you will impose upon an electorate of millions direct functions of government which they are not qualified to perform, and which may be better undertaken by a representative assembly. For those reasons, and for those-reasons only, we refuse to take, either now or after the Bill is on the Statute Book, a Referendum of the people on this particular Bill.

  1409
  Then the right hon. Gentleman again referred to the proposal for an election, and he said there was one clear reason, and it was the only possible reason, why we refused to have an election before the Bill is placed upon the Statute Book, and that was that there must be some obligation, if not written, then unwritten; if not definite, then indefinite, between the Government and the Leader of the Nationalist party, that there should be no General Election before this Bill is placed upon the Statute Book. The main reason, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, is this, because the difficulty with regard to the Parliament Act he thinks might be got over by agreement between the two parties. The main reason, he thought, was that there must be some obligation of that kind. I desire to say in emphatic terms on behalf of the Government that there is no secret obligation of any sort or kind between us and the Nationalist party, that there is no undertaking which is not known to the whole world as to the passage of this Bill and the taking of an election upon it. The reasons why we consider it is not necessary, and not right, to have an election before the Bill is placed on the Statute Book—they have been repeated again and again, but it is necessary to repeat them once more since the matter has again been raised by the right hon. Gentleman—are these: we believe that the nation does not desire any such election, that the nation desires the matter to be settled in this Parliament, and that there is no sign of any movement of public opinion whatever against the solution of the question within the present Parliament. Further, we do not adopt this plan because we believe, in fact, that it would settle nothing with regard to the question of Ulster. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, Dublin (Sir E. Carson), has always carefully abstained from giving any undertaking at all that Ulster would abide by the decision either of a General Election or a Referendum. On the contrary, I believe he is not in a position to give any undertaking, for his supporters in Ulster have gone so far with regard to their objection to Home Rule that I think it would be impossible for him ever to say in Parliament or in the country that if a General Election went against his views, or a Referendum went against his views. there would be no resistance in Ulster, or that there would be no civil war. All the right hon. Gentleman has been able to
  1410
  declare to-day is that if an election was held, then the guilt and the crime of coercing Ulster would be distributed over a larger area. Is that really an adequate inducement for a course of that kind?.
  I must refer for a moment to one very threadbare subject, and that is the question of the mandate, in answer to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) said two days ago. He said we founded ourselves upon the mandate given at the last election on the strength of speeches made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that we had searched, as he not very kindly put it, the scrap-heap of their old speeches in order to find occasions on which they had made references to Home Rule, while we abstained from doing so. The right hon. Gentleman entirely misconceives our argument. [An HON. MEMBER: "We understood your words!"] No, I do not think so. The quotations we have given from Lord Lansdowne and the right hon. Member for the City of London were quotations, not in which they have said that Home Rule was the issue at that election, but quotations in which they said that the Government had made it clear that it was the issue at the election.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think I did.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter at the last election, at the end of 1910, in which he said:—
  "It is the avowed policy of the Government to destroy the Veto of the House of Lords, and then under Single-Chamber government, without any further reference to the electors, to place Home Rule upon the Statute Book."
  [An HON. MEMBER "You denied it."] We have never denied that. Then Lord Lansdowne, who was then, and is now, Leader of the Unionist party in the other House, said at Portsmouth, "Mr. Asquith has made it perfectly clear that the first thing the Government will do will be to place Home Rule upon the Statute Book." Either Lord Lansdowne was accurate in his declaration or he was not. Either the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London was accurate in his declaration or he was not. If he was not accurate, I think he ought to explain how he fell into such a misapprehension. If he was accurate, then it was the avowed policy—not merely the concealed policy, but the avowed policy—to pass Home Rule within the present Parliament.
  The right hon. Gentleman's next point was that we claim that the Irish question

  1411
  is to be eliminated from British politics, that we are to have a period of quiescence, but that our present proposals anticipate that the Ulster issue will be an issue during the next two elections. If right hon. Gentlemen win the next election, it would be decided, I suppose, then, at all events, for the time being. What is their proposal? We anticipate that this matter will be settled within the term of six years, but if we have permanent exclusion on the Statute Book, then at any election and at every election for all time this question of Ulster will be raised and put as an issue in our politics. He put to us, further, many objections to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that, after all, the case of Ulster was to a large degree met by the fact that, before the Act became fully operative, there would necessarily in the ordinary course of events be a General Election in this country and a new Parliament would be elected, and he said, with much force and obvious truth, that even if the election went against the present Government and in favour of himself and his Friends, it would be a matter of almost insuperable difficulty to repeal the Home Rule Bill which had once been placed upon the Statute Book. I think that is quite true. The difficulties, as he said, would be overwhelming, and the disappointment caused throughout Ireland would be so great that no Government would lightly undertake the task of such repeal.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did not suggest that this election, which will take place in normal circumstances before the Bill becomes fully operative, would be an election in which the country might be able to decide whether there should be Home Rule or not. We regard that issue as decided. What he had in view clearly was the one outstanding point as to whether the exclusion of Ulster should be for six years, or whether it should be for a longer period. I think the right hon. Gentleman would not urge that there would be any insuperable difficulty, if the elections went in favour of himself and his Friends, of modifying, at all events, that provision in the Bill which dealt with the particular case of Ulster. Meanwhile, he said, we should be placing an almost irresistible temptation before the Unionists of Ulster to engage in unconstitutional actions during the time that
  1412
  was elapsing between the passage of the Bill and the bonding of an election. 1 am unable to see why they should be placed in a position of any difficulty at all. Entering fully into their feelings, and appreciating entirely their determination not to be placed under an Irish Parliament, at all events until an election has been held in this country, why should they be tempted or driven to take any revolutionary or forcible measures at a time when no Irish Parliament is in existence, and at a time when there is no Irish Executive, and when, if they were rebelling at all, they would be rebelling against the authority of this Parliament and of the present Executive in Ireland?
  Mr. BALFOUR: For clearness, may I ask whether I understand the right hon. Gentleman right to say that the proposal or the suggestion of the Government is that the Bill should be passed in a form which excludes Ulster for six years, but in such a manner that that limitation of six years may be removed if an election went against the present Government?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is what has been suggested—that the proposal made by the Prime Minister in this House as the basis of settlement should be embodied in the Home Rule Bill, that in the ordinary nature of things the next election would take place between the
  passage of the Bill and the establishment of an Irish Parliament and Executive, and that, obviously, if the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends had control of the next Parliament, during that interval they would have the full power, and nothing that we could do could prevent them from altering the particular provision in regard to Ulster that had been inserted in our Bill.
  Mr. CAVE: It is very important that we should understand the position. What the Foreign Secretary said on Tuesday last was this:—
  "If it be the case of an election on those terms, and so arranged that the Home Rule Bill would come into operation within a year, or whatever its natural time would be after its passing, provided the election goes in favour of it. well. I think there may be something to be made of that proposal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1914, col. 1060.]
  That did not refer to the six years' question at all, but to the Bill as a whole.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think my right hon. Friend ever contemplated that if hon. Gentlemen opposite come into power after the next election, the whole of this Bill would be repealed.
  Mr. CAVE: He said so.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: What is to stop them?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think he had any such anticipation. Obviously, if the right hon. Gentlemen have command of the next Parliament, they have the power, the constitutional power, to do what they will, and I certainly do not think my right hon. Friend ever contemplated any agreement between the two parties, that they, on their side, should consent to the passage of the Bill in this Parliament, and that we, on our side, should consent to its repeal in the next Parliament. If that is what hon. Gentlemen opposite have in view, the sooner their minds are disabused the better. There is one other point.
  Mr. CAVE: Will that be corrected in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The point which I was endeavouring to make clear was that we could not see any justification of any sort or kind why the Unionists of Ulster should take any revolutionary action of any sort during the interval when they were still under the Government of the Imperial Parliament and the Executive, and were waiting a General Election which was within a few months to be held. I pass from that and come to answer a definite question put to me the other day in relation to the finances of the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand, which he said had been put on several previous occasions, and had never been answered. If the right hon. Gentleman will absolve me from answering it I will be very glad to pass to other topics. I quite agree that the others are more important, and I have no desire to enter into this question. But I was fearful that if I did not do so the right hon. Gentleman would say, "here again the Minister in charge of the finances of the Bill is not able to answer a definite challenge which I have given." Therefore, very briefly, I may say a very few words upon it. He declared in the usual terms that the finances of the Bill were unworkable and so forth. He went further and said that no authority in Ireland except one had ever given any sanction to the principle on which the finance of the Bill was founded, and that all Irish authorities of importance had condemned it. It is quite true, that the Trish County Councils'
  1414
  Association, after a minute examination of the finances of the Bill, condemned the whole of them. The reason was that they had their own scheme of Irish finance which was based on the assumption that the existing Irish revenue was the whole of the revenue collected in Ireland, including revenue collected on spirits and other commodities which are consumed in this country. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand, or any student of Irish finance, would accept that document.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Only Gladstone.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Mr. Gladstone abandoned that doctrine, and admitted that it was not one that could be defended, and in his later Bill it does not appear as the hon. and learned Member knows very well. If he quotes the authority of Mr. Gladstone, he must quote the considered opinion of Mr. Gladstone, and not the earlier opinion of Mr. Gladstone when dealing with the Home Rule Bill of 1886. The criticism of the Irish County Councils' Association is, therefore, ruled out, because it starts from a false assumption. The right hon. Gentleman quotes the Primrose Committee. Does he approve of the Report of the Primrose Committee, which recommended complete fiscal autonomy and the entire control of the Irish Parliament over all Irish Customs and Excise? The authorities which I quote in support of the proposal are these: First, the greatest living political economist who is an authority on public finance, the professor of political economy in Trinity College, Dublin, whose book on Public Finance has been for the last twenty years the text-book among economists on this subject. Professor Bastable, after a minute examination of the whole financial conditions of the Bill, mentions some minor details in which he would like to see them altered, but with regard to the main lines and principles he expresses his approval. And the other authority which I quote is, after all, the best authority of all, the representatives of the Irish people themselves in this House. If you want to know what is the opinion of Ireland, we must go to the Irish Members of Parliament. While very naturally hon. Members opposite desire to see more money given from the Imperial Exchequer to assist the needs of the Irish Parliament they—would be less or more than human if they did not—the fact remains that the hon. Member for Waterford, on the Third Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, in 1913,

  1415
  expressed in general terms his cordial approval of the financial provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Just as he expressed his detestation of the Budget and then voted for it.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If I may say so, that is a very irrelevant observation. I now come to a close. During this Debate many hon. Members on both sides of the House have made suggestions for a settlement of the Irish difficulty, and perhaps the most remarkable feature of this Debate has been the manner in which the principle of federalism has received support from various parts of the House. This great change in our constitutional arrangement is now contemplated without alarm in many quarters in which previously it was viewed as almost revolutionary. Even the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and who has been hitherto somewhat hostile to the proposal, has said that if along these lines it might be possible to find a way out of the very grave difficulties in which Parliament and the nation now find themselves, he, for his part, would not interpose objections. After all it ought not to be impossible to devise for this country arrangements similar to those which have been established in so many countries of the world. More than half of the white population of the world now live under federal constitutions. Two hundred and twenty-four millions of people have both Home Rule Parliaments in the States or provinces in which they live, and also a central Parliament for the nations to which they belong, and very various have been the methods by which, owing to historical or geographical circumstances, the several nations have dealt with these problems. The suggestion has been thrown out, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College has not discountenanced it, that it may be that along this line some solution will be found. But I think that this must be agreed, that the prospects of any Conference or Commission representing all parties in the State, arriving at a federal solution of our difficulties, would not be bright if the question of Home Rule for Ireland were still left in a state of indecision.
  In the interests of federalism itself it is necessary that this bitter controversy should be carried forward to its solution, and it is only after this Bill with, it may
  1416
  be, some temporary provision for the exclusion of Ulster, is placed upon the Statute Book, that it is probable or possible that men of various parties and various views can get together and in a calm. spirit discuss the consequential and further alteration in our constitutional arrangements. Before this Bill comes on for discussion in its next stage, there must necessarily be a considerable interval. Let that interval be used for these various suggestions to germinate, and for discussions and conferences to take place, so that when the House, after passing the Second Reading, addresses itself to the later stages of the Bill it may be that more fruitful suggestions for accommodation may be made. I most earnestly hope, as every Member of the Government does, that we shall not be compelled, either on the one side or the other, to use yet again the instrument of coercion in Ireland, whether against the North or against the South or West. But you must not take advantage of our intense reluctance to use those weapons to wreck our Bill. You must not trade upon that reluctance to defeat the great political object that we have in view. After all, it is not only the Government which is on its trial in these days. British statesmanship as a whole is on its trial. If those who sit on this side of the Chair are for the time being His Majesty's Government, those who sit on the other side of the Chair are His Majesty's Opposition. They have a share in the responsibility, as they fully recognise, for the good government of our country. On them, though not quite equally, as well as on us, lies the burden of finding a solution. Parliament in these days is moving and acting under the eyes of the whole Empire and of the world, and under the judgment of posterity. I am profoundly convinced that the nation and the Empire desire a settlement of this question. It is the duty of Parliament to effect it.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think that the concluding portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman contained one remarkable statement. That is that, between the Second Reading and the further stages of this Bill, there will be a considerable interval, during which conversations may be renewed, and further accommodations may be sought. If, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, the Government are still open to further accommodation, the way to peace then may still be opened, but

  1417
  if the Government are going to adhere to this Bill as it stands with the accommodation that they have so far offered, we are still discussing this Bill with a grave cloud hanging over us. If the Government are prepared for further accommodation with regard to Ulster, as regards both area and time, then I think that there may be some chance of peace. But if they go on with their existing proposals, asking us to agree to them, then I am perfectly convinced, from the evidence that we all have, that the cloud which hung over us for the last week has not yet been dispelled. We all recognise on both sides the difference of temper and the difference of attitude which hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown in dealing with this question upon this occasion. It is due to the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite at last have realised that Ulster is prepared to fight for her freedom. We have got that far. We have got it by a display of force, by a preparation of force which has made everybody throughout the length and breadth of this realm tremble to think of what might be the consequence.
  6.0 P.M.
  Consider the action of the Government. We saw howitzers, battleships, and armies prepared last week or the week before in case some outbreak should take place in the North of Ireland. These facts are an admission that the Ulster problem is a grave problem which has got to be faced. I rose to speak with the hope that I should not in any way raise those questions connected with the Army, or with coercion, or anything of that kind. I wish to discuss as dispassionately as possible this view, to which expression was given on both sides of the House, as to the possibility of some federal solution of this question. I have no enthusiasm for federalism—in fact, it is only last week that I examined this question in its detail. I am a Unionist, and I take a federal solution of this problem, not as a thing desirable in itself, but as a way out of the muddle into which we have got—a way out of the appalling mess which the Irish problem has got us into. As to this federal solution, I do hope that it is not too late for the Government to give some real earnest, not merely a preamble, that the federal proposal will be considered with a view to a solution of the problem. If they are to do that, they should not wait another week, certainly not another month, before they establish a Commission to inquire into the finance and into the difficulties
  1418
  which are bound to arise in any federal scheme for the United Kingdom as a whole. Let that be done at once. If this Home Rule Bill is the beginning of a federal movement, let us see the next step in that movement, which is to establish a Commission of that kind. Let it be done now. I must say that I approach this matter as a Unionist. I believe that the Union under this Parliament is best, and that the federal system is second best. I will tell the House why. I remember in the days of my childhood, when I went over to my father's house in the West of Ireland, the discontent that prevailed; I recollect the drums summoning people to meetings; I remember the seething discontent in the country among all classes. All that has vanished, and it has vanished owing to Unionist legislation. Owing to legislation under the Unionists, owing to the Land Act, those agrarian troubles, which were the source of the greater portion of disaffection, have disappeared, and you now have a people with a quite different outlook upon all questions from what they had twenty years ago.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: The hon. Member will allow me to remind him that Mr. Wyndham himself confessed to the fact that the legislation could never have been passed by the Unionist party without the co-operation of the Nationalists.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I accept the correction of the hon. Member. I do not use the word "Unionist" in any party sense; what I meant to convey was that it was the Act of Union, and the fact of British credit, the credit of England and Scotland and Wales behind it, and the full authority of the Union, which enabled the land purchase scheme to be carried and this great and beneficent progress in Ireland to be effected. I am devoutly thankful that the Home Rule Bill of 1886 and the Home Rule Bill of 1895 were defeated for that reason, because I believe that the continuance of the Union has materially unproved the fate of Ireland. I believe that if you only continue the Union that progress will go on. I believe that everybody who approaches this grave problem must agree that now the question has got so far we have got to look at what remains. There does remain a sentiment which has got to be recognised, a sentiment which is growing in Wales, in Scotland, and in England too. I devoutly hope that that sentiment may be diverted from being a Separatist sentiment into being a Unionist sentiment in the true sense of the

  1419
  word. I say frankly that in Wales—I represent a Welsh constituency—unless there is some devolution of Welsh business, especially private business, from this House, you will have an increasing tendency to see national tradition and racial feeling fomented against England. Therefore I am driven to consider anew some form of federalism. I believe the Union is best, but this respect we have got to look beyond the Union to see whether there may not be effected some modification of that principle by the introduction of what is called devolution or federalism.
  Let me come to the connection between the federal solution and the concrete proposal of the Government to-day. I am perfectly convinced that a federal solution at this present moment, on the basis of this Bill, which included Ulster, would not be a peaceful settlement—that is to say, you cannot force Ulster to accept this Bill and tell them it is a federal scheme or part of a federal scheme. You have got, I believe, to exclude Ulster until your federal scheme is complete. I think that the very existence of a time limit, the mere mention of six years, is the most disastrous thing you could offer. It is a threat. A fixed period of time, whether it be three, six, nine, or twelve years—indeed, any mention of a specific time—is bad. It is not a time limit that you want to make the Ulster Covenanters lay down their arms; they will go on until that time, fearing what may happen; but if you exclude Ulster until there is a federal scheme for everybody in the United Kingdom, then I think you will see a considerable change of Unionist opinion in Ireland itself. I believe that to be the only possible way to effect that change. It is not an easy thing to do, I admit, and matters are going on which render it extremely difficult; but, if the counsels of peace are to prevail, then the withdrawal of the time limit, or some such proposition, is absolutely essential. After all, what is it Ulster is fighting for? The Unionists are not fighting from fear. It is the Unionists in the South and West of Ireland who have got to fear, and who do fear the Ancient Order of Hibernians and sectarian organisations. They have fear, but I do not wish to bring that into the Debate at this moment. I do not think that Belfast fears the Ancient Order of Hibernians; I do not think it is fear that inspires the Belfast Unionists. They claim for British citizenship, which they believe is the protection
  1420
  of their liberties, and is a guarantee of their prosperity and industries. They are prepared to fight for that principle, the principle of British citizenship as against Irish citizenship.
  They will not retain that under the Home Rule Bill as it stands; they will not retain even the very elements of it. Under a federal scheme they would retain it. I received only this morning the prospectus of a new undergraduate political club, at Oxford, and they put this problem to my mind in a very short and neat way, "The basis of the club is to maintain intact the British Empire, and to maintain that Ireland shall ever bear the same relation to the Imperial Parliament as shall England, Wales, and Scotland." If you have a scheme of that kind, then the Ulsterman's vote in this Imperial House would count just as much as the vote of every Englishman, Welshman, and Scotsman. Under your Home Rule Bill it does not. Under your Home Rule Bill you are killing the Ulsterman, whose vote would be only worth half what the vote of the Englishman, Scotsman, or Welshman is worth. You are depriving the Ulstermen of half their representation; more than that, you are transferring them from their present relation to the Imperial Parliament to a Parliament which is not in the position to them that the Imperial Parliament is to England, Scotland, or Wales. You are driving them out of their Imperial allegiance into a local allegiance. That I maintain is what, as far as I can see, the Ulsterman is prepared to fight against. They demand equally with the Welshman, the Scotsman, and the Englishman full British citizenship. I believe that a federal solution would be a way out of that difficulty. But now I wish to say a word about area. Very little has been said about it. The more I look at that aspect of the subject, the more unsatisfactory I think are the proposals of the Government with regard to exclusion by counties. I do not think you will get the men in Belfast to agree to excepting Tyrone and Fermanagh from the exclusion.
  There are 100,000 Ulster Volunteers, and 30,000 of them are outside the four counties of Belfast. If you are going to offer them anything, I believe you must at least offer the inclusion of the great covenanting counties. In the interests of the future unity of Ireland it is most desirable that you should not consider how little to exclude, but how much it is most desirable to exclude, looking to the future. I believe that if you made a clean cut of the province

  1421
  of Ulster, you would have much more chance of getting Ulster to agree to a Dublin Parliament, whether on federal or other lines, in a future generation, than if you cut out a small Protestant area. If you cut out the four counties of Belfast, I do not believe that you will attain your object, but if you cut out the province, not for any fixed period, and I agree not permanently—I do not wish it to be a permanent barrier against possible union—but until such times as Ulstermen can come honourably with their Unionist principle and their principle of citizenship into the Irish Parliament, then, if the Dublin Parliament show the sympathy which they say they will show, I believe you will get the Unionists of Ulster to come in; but, if you exclude a small Protestant area, I believe the result would be to create a barrier against further inclusion. What I would earnestly ask hon. Gentlemen opposite and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side to consider is, Whether it is wise to give only the smallest possible concession? As to the selection of the city of Derry as a separate unit, that is, of all things, the least earnest of sympathy you can give, and the most disastrous thing you can suggest, if you mean your proposal to be the basis of a settlement of this question. If you take the long view, I believe the exclusion of the whole province of Ulster would be a wise step. There should be no time limit and no permanent barrier, and you should give an earnest of your good intention by looking to solution of this problem on federal lines.
  I must say one or two words about the Bill which we are asked to read a second time in view of these considerations. The first thing that would have to go, if you adopted the federal scheme, would be the Customs and Excise. Those provisions for separating the Customs and Excise are not federal provisions for a federal Parliament, but separatist. The one essential for any federal system is a fiscal union, and by this Bill you destroy that at the outset. This Bill is not a federal Bill, and not on federal lines at all, as long as that provision remains in it, and I believe if you are going to have a federal solution for the United Kingdom the only way of possibly doing so is by cutting out of the Government of Ireland Bill all those separate issues that are contained in it—Customs and Excise, Post Office, the factory laws and industrial laws, and the judiciary. I have dealt with this matter,
  1422
  and I am not speaking for anybody but merely for myself. I dare say my proposals are open to the gravest objections, and I can see them myself. The Union, I believe, is the best, but for peace I maintain that some such proposals as I have dealt with are possibly a solution which may be found in the course of the next few months. One thing I am perfectly certain of, and that is that it is no use for right hon. Gentlemen who represent the Government to adopt a threatening attitude in any negotiations of this kind or any other. I believe that the sentence, "Let us go forward and put these grave matters to the proof," has done more to prevent a reasonable settlement on any lines or a peaceful settlement than anything that has happened in the whole course of this controversy. But it is not at an end yet. There are milder things than that said by right hon. Gentlemen from the Front Bench opposite which are just as inimical to settlement on peaceful lines. I mean the sort of attitude which says, "We offer you these concessions, and if you do not adopt them as an agreement, as a basis of consent—well, then, we shall go on in spite of you."
  The way they have been offered, the very manner of offering of their suggestions, hitherto has been a menace to Ulster rather than an attempt to conciliate her. I believe if, at this eleventh hour, in spite of your threats, in spite of your laughter, in spite of all the talk about wooden rifles and all the preparations made the week before last, Ulster might be won, and that we might be saved a national calamity if the Government would give an earnest of their resolve to meet this question fairly on federal lines, and would exclude Ulster until that is embodied in an Act of Parliament for Wales and for England and for Scotland. I have never been to Ulster, and I know very little of Ulstermen, and therefore I am not in a position to say, but I believe that if the Government came forward with some such proposal as that we might see a great change in the attitude of some people to this Bill. No one more than I do would regret the setting up, the permanent setting up, of two Irelands. You have almost got it now. I heard an hon. Gentleman last night talk about freedom, and the sense of freedom in the Irish people. You have raised up in the last two years freedom in Ulster as against Irish freedom. It has been potential for a long time, and the hymn the Covenanters

  1423
  are singing now is "Ulster shall be free." If you do not recognise that movement, I believe that it will go on and will lead to the permanent setting up of two separate sentiments in Ireland. I think that would be a disaster for the economic interests in Ireland and to everything in Ireland. I often go to the West of Ireland, and I know that if you set up a separate Parliament without Ulster coming in eventually that the taxes upon the poor rural South and West of Ireland may be extremely high, but that is the least of all reasons. I think there is a sentiment common to the whole island of Ireland which in the long run will prevent that, but if you go forward with this Bill, and if there is blood in this Bill, you are only giving one more instance of the tragedy that has stained the whole history of Ireland, and the conflict between Celt and Saxon, and between one religious community and another. If you will reconsider the very basis of your Bill, and the whole question now at the eleventh hour, you may avoid creating what you are now creating, namely, two Irelands, and you may by wise statesmanship at this eleventh hour weld the whole island into one.
  Mr. YEO: It is somewhat difficult for the latest recruit to this side of the House to follow the speeches of this afternoon. I propose to give some of the reasons why I come here to support the Home Rule Bill. As I have sat many an evening since I came here I have looked across to the other side of the House, and my mind's eye has been fixed many times on men who in the old days fought for Home Rule for Ireland, and I saw this afternoon sitting on those benches in my vision Michael Davitt, Parnell, Biggar, Dr. Tanner and others. They are dead, they are gone, but still to-day the fight rages round the Home Rule Bill. We have a Parliament of men who have assembled all these years since that first Bill has been fought inside and outside of this House, and still we are in this position, that the Bill to-day is upon the Table but not yet upon the Statute Book. Almost every hon. Member opposite who has spoken this afternoon spoke as if we were in sight of peace. I pray God it may be so, not only for the Irish people, but for the Empire at large—not only for the Irish people that they may enjoy that measure of control, but that once and for all it may be settled within the lifetime of those of us who are
  1424
  here, so that Ireland shall have that meed of justice given to it which shall bring peace and prosperity within its borders. If it does not come now, what is to be the result? I have tried dispassionately to look at the matter, and to ask myself the question in this House since I have been sent here: Will it be possible, if this Bill is rejected, for this fight to go on for another hundred years? I say no, personally—let the Government go forward with this measure, let them make no further concessions, for I have made up my mind since I have been here that the concessions of to-day would be taken gladly by hon. Members opposite and then they would come, holding out their hand, asking for more concessions, I think that the Government has gone far enough.
  I come here from a district that has stood by the Liberal party for thirty years, and which returned one of the most honoured Members of this House. For that time it has supported the Liberal policy of Home Rule for Ireland. I was asked to take up the cudgels against my opponent, and my election cry was "Home Rule for Ireland," and we fought that election, the first three-cornered one in that constituency, and they gave us the verdict for Home Rule for Ireland. You may smile at it, but the election was fought on those lines and on no other, and in spite of the armament brought down there by the "Daily Mail" and the pantechnicons and four-in-hands and their bands and their torches, I came out triumphant. This afternoon I am here to express the voice of that district which I heard last week laughed at and ridiculed by hon. Members opposite, who ought to have more regard for the districts in which they live than to find fault with Poplar. If the same searchlight had been put upon some of the districts in which hon. Members opposite live, God only knows what would happen. I am giving you exactly my own personal views. I hope the House will not mind the way in which I express them, and if it is not Parliamentary I trust Mr. Speaker will call me to order. I do not think it is far behind some of the language from the other side, and I think it is just as well mannered, especially as what I have heard since I came here. I am conscious of this that there has got to be a settlement of this Irish question. I believe that it is not only within the four corners of this British Empire, of which I am proud to be one of the loyal sons like hon. Members on the other side, for when it comes to

  1425
  rock-bottom matters we differ very little. But far beyond the seas, when this Home Rule Bill becomes law, I personally believe that a good deal of the friction and of the bad feeling and of the ill-feeling which is against us in America will be removed. Within our own shores, too, a good deal of the ill-feeling will be removed in Australia when the Home Rule Bill becomes the law of this land.
  I may be told by Members who are cynical, and who laugh that I know very little about it. Perhaps I do. If I had bad the experience of years of hon. Members here I should have passed the Home Rule Bill long ago, and I should not have been wasting the time of my country in "gassing" like they are "gassing" here to-day. I want to say that, in common with many of my Friends, as a Protestant, as one who has engaged in religious work for forty years, I hate oppression of every kind whatever. If I believed that this Bill, if passed, would bring oppression upon my brothers and sisters in Ireland, I would not hesitate to vote against the Government. But I do not believe that for a single moment. Personally, I only know what I read in the papers—[Laughter] I do not mind hon. Members' laughter. I only know what I read in the papers with regard to Ulster, and I believe that the Carson Army is the biggest sham and fraud that was ever perpetrated in any country. I do riot mind telling the House what I believe. It is a lot of humbug in order to try and coerce a Liberal Government. I hope the Government will put their backs into the business, and let the people see that they are not afraid to go on with this Bill. If they do not, they will not get the support of the people outside. If they do, they will.
  Hon. Members opposite are apt to get angry if we sometimes smile when this Bill is under discussion. A sincere man may ridicule groundless fears, but he never laughs at rooted convictions. I hope you believe that. I am afraid some of you do not. In my opinion every facility has been afforded for the advancement of Ulster's safeguards. That is conclusive evidence that the conscience of Ulster is not belittled nor her alarms ignored or lightly treated. The root objection to the Bill is admittedly the religious element. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I say it is. If you could get rid of the Roman Catholics in Ireland you would have an Ulster that comes nearer your heart. That is what is the matter. It is that humbug, sham, and
  1426
  religious bigotry which has not yet left the hearts of some of those who are above us socially, and who sit on that side of the House. Against the solemn Covenant of Ulster is pitted the words of the predestined leaders of the Irish Government. That is, to me, an equally solemn and sacred Covenant, and the cloud of witnesses to that Covenant is too great to be inscribed on any scroll of parchment. This Covenant pledges Ireland's honour that the conscience of Ulster shall be preserved inviolate, and her interests fully protected. Since when has an Irishman's word of honour not been accepted in his own country? Since when, I ask?
  Mr. MOORE: The Local Government Act.
  Mr. YEO: I wish I were as well up in the Rules and Orders of this House as the hon. Member is, then I should know what to say to him. I am bold enough to assert that Celtic honour will prove too strong for the weight of circumstances which Ulster presumes will eventuate. The basis of my assertion is the fact that this Bill is the consummation of an increasing perseverance, an unrivalled persistency of purpose, a struggle which has lasted for generations, in which the real patriots of Ireland have striven to vindicate the honour of their forerunners. The Act of Union has never been more than a statutory term in Ireland. Instead of unifying the Irish people, it has frozen them. I have received a letter from an English clergyman in Ireland, an Anglican parson, one belonging to your own clique:—
  "Before going to Ireland in 1856. I had scruples about granting Home Rule, as I feared for the welfare of the Empire and the safety of the Protestant minority. After serving in three Irish counties I became convinced that the utterly reasonable demand of the people for power to control their own affairs could be granted with absolute safety, both as regards the integrity of the Empire and the position of the minority. There is no religious intolerance save on the Orange side, and Roman Catholics and Protestants live and work together on the best of terms. It is my strong belief that Irish Protestants will benefit more than any other class from the passing of the Home Rule Bill. As I remember the courtesy and kindness I always met with from Irish Roman Catholics. I blush for the charges made against a kindly and generous people."
  That opinion should give Members on the other side food for reflection. It is an opinion which cannot be lightly cast aside. It is an opinion worth having, and one which I think ought to carry weight. It is from an Anglican clergyman who has spent fourteen years in Irish counties, the names of which are mentioned in the letter, and any Member who wishes to do so is at

  1427
  liberty to see them. It cuts at the root of all this business about Home Rule bringing ruin to Ireland. The bedrock of it all is religious bigotry. I have been expressing views which come from my heart. The unbiassed vision sees in this Bill, if supported by a united Ireland, the restoration of Irish confidence in the British nation, the establishment of a real kinship, and the creation of a new and blessed era to replace the discontent and dislike which have reigned too long. Ulster is asked to sacrifice—what? Not her conscience; not her religion; not her flag. The rest of Ireland and Great Britain say to Ulster: Abandon your prejudice and suspicion; join us in the desire and effort to restore Ireland to the level of her sister nations, that she may achieve equal prominence, gather equal advantage, and reap equal credit with them in the glory still to be attained by the Empire. Ulster has contributed her share in the construction of the Empire, in the fields of commerce not less than on the desert plains of war. Ireland belongs to the Empire; Ulster belongs to Ireland. Without her Ireland cannot consummate the hopes and desires made possible and probable by this Bill. Ulster must, and I believe Ulster will, come in. I pray God that the day may not be very far distant when this British House of Commons may meet to rejoice that there has been given to Ireland a large measure of self-government, which will tend to consolidate her friendship towards this nation and that of her sons beyond the seas.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I think that the whole House congratulates the electors of Poplar upon the representative they have sent here. I am sure that his manly and breezy speech has already won for him a place in the House. I found in the speech of the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs a very wide gulf indeed between the tone and the suggestion. The tone was quite unexceptionable, and I am sure his intentions were excellent, but I shall have to examine his suggestion presently. Before I reply to his speech I wish to say a word about the speech delivered this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). I looked forward to the right hon. Gentleman's playing a useful, fruitful, and patriotic part in this controversy. He is a man who stands high in the esteem of the House, with great intellectual powers, and he is now, to a certain extent, in a
  1428
  detached position. If he had consented to play the part played by Peel, after his expulsion from office in 1846, as an opponent of the Government from the party point of view, but a supporter of all that was good in its policy, I think he would have helped us very considerably towards the solution of this question. I regret to say that the right hon. Gentleman, for some reason unknown to me, adopted quite a different course. Without the slightest desire to offend, I really class the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to-day and other speeches as, in tone and temper, amongst the worst I have heard in the whole course of this Debate. Yesterday we had an atmosphere of compromise and conciliation; the day before we had the same. Under the influence of that atmosphere and helping to create it we had two very remarkable, eloquent, and powerful speeches from hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway—the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), whom I have had the pleasure of knowing for nearly forty years, whom I knew before ever he or I was a Member of this House, and the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Sir Mark Sykes). Those Members made a pointed appeal, not merely to their own Friends but to the party opposite, and not merely to the party opposite but to us, to contribute towards the solution of this difficulty by a spirit of conciliation and compromise. When I was thinking of what I should say here to-day I thought of some observations entirely in accord with that spirit. When I heard, to my surprise—nay, to my amazement—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London bring back to this controversy much of its old venom, I was very disappointed indeed. I noticed that even by the party above the Gangway that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was not listened to with any apparent or fervent approval. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] I am sorry to hear it. I myself thought it was listened to in very frigid silence. The right hon. Gentleman accounted for the conciliatory temper of the Debate of the previous days by saying that we were frightened. I will tell hon. Members my reading of that atmosphere. It was that we were frightened, though not quite in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman used the words: we were frightened by the prospect before us of having to bring before the nation so grave, and I may say even so terrible, an issue as the Army against

  1429
  Parliament—to put the Army in its present position and in its attitude towards this Bill as one of the issues before the country! That is a prospect which I imagine may be very attractive from an electioneering point of view to hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, but my hope and belief is that, however strongly they may have felt that, there was not one of them who did not shrink from having to fight that issue before the nation. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made an appeal to the House—and other appeals have been made to the House—to drop that issue. The right hon. Gentleman has revived it.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I never said a word till the Foreign Secretary spoke on the subject.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: The allusion of the Foreign Secretary to the matter was, I think, confined to a single sentence or two in the course of his speech, and now the right hon. Gentleman has revived it. However, I am not going to imitate the right hon. Gentleman. I am not going into that issue except to say that, if the right non. Gentleman chooses to raise that issue, then that issue must be faced. I certainly do not desire to contribute towards raising it. On other points in this Debate I find the right hon. Gentleman is strangely stercotyped—I might almost say, in an anachronistic position. He really seems on this question to be a Bourbon who never forgives and never forgets anything. He raises the same old arguments that I should have regarded as entirely out of date. I would only make this further allusion to his speech—I do complain that a man of his experience, great intellectual gifts, and his great position in this House, did not, make some contribution towards the conciliatory solution of the problem. I never thought from the very beginning of this struggle that the Home Rule Bill would not get on to the Statute Book. I believe so still. I have even a fervent hope—though I must say that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman rather depressed it—that the Bill will get on the Statute Book with something approaching to consent. I believe that most men in all parts of the House are in favour of a settlement of the question. I believe, to their honour, that many hon. Members above the Gangway on this side are not only in favour of a settlement, but are working hard to produce a settlement. I believe some of them
  1430
  have adopted the federal idea as a line of escape, and have not only consulted among themselves on these lines, but, if I may believe the newspapers —and I have no other knowledge on the subject—they have also been in consultation with other Members of like tendency of thought on the other side of the House.
  As to our position as Irish Nationalists, not only our interests, and the interests of our country, but our whole disposition are directed to produce a settlement of this question. So strongly do I feel on this subject—and I believe all my Friends do—that I would regard it as a horrible disaster if the new virgin page of Irish history, which is to open with the restored Parliament, had upon it the blot of one single drop of blood, either Catholic or Protestant. I believe that at this moment every intelligent and broadminded man in this House, and in every part of this House, is trying to find a formula for a settlement. I believe that in seeking to find that formula there are some dangers we ought to avoid. We should have plain thinking, frank speech—and speech can be frank without being provocative—and we ought to have honest and above-board dealing. It is in that spirit, at least, I shall try to discuss the question. The real question that remains between the different parties in this controversy is Ulster. I do not discuss the principles of the Home Rule Bill. I do not want to put too high what Unionists Members have said upon that. I know that they will never assent to the principle of the Home Rule Bill. But for the moment, with the best motive, and in the interests of peace, they are willing at least to acquiesce in a settlement, even a Home Rule settlement, provided it makes certain concessions to them, I will go through the various formulae in as temperate and as candid a spirit as I can. Two of them I will really not give much attention to. I really believe they are out of date, because the features of a controversy like this at this stage change front day to day, and even from hour to hour.
  The Referendum does not really require much further discussion. If there were no other reason against it as a means of settlement, there is this reason: that it would not be accepted by the Government, and certainly would not be accepted by us. As to a General Election, I think that is a solution that I may also dismiss. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me why. I will

  1431
  give him my reason. If he will read the speech of the hon. Member for Hull (Sir Mark Sykes) he will find the reason there a great deal better set forth than I can set it forth. The hon. Member for Hull in his speech, which I think was received, I will not say with approval, but with admiration of all sides of the House, pointed out conclusively that a General Election now—that is the point with which I am dealing—would not settle, but would unsettle the whole question. In his powerful argument, to which I think there can be no answer, he pointed out a victory for either party would rather be a disaster than a means of settlement. Besides, as a matter of fact, it is too late at this time of day to ask the Liberal party to give up the rights and powers—small as I think are the powers which were conferred by the Parliament Act—and one of them was that their measure should be passed with or without the assent of another place and in the same Parliament—I say to ask the Government or the Liberal party to give up that victory is really to ask something which is quite unfair.
  I come to the other solution. The point of principle—it is not a point of detail—which really divides parties in this transaction is whether the exclusion of Ulster shall be temporary or permanent. Let me say quite frankly that so far as we on these benches are concerned, while we consented for reasons which I shall give presently, to the temporary exclusion of Ulster, or a part of Ulster, we shall not consent, and we cannot be expected to consent, to any proposal, whatsoever shape it takes, which provides for, involves, or contemplates the permanent exclusion of Ulster. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on this side have appealed to us upon this question. They have asked us to make sacrifices. We have made as many sacrifices as anybody can expect us to make; many of these we were most unwilling and 10th to make. Before I come to that point, let me deal with one of the formulas for a solution, namely, that of federation. It is amusing to me, it is even agreeable to me, to find that principles which I have been preaching for at least a quarter of a century, and apparently without making much advance, have, during the last few days, made such enormous progress. I quite agree there is not the same point of view on this question between my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and myself. I am,
  1432
  and I have always been, in favour of Home Rule all round.
  7.0 P.M.
  I am in favour of Home Rule all round, not merely because I want to do justice to the different nationalities that make up these islands, but because I want to liberate the Imperial Parliament, so that it "may rise to the height of the great argument" of ruling this world-wide Empire. Anyone who wanted an argument in favour of such a solution has certainly had it in the last few days. In the midst of Debates of the most widespread Imperial interest we have had to interrupt our proceedings with private Motions—I will not say of no importance—for a small Irish Bill, and other matters of that kind, which certainly are not the kind of subjects to which the Imperial Parliament should devote so much of its time and attention. There was a question as to whether in a certain Irish railway the clerks should or should not be chosen irrespective of their religious opinions, and at least seven hours of the House of Commons was devoted to that. And seven hours is about the time we give annually to the Budget of India, dealing with 300 millions of people, who look to us as the supreme and final power to govern their country. I go further. I believe when federation comes to be considered we cannot stop merely at these islands. Travelling, as I have done, in different parts of the Empire, and finding there the same language, the same laws, the same general ideas, the same devotion to the Mother Country, I think that statesmen ought to devise some means by which these great sister nations of ours should have some share in forming the policy of the Empire. That is my position. In that position I am far more in accord with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Page Croft) and other hon. Members than with my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). Having stated my position, let me examine federation as a means of escape from the present position. Education goes on at an extraordinary rapid rate in these times. I am beginning to think that the most successful schoolmaster in politics, at least, the earth ever saw, was General Gough. I heard, for instance, the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs saying that he had been rather opposed to federalism, but that within the last few days he had changed his views—a rapid conversion, upon which I congratulate him.
  Let me probe federation, not as a principle, but as the solution of our difficulty.

  1433
  Does anybody seriously think that federation is a simple problem? That it could be worked out with the same rapidity with which men are converted to it? Why the first proposition I heard made on this subjuct is that it should be by universal assent; that the Liberal lion should sit down with the Tory lamb. That kind of talk reminds me of the vacuous nonsense I constantly hear from men unacquainted with political life, that the great evil of the country is government by party, and that really we should abolish the party system altogether. Federation has to be worked out rapidly. If it is not worked out rapidly, I do not see how it is to be a solution of our difficulty. Why, Sir, when I remember the kind of feeling and anticipation with which I entered this House of Commons more than thirty-four years ago, that in ten years time I might be making laws as a minister in my own country, and when now, thirty-four years after I entered the House of Commons, I am still making almost the same speech upon the same subject, I cannot imagine the state of mind which contemplates rapid action upon so complex and difficult a problem as federation. The proposal actually made, not by hon. Members opposite, but by the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs who preceded me, was that Ulster should remain out until a federal scheme has been completed and passed into law.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The whole of Ulster.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: That the whole of Ulster should remain out of the jurisdiction of an Irish Parliament until a complete scheme of federation was on the Statute Book; until a Home Rule Bill was proposed and carried for Wales, until a Home Rule Bill was proposed and carried for Scotland, until a Home Rule Bill was proposed and carried for England, and until a new Imperial Parliament was created on this revolutionary transformation of its present position. Well, Sir, I think that proposal was admirably summed up in an article in the "Spectator" which approved of the proposal, but approved of it on the ground that it would postpone the inclusion of Ulster to the Greek Kalends, or, as we say in Ireland, until Tib's Eve, which comes neither before nor after Christmas. Is opinion so ripe on this question as some of my hon. Friends assume? I have not heard much from the two Noble Lords to whom I always look for the true and purest Tory gospel. The
  1434
  Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) has not yet spoken. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) has, and this was his statement: "We are still perfectly convinced that the true Government of the United Kingdom is to treat it as one nation with a single Parliament and a single Executive." That does not show much progress in the Tory party towards the principle of federation. No, Sir, I think it is absurd and cruel to mutilate Ireland and to keep up her mutilation until this Parliament has solved one of the most difficult and complex problems that ever was presented to any legislation.
  There is another kind of suggestion which is of a different character, namely, that there should be what is called a Statutory Commission to examine into the subject. Well, who objects? I do not object. I will give my support to any machinery, to any proposition that will help forward Home Rule all sound and liberate the Imperial Parliament from purely local questions. But is the proposal this that the exclusion of Ulster should come to an end when this Commission has reported, with the condition that this Commission should report in six years! Do hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway accept that proposal? I get no answer to that. I do not think that they are likely to do so. If they would do so, then we may consider the question very carefully; but, Sir, in my opinion, although Home Rule all round is the final and the only logical and the only proper solution of this question, in my opinion it will be not a rapid, but a slow process, because my reading of English history and character is this, that there is no historical tradition and instinctive feeling of the English people greater than a disinclination ever to throw the Constitution into the crucible. For that reason, I am unable to regard federation as a means of escape.
  The second formula on which the hon. Member for Denbigh Burghs dwelt is the exclusion of Ulster for an indefinite period, or at least a considerable period. Let me examine that proposal. The hon. Member was careful to explain, and he dwelt upon that, and dwelt upon it with much passion and appeal, that when he spoke of the exclusion of Ulster he meant all Ulster. I do not know any question on which it is more necessary to have exact definition and elementary instruction in geography than Ulster. A great part of the discussion on this question, at

  1435
  least in the earlier stages, was that Ulster was spoken of as if it were a unit, and it is now demanded that it should be treated as a unit pending federation. In the earlier discussions which we old stagers remember, Ulster was used as one homogeneous province, where you had a vast number of Protestants and a stray Catholic here and there. That has been abandoned. But the claim for the exclusion of Ulster has not been abandoned. Let me see how that will work out. Is Cavan to be excluded as an Ulster county? The percentage of Catholics in Cavan is 81, and because there are 20 per cent. of Unionists in Cavan and 80 per cent. Nationalists, then Cavan is to be excluded. Take Donegal. The percentage of Catholics in Donegal is 77.7. Take Monaghan. The percentage of Catholics in Monaghan is 73.3. Now hon. Gentlemen are always talking of the rights and consciences and religious convictions and freedom of the Orangemen of Ulster. I am willing to give, and I give it from my whole heart, any eulogy that Orangemen have drawn to themselves as to their sternness, their dourness, their energy, their industry, and all the rest. But there is one claim I will not admit to them. I will admit any claims you like for them as men, but I will not allow their claim as supermen. The hon. Gentleman below me spoke, and I am sure with an earnest and sincere desire for solution and compromise, but his actual solution and compromise is that 20 per cent. of Protestants should have the right to remain outside an Irish Parliament, and 80 per cent. of Catholics shall be put under the bann of not joining in that Irish Parliament, for which they have worked and prayed all through their terrible history of persecution.
  I think I have disposed of the claim of the hon. Gentleman to exclude three counties. But he laid special stress upon two other counties—Tyrone and Fermanagh. What is the case in Tyrone? In Tyrone there are 54.7 per cent. of Catholics, and in Fermanagh 55.3. Now is the proposition on the part of these supermen, that if they have a majority, or even a minority, in an Ulster county, they have a right to exclude themselves from an Irish Parliament, but if the Nationalists have a majority, or even a minority approaching to equality, they are to be excluded from an Irish Parliament. Are the Orangemen to have the option of
  1436
  remaining in or outside the Irish Parliament, and are the Nationalists to be forced outside the Irish Parliament whether they like it or not? Talk of coercion! Was there ever a more extraordinary example of coercion in Ireland? I maintain that the concessions which the Government have proposed, and to which we have given our reluctant assent, were an enormous advance in the way of compromise and conciliation, and showed our anxiety to take even the greatest political risks in order to produce a peaceful and friendly settlement. I take two more counties. Take Armagh, with a percentage of Catholics of 45.1, and Derry, with a percentage of Catholics of 45.2. We make a great demand on the Nationalists of Armagh and Derry that there should be a possibility of their being excluded for six years from the Irish Parliament when they approach to nearly a half of the entire population.
  I am going to make an observation which I am afraid may be considered controversial, but I must do so because it is a fact, and because it is necessary to the argument. There is only one oppressed minority in Ireland, and that is not in the South, but in the North. I make the statement, but I will not elaborate it, because I do not wish to say anything provocative, and yet, Sir, we are asked in two of these four counties that the Catholic minority is to be turned from the doors, temporarily, of an Irish Parliament, to be placed under an Imperial Parliament where their representatives are such a small minority of the representation of Ulster, and inhere their comrades and fellow countrymen and fellow Nationalists will be reduced from something like eighty to a little over thirty. Talk of sacrifice! I say we have made bigger sacrifices than ever a nation made before in order to conduce to liberty with assent and good feeling. Various suggestions have been made with regard to us. The hon. Gentleman below me, for instance, said there are many Covenanters in Tyrone and Fermanagh, but there are also many Nationalists in county Derry and Armagh. Now I am told that we are face to face with civil war, and why? For what purpose, for what reason, for what justification? There is not a county in Ulster which cannot vote itself out of an Irish Parliament by ballot. Will any man contend that any man has a right to use a bullet for that which he can get by a ballot? They are to use the bullets, and to coerce this Parliament and

  1437
  this country, not because they cannot get any counties out where they are in a majority, but because they cannot get every county out whether they are in a majority or not. If that issue was ever put before a rational people like the English, I have no doubt as to what the answer would be.
  Our position is very plain. We believe that the proposals of the Government are best for a settlement, best for this Parliament and the Irish Parliament, and best for Ireland, and we also believe that they are best for Ulster. We believe that our people in Ireland are separated into two camps to-day not by their own fault. I fully agree with one statement made by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) that it is the fault of this country that the Protestants in the North of Ireland are in the position in which they are to-day. They were sent there by a piece of unwise statesmanship due to the brain of Francis Bacon in the reign of James I., but they were sent there. Notwithstanding the difference of race and creed between the old race and the new race, the new race got possession of the country. I maintain the absolute historical accuracy of the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) the other day that until the Union came again to divide them the religions and the races in Ireland were united in the common cause. Is there a man in this House who can give stronger testimony on that point than the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent (Mr. Ronald McNeill)? I am revealing no secret when I say that the Encyclopædia Britannica owes many of its best articles on Ireland to the brilliant pen of the hon. Gentleman Will he deny that Ulster and Ulster Protestants were the cradle of some of the movements for the liberation of Ireland and the Irish Parliament, and, above all, for equal rights for Catholics?
  The hon. Member below me talked of all the Unionist Parliament had done for Ireland. I admit much has been done, though I think I may claim the Governments of both parties were a little helped by the Irish people, and perhaps as an Irish veteran, I may claim that something was done to pass that legislation by the Members of this party. But this is my most solemn conviction. The last great Land Purchase Act was passed by the present Chief Secretary, and the one before that by the late Mr. George Wyndham, whose premature departure
  1438
  from a scene in which he was so distinguished a figure is genuinely regretted by the men of every party. But when were these Acts passed? After what conditions. The Land Laws of Ireland were reformed for practically the first time in 1881, but before that five millions of people had left Ireland because of the bad land system, and more than one million died of hunger because of that system. I believe that that Irish Parliament even if it had remained entirely as it was at the time of the Union, even if it had remained entirely composed of landlords and Protestants, would have solved the Catholic question and the land question fifty years before it was ever dealt with by this Parliament. Hon. Gentlemen talk of distrust of the Irish Catholics. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich read out last night some of the circulars that are being sent out, in which these poor people in Ireland and some Free Churchmen are asked to believe that if Ireland has Home Rule, Protestantism, Protestant liberties, and Protestant creed will be under the heel of the Vatican. Is that the reason why the Noble Lord the Chief Whip of the Tory party is opposed to a Home Rule Bill.
  When we say we do not distrust the Protestants of Ireland they believe us guilty of insincerity. No, Sir, we are not insincere. We know what the Irish Parliament was which was entirely Protestant. It opened the doors to the franchise in 1793. Why, Sir, the Irish Parliament consisting of those Protestant squires was an advance on the English Parliament in religious equality. We say we are sincere in trusting them, and we are sincere in asking them to trust us. We do that because we are students of the history of our country. What is the proposals which divide us? We say that Ulster should be optionally excluded, if she likes, for six years, and that at the end of that time she should come in. What is the other proposal? Practically indefinite or permanent exclusion. That proposal no Irish Nationalist can listen to, and I do not believe any English Liberal can listen to.
  The Government have said from the very start that any concession they make must be in agreement and accord with the principle of their Bill. Now their Bill is one for a Parliament for all Ireland, and permanent exclusion or indefinite exclusion of Ulster is absolutely inconsistent with that principle. What is the meaning of the temporary exclusion of Ulster? It

  1439
  is not that any of us admit that Ulster has a right to stand out. Our reason for agreeing to it, and the reason of the Government for proposing it was, that we believe a small proportion of the Ulster Protestants, under excitement, have been stirred up to the hallucination that an Irish Parliament consisting, according to their theory, of the refugees of criminal lunatic asylums, is going to destroy the liberties of the Protestants of Ulster and their property, and I think I heard it suggested that the lives of their wives and children would not be safe when such a Parliament was in existence. We give them six years to find out their mistake, and we believe they will find it out long before six years is over. The Irish Parliament will act in a broad and generous spirit, unless Irishmen are going to belie all the traditions of their history which have always been traditions of generous consideration for the men of every race and creed. I could read testimony after testimony from Protestant historians if I had the time.
  Either the Irish Parliament will act in the broad and generous spirit that we feel convinced it will act, in which case there is no reason for further exclusion, or it will act unjustly as the hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway feel and believe, and then I say that if there were any injustice during those six years from the Irish Parliament to the Ulster Protestants, no Government, be it Liberal or Conservative, could refuse to extend the period, and ought to extend the period of exclusion to those Ulstermen if they could make out a fair, just and reasonable case. Therefore, when you say automatic inclusion you mean automatic if the Irish Parliament conducts itself properly and justly and tolerantly towards Irish Protestants. Those are the only conditions you have a right to ask. I do not dwell upon the point of two elections, because almost every speaker has touched upon it. All I have to say upon this point is that the attitude of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on that question shows us that they have an equal distrust of the Irish people and the English people, and of the Irish Parliament and the British Parliament. They take the Irish Parliament as going to do them an injustice. That shows they distrust it, but they think if the Irish Parliament does them an injustice the British Parliament will not come to their relief. What a poor opinion they have of the loyalty
  1440
  and fidelity of their English Protestants in defence of their own creed and their own people! Why, Sir, it rather astounds me when I see hon. Gentlemen belittling the power of the Imperial Parliament to interfere on behalf of the Protestants of Ulster, on the only occasion upon which they would have a right to interfere, namely, in the case of oppression. I am astounded to hear such statements made when everybody knows the Balkan States and the people of Italy were liberated and united, so far as they have been united, by the voice of one Englishman denouncing the oppression and imprisonment of the patriots of those countries. If there were any oppression in Ireland this Parliament would speak, and speak long before the end of the six years. I say that this temporary inclusion is best in the interests of Ulster. I put it to any hon. Gentleman above the Gangway, I put it to any hon. Gentleman even from Ulster, I put it to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford), Does he want sectarian strife between the Irish Protestants and the Irish Catholics to continue or to come to an end?
  Lord C. BERESFORD: If the hon. Member directly asks me, what we are afraid of in the North is what occurred before in Ireland when there was Protestant domination. All the ills in Ireland were due to Protestant domination. We are afraid of Catholic domination in the future.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: The Noble Lord has given me a perfectly fair answer, but he will pardon me if -he compels me to enter for a moment on another line of argument. You are afraid of Catholic domination. Now what do you mean? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Ancient Order of Hibernians."] It is no use talking to, me about the Ancient Order of Hibernians. I am not a member of it, and there are no secrets, I believe; but, as a matter of fact, that is an absurd question, and there is no reality in it at all. What does Catholic domination mean? Catholic domination starts with what appears to me the most astounding fallacy in political discussion I have ever heard. It is that because a body of men consists of members of the same religion their politics will run on sectarian and not on economic lines. I have illustrated that very often on the platforms in this way: If an Irish Parliament had been established last year,

  1441
  I have little doubt that Mr. William Murphy and Mr. Larkin would have been members of it. Would they have voted in the same Lobby? Would Mr. Larkin have said to Mr. Murphy, "I will take 18s. per week because you are a Catholic," and would Mr. Murphy have said to Mr. Larkin, "No, my friend, I will not be out-done in generosity, I will give you 30s. per week because you are a Catholic"? It is much more likely, if there were an Irish Parliament, and if Belfast were included in it, that an Orange Larkin from Belfast and a Catholic Larkin from Dublin would both be voting and speaking, and with some emphasis, against an Orange employer from Belfast and a Catholic employer from Dublin. I hope I will not again be supposed to be making a controversial observation when I say that there is plenty of room in the conditions of Belfast and Lisburn for a Larkin to raise them out of the slough of bad wages.
  It is better to let these people come together. They will come together if they are left alone. [Cheers.] Does that cheer suggest that we have ever preached from Ireland from any of our platforms the gospel of sectarian difference— we who have had three Protestant leaders in our history in forty years, and who have Protestants amongst us, seven or eight out of 74? Why, if I were presiding at an Irish meeting and any gentleman even mentioned the word "Catholic" or "Protestant" I would call him to order under our rules. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs. It is scarcely fair or courteous, but, as a matter of fact, it is true that if at any convention of my countrymen in Great Britain, with whom I have been associated for a great many years, any delegate got up and spoke of "Protestants" and "Catholics," I would call attention to Branch Rule 10, which says, "No sectarian discussion is allowed at the meetings of this organisation," and I would compel him to take his seat, and every man in the convention would support me in doing so. We think as much of talking about religious differences at the meetings of our party as upon the golf links or in any of the other places where we meet. Why, we do not know any difference amongst us. The men we love and trust best in our party are Members of the Protestant religion, and so in the South of Ireland the men who are raised to positions of honour and dignity and emolument are often men chosen by Catholic bodies from their Protestant fellow countrymen.
  1442
  Sincerely, I beg these Gentlemen to try and understand their countrymen a little better. There have been some examples—I do not wish to dwell upon it—of scorn and contempt thrown upon the Catholic and Celtic population of Ireland. I heard the Noble Lord, who got a just rebuke the other day from the First Lord of the Admiralty, sneering at the valour of the Irish people. The First Lord replied that if the Noble Lord had seen Irish troops on the battlefield he would not so underrate their courage. I do not want to speak in the language of infatuated self-praise of my race, but this I say: You have no right to despise them, and, if you do despise them, you are the only people in the world that despises them. They carry the light of learning and of piety all over the Continent of Europe. Their sons were the masters of all the Courts of Europe. To-day many of them hold positions, some of them being Prime Ministers, in the great Dependencies of this country. Many of their blood have been Presidents and high officials of the United States. Do not despise them. Do not misunderstand them. Join with them, as we want you to join with us. Ireland is one nation. She requires all her sons; as Parnell said, "We cannot spare one Irishman." Sincerely, honestly, we want you in the Irish Parliament. Your qualities are the complement of the qualities of our people. Together they will make a happy blend, and together they will build up our nation from its ruins.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: May I be allowed to preface what I have to say, although it was quite foreign to my purpose to-night, with a few words in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board with regard to his cross-examination of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) as to the duty of soldiers and officers to obey. I think the right hon. Gentleman, unwittingly I am sure, entirely misrepresented the views of my right hon. Friend. So far as I understand them, his views are precisely the same views that I hold myself, and I have always been brought up in the belief and understanding that the first duty of soldiers, be they officers or be they men, is to obey the orders of those who are authorised to give them. My right hon. Friend, it is true, pointed out that, even with all the obedience that is shown by soldiers to all lawful orders, there may arise cases in which men feel the duties imposed upon them to be so revolting to their

  1443
  consciences that they are prepared to sacrifice everything that is dear to them, not only their own fortunes, not only their own futures, not only the comfort and happiness in the case of the men, it may be, of their wives and families, but even their lives, rather than obey orders. After what we have been told as to the absolute necessity, under certain circumstances, of passing into law by force this Home Rule Bill, the effect of which would be to submit to the domination of the Nationalist party the people in Ulster, I can well and easily understand that Ulster men, who have declared that they would rather die than surrender to that domination, may go to all lengths, and I do not know that anyone can justly blame them for it, and men who are soldiers after all have consciences, and for conscience' sake they, too, may be prepared even to sacrifice their lives. That was the doctrine my right hon. Friend laid down, and I do not think I have differed from him even in one iota in what I have said just now.
  In this case there is another question which arises. For whom would they be called upon to make the sacrifice? Why, for the very men—they have not forgotten it, you may depend upon it—who, in the darkest days of the war in South Africa and at the time of the great reverses of this country when the lists of killed and wounded were read out from that Bench across this floor, were not ashamed to shout with triumph and rejoicing at the massacre and slaughter of many a gallant English, Scotch, aye, and Irish soldier too. I pass from this to make one other observation on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He told us that the Government was under no obligation of any sort or kind to the Nationalist party in this House. I thought it was a little hard on the Leader of that party. Are the Government really under no obligation whatever to a political leader in this House who was able to take into the Lobby with him eighty men to support them when defeat in connection with their Budget would have been absolutely fatal to them, destructive of the party, and destructive of everything they hold dear, within the very first ten days after the new Parliament had come to sit. It was on an occasion—I remember it as if it were yesterday—when the hon. and learned Member for Waterford was not satisfied with the Government. It was during the Debate on the Address that
  1444
  the occasion arose. He was dissatisfied with something that the Prime Minister had said in the country during the recess with regard to the guarantees to be obtained from the Crown. The hon. Member for Waterford was entirely unable to agree, and the Prime Minister very quickly found that, although he had obtained the support of the hon. Gentleman and his followers during the election, he had not got their support for the Budget. Then this occasion arose, and this is what occurred within my hearing. After one or more violent speeches—it was on the day when the Prime Minister had moved to take all the time of the House for his Vote of Censure on the House of Lords—and it must be remembered that at the close of the old Parliament he had given from that Table the most solemn undertaking in the most formal manner that any Minister could give, both to Parliament and to the country, that the first act of the new Parliament, if they continued to enjoy its favour, would be to re-establish the Budget as from the day it left the House of Commons. What happened? The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had taken great umbrage. I remember exactly what he said very late in that Debate. His, words were:—
  "All I can say is this. Unless I bear from the Prime Minister something very different front what I have heard up to now, both with regard to the guarantee to be obtained from the Crown, and also for the suspension the Budget, I and my Friends will vote against this Motion to-night."
  There was no bargain! I am told they got nothing! I have always wondered what the hon. and learned Member was told. I have asked once or twice in the House of Commons. I wonder whether the President of the Local Government Board or the Chief Secretary for Ireland will be able to tell us what the assurances were that secured the support of the hon. and learned Member for the Government that night, whether it was written or not; and what was it that induced the hon. and learned Member to recall his undertaking—and he is not much given to that sort of thing—to vote against the Government that night? It was a great temptation to the Government; their whole fortunes, and the fortunes of their party, were at stake, and, worst of all—and it must have been well nigh intolerable—if they had been defeated in the new Parliament that night, it would have been a complete and absolute vindication of the action of the House of Lords in throwing out the Budget. It was a temptation which must have tried

  1445
  the Government very hard when they thought of the fate that awaited them unless by some means or other they were able to placate the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and obtain his support instead of the condemnation which had been threatened almost up to the moment that he went into the Lobby.
  8.0 P.M.
  I am going to ask the House to allow me to offer it to-night a few observations on the question which is immediately before us, and that is, the consideration of the Home Rule Bill. The question which, in my humble judgment, we have all of us to ask ourselves in connection with this Bill, is whether the passing of the Bill in the form in which it is at present, and we have been told that it is the Bill which was carried through this House before, is calculated to lead to peace, to increased prosperity in Ireland, and, therefore, to the welfare of the United Kingdom and its people. If I really were able to believe that it was so, I should be greatly tempted to vote for it with all my heart and soul. But according to the Foreign Minister this Bill is also to apply to Ulster, either by settlement or by force. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has told us more than once. As regards Ulster, this Bill neither can, nor ever will, be applied to Ulster by settlement. That, in my humble opinion, is absolutely certain. I have not only in recent years, but in days gone by, before many hon. Members of this House were even born, many opportunities of learning and studying the character of the people of Ulster, as well as of the people of the other parts of Ireland. In my early days, when Mr. Gladstone was first embarking on what I should call the first series of great measures in regard to that policy which he termed the regeneration of Ireland, knowing what was before us, I took an opportunity, in the second year after I had entered Parliament, of spending many months in Ireland, in all parts of it, travelling through the country, and seeing and learning everything I could, mainly in the hope of making myself a complete master of the Irish land question, as it was then called, and this I am vain enough to think I did fairly well. It is my deliberate opinion, because I have been in Ulster again quite recently, that the character of the people to-day is precisely as it was then, and that to attempt to carry this Bill by force is certain to bring not peace but the sword again into
  1446
  that unhappy country, and what is then to become of all the great and remarkable increase in the material prosperity of Ireland which is perhaps the most significant feature in the whole situation? What is to become of the remarkable progress and the remarkable improvement in prosperity which it has made during recent years under the Imperial Parliament? As for peace, there will be no peace. There will be massacre if this Bill is carried by force. And as for prosperity, this great prosperity I have spoken of, will be at once arrested and probably disappear, perhaps for a complete generation. As to force, it is quite impossible that any Minister in any English Government I have ever known could have spoken more vehemently against the use of force than the Foreign Secretary spoke only yesterday. Here is what he said:—
  "We came to the conclusion that in the long run force was no solution. That I am perfectly ready to admit. It makes me look with the greatest reluctance, almost with despair, upon finding any solution of the Ulster question by the use of force."
  Those were the words of your own Minister. Then he went on:—
  "To embark on a policy of actual coercion, to make Ulster submit to an authority in Ireland which she is determined to resist by force, is a most grave, a serious and ominous thing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March.1944, col. 1061.]
  It fills him with despair. I entirely agree. I go further. I say it would add to the hatred of Ulster, of the Nationalist Parliament and of the Nationalist policy, and it would make friendly relations impossible, in all probability, for generations yet unborn. And yet there is, and there ought to be, no reason for despair if this Government had only the courage of its opinions. When Parliament met at the beginning of this Session, on the 10th February, and when I heard the speech of the Prime Minister on that occasion, I began to think, and not only think, but most earnestly hope, that the desired haven of peace at last was possibly emerging front the gloom and coming into the light. And so it would have been if the Government had had the courage to stick to its opinions. What gave me hope was what the Prime Minister himself said upon the exclusion of Ulster. I hope the House will permit me, even at this hour, to refer to the words used that night; it adds greatly to my regret that the Prime Minister is not able to present himself during this discussion. This is what he said:—
  "I do not despair at this moment of the possibilities of agreement. I think that the language used in the

  1447
  Speech from the Throne is, if I may say so with respect, language that ought to find an echo in every quarter of this House."
  So it was. But I do not find much echo of that langauge in the speech that was made at Bradford very shortly afterwards by a leading member of that Administration, nor, I am sorry to say, in the response of the Prime Minister himself, when in my hearing he was asked across the Table—
  "Do you endorse the substance and the sense and the matter of that speech?"
  He replied, sitting there and not getting up—
  "Yes, I do."
  However, he went on—
  "Speaking for myself and my colleagues, and I believe for my Friends behind me, but certainly speaking for myself and my colleagues, I will use no last word in regard to this matter of settlement. Schemes and suggestions of settlement are in the air. The exclusion of Ulster is often referred to the exclusion of Ulster meaning, of course, for this purpose—it can have no other meaning—the inclusion of the rest of Ireland in a system of self-government."
  Mark you, the rest of Ireland, meaning there, to take his own words, the total exclusion of the whole area of Ulster. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] It was so. If the rest of Ireland is to be included in any arrangement, how can it mean anything else than the exclusion of the whole of Ulster? So it was understood by my right hon. Friend, and so it was understood by me and those who sit upon this bench. I said to myself that there was hope at last that we might escape all the horrors that we were afraid had been awaiting us. I will give the right hon. Gentleman opposite the column of the OFFICTAL REPORT in which the speech occurs. The date is Tuesday, 10th February, and "the rest of Ireland," upon which I lay this emphasis, is referred to in column 76. The right hon. Gentleman went on:—
  "Well, now. I am not going—it would be very wrong if I did—at this moment to pronounce, or attempt to pronounce, any final judgment upon this or upon any other suggested solution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1914, col. 80.]
  The Foreign Secretary said the other night:—
  "One great obstacle to the settlement by consent is the way in which our proposals have been received."
  The First Lord of the Admiralty joined in and said:—
  "It is far you now to take the next step."
  Both those right hon. Gentlemen must pardon me, but they are both of them absolutely wrong, as I will prove directly. The Foreign Secretary is not always present. I make no complaint whatever
  1448
  of him. He has many other most serious and grave duties to which he must attend. But the First Lord of the Admiralty has been here through all these Debates, and he should have known a great deal better. What are the facts? The very next day the next step was taken on our side by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson). What was it he did? I hope the House will forgive me if I read one or two extracts, but the case is so important that I feel bound to press it even on the attention of a small audience like this. My right hon. Friend pointed out that the Prime Minister had stated two things, first, that there was nothing in the world he would not do consistent with the fundamental principles of the Bill to avoid the terrible calamity of war or bloodshed; and, secondly, that he would not reject the exclusion of Ulster as a possibility. That was my right hon. Friend's version of the statement, and he continued:—
  "That is a very important matter. If the exclusion of Ulster is not shut out, and if at the same time the Prime Minister says he cannot admit anything contrary to the principles of the Bill. I think it follows—it must follow—that the exclusion of Ulster is not contrary to those principles."
  He added:—
  "I can only say this to time Prime Minister"—
  This is the answer to the Foreign Secretary—
  "If exclusion for that purpose is proposed, that is to say, to avoid strife, it will be my duty to go to Ulster at once to take counsel with the people there."
  What more on earth could he have said? I am sure that all impartial people who have followed the proceedings with the care they should have done, must admit that a more cordial and friendly reply in the circumstances it was impossible for any man sitting on the Opposition Benches to give to the suggestion that was made by the Prime Minister himself. I should have thought it was one with regard to which no Minister could have wished for anything better or for anything more. Time went on. Nothing more was heard until, I suppose under pressure, a further and different announcement was made on the first night of the Second Reading of this Bill—an announcement which was utterly destructive of his own suggestion and destructive of all the hopes and anticipations which it had naturally excited in Ulster. I regret it myself more than I can say, because it is in the exclusion of Ulster that I have always thought there lay the best hope of a settlement that could be found. There it is. It is out of

  1449
  our hands, and now I must say, adopting the words of the First Lord of the Admiralty, the next step does not rest with us, but with the Government, if they are in earnest in their desire to avert the horrors and terrors of civil war in Ireland.
  May I say a word or two upon the Bill and the methods by which it has been conducted from the very outset. Hon. Gentlemen opposite always find it convenient to forget that this question has been twice already submitted to Parliament, and twice already has been rejected, once by the House of Commons and once by the House of Lords, and on each occasion, when it was afterwards referred to the people, the people supported the action of the two Houses of Parliament by overwhelming majorities. It may, perhaps, be of interest to hon. Gentlemen, opposite to know that when it was rejected by the House of Lords, the majority in favour of that rejection of Members who came back to the House of Commons was greater than the majority of the House of Commons by whom it was supported. I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite are so desperately afraid of taking the only constitutional measure by which, so far as I perceive, they can avoid disaster and come to a peaceful settlement of this question, namely, by submitting it for the third time to the country. The Prime Minister has always adopted a most extraordinary course. He has told the country and this House over and over again that, whatever happened, he had the mandate of the country, and that they knew all about this Home Rule policy before the 1910 elections. He is absolutely wrong, and, if the House will bear with me, I am going to drive home my statement in the next few minutes. I say nothing of the suppression of this subject in the addresses of nearly all of the Cabinet to their constituents, for that has been sufficiently proved and driven home already. But I ask the Prime Minister this question, and I hope that some of his colleagues who are present will convey it to him: Can he tell me the name of one single Minister occupying his position in this country, when his Government had determined to introduce a measure of great importance and endeavour to carry it into law in the ensuing Parliament, who would ever have dreamt of omitting a full statement of that question from his address? Can he tell me the name of a single Prime Minister who has ever taken that course before, and if he can, who it was, and when it occurred? I shall be
  1450
  very much surprised if, when he searches his records, he does not draw and discover a blank.
  That is the case with Ministers. What is the case with their supporters? In the election of December, 1910, out of 313 Gentlemen sitting on the Government side of the House, Liberal and Labour Members, in how many cases do you think it was ever mentioned in their addresses? In 106 only. That is how it was kept before the public. I have something more to say on that point. I have been very careful, so far as I could, to get the facts. The Prime Minister tells us that he, at all events, made it clear in his different speeches. I have brought his different speeches with me. The first was made at Hull a few days after the election had begun. The only reference to his Home Rule policy in that speech is contained in five lines. It was this:—
  "In a speech I made at the Albert Hall nearly a year ago, I dwelt on some of the causes that we believe are in our keeping. I spoke of a proper solution of the problem of Irish self-government. What I then said I repeat. To it I adhere, and I believe the Liberal party ad here."
  He did not even tell them what he said. Neither did he tell them to what he adhered. He referred them to a speech made at the Albert Hall. Well, I have that speech, too. What did he say there? It is most extraordinary, but he did exactly the same thing. He referred them to another speech made at another place a year before—it was even a year before he was Prime Minister—in the year 1908, a speech he made in this House. How do you suppose that the poorer people, the working classes and the general community throughout the country would be able to ransack the "Parliamentary Debates" and to find a speech relating to Home Rule which was made by the Prime Minister three or four years before? The thing is too absurd. It is incredible, and what he did say was incorrect. He said:
  "I repeat here to-night what I said then. Speaking on behalf of the Government in March of last year, described Ireland as the one undeniable failure of British statesmanship, and I said that a solution of the problem could be found only in one way—by a policy which while explicitly safeguarding the supreme and indefeasible authority of the Imperial Parliament, will set up in Ireland a system of full self-government in regard to purely Irish affairs. There is not and there cannot be any question of separation; and there is not and cannot be any question of rival or competing supremacy. Subject to those conditions, that is the Liberal policy."
  We will look a little further into this. The repetition was not accurate. He did not say full self-government, and he did not say Irish affairs. What he did say was that their policy was nothing but self-govern-

  1451
  ment for purely local affairs, a very different thing altogether. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know that there had been a Bill for local self-government already submitted into the House of Commons, and when it went to the Convention at Dublin it was rejected with ridicule and scorn, and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) and his associates with him had to look exceedingly small.
  Why is all this tyranny to be inflicted upon Ulster? Why was it that the Prime Minister was able to hold out to us the alluring hopes that he did, and then without a word more to change his attitude altogether, and to inflict this added disappointment upon that portion of the country. There is no bargain, we are told. There was no arrangement of any sort between the Government and the Members and leaders of the Nationalist party in this House, and, therefore, I am not likely ever to be able to find the reason, but I want to say with the utmost earnestness one word on behalf of the people of Ulster. Who are these people of Ulster? They are the direct descendants of the Protestant immigrants who were imported into Ulster from Scotland and England, and sometimes from parts of Ireland, in the reign of James the First, under the scheme which he proposed, determined to have, at all events in one part of Ireland, a population upon whom he could depend as being loyal to the Crown and Constitution of this country. They were induced to go there under every kind of undertaking and solemn promise. It was known in those days sometimes as the plantation of Ulster, and in later days was described by Gladstone as the well-known covenant of Ulster. What are these promises? Special security for their religion and security for the land on which they were placed. Other conditions were made besides, and, above all, they were to be under the control of the English Government. How they filled their part of the bargain may be judged by the contrast which anyone who goes there can see between Ulster and many parts of the rest of Ireland to-day. A more industrious, a more loyal, hard-working, active or intelligent race, no country possesses in the world. They have been amongst our best soldiers, they have always been well affected to this country, they never joined the Nationalist ranks when they proclaimed themselves as rebels, as many of them have done over and over again. If the hon. Member (Mr.
  1452
  Dillon) were here I would remind him of some of his statements, not so very many years ago. There are other reasons why these people should dread being under the control of men like him. There was one celebrated statement he made to the effect that, "When we come into our possessions we shall remember the men who have opposed us before, and when we are in power we shall mete out their punishment to our foes and our rewards to those who have been our friends." These Ulstermen who have been induced to go there by the terms I have mentioned, these loyal men who are some of the worthiest subjects anywhere to be found in the Empire of the King—what is to be their reward to-day? You are going to subject them by force, if need be, and to place them under the domination which they detest, and abhor, under the domination of men to whose principles, whose policy, and whose practices they are most determinedly opposed. Do you think by using force against this supremely loyal population you are going to add to the peace and the prosperity and the welfare of that country? I say in the presence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in my solemn judgment, if life is destroyed, if blood is shed, if you cannot enforce their submission without the ultimate resort to force, and you put it into action, you will be guilty of the greatest crime that has ever been committed in the annals of this country for generations. The time will come, and not far distant, I am certain, if you do, when you will be called to account by the people of this country. There is nothing in the world that they hate so much as injustice of this kind, especially when that injustice is enforced by the shedding of their blood. When that time arrives, believe me, it will be the death-knell of your evil rule and the hour of your doom.
  Mr. GILL: I think during the three days in which this Debate has been going on, everybody who desires a peaceful solution of this difficulty will be glad at the changed tone of the speeches and the evident desire on the part of many Members to find a solution. I regret exceedingly the last remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in speaking of force. I think it would have been better and more in accordance with the keeping of a late Cabinet Minister if he had used his energies in the direction of trying to find some way out of the present difficulty. The Foreign Secretary the other day asked Members on both

  1453
  sides of the House to look at the matter from a non-provocative standpoint. We have had some extraordinary speeches from the back benches on that side. Hon. Members, I think, have shown a desire to try and find a peaceful way out. It would have done credit to their hearts and their heads. So far as the Labour party is concerned, we are Home Rulers of long standing and Home Rulers by conviction. For thirty years this question has been before the country. We desire, and I believe the country desires, that it should be got out of the way for the simple reason that it blocks the way of social reform, which is very much needed, and which the country is waiting for. Reference has been made to General Elections, and to the question whether or not the Government have a mandate for this Bill. Whatever may be said as to Members of the Liberal party not having put the question of Home Rule in their election addresses, I think it will be generally found that it was mentioned not only in 1910, but at the two previous elections, that Home Rule was one of the issues submitted to the electors. It is quite true that the past generation opposed Home Rule—the elections which took place in 1886 and 1895 showed that quite clearly—but a change has come over the country, and a different view is taken now from that taken previously. It is difficult now to get up any enthusiasm against the adoption of a system of Home Rule. The country looks upon the question as settled, and consider that the only thing required is that the Bill should be passed by Parliament. We are strongly of opinion that in all cases the majority should rule.
  I have been very much surprised by hearing hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, mention the particular circumstance that there is a majority in England against it. I do not see why that should be introduced as an argument against Home Rule at all. I understand that England is a unit in the United Kingdom, and I do not see why they should single out one country to dominate the rest. What is to become of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales? They are all represented in this Imperial Parliament, one vote should be as good as another, and the majority ought to rule. We have now had this question before us for three Sessions, we have arrived at the third stage under the Parliament Act, and if this Bill passes through the House of
  1454
  Commons it will become the law of the country. It is quite true that the minority have taken up a strong attitude on the question. Every minority have to suffer in some way or another in connection with Acts of Parliament of which they disapprove, but in every previous case the minority have had to give way. It is said there is an exception in this case, and that what is proposed is altogether different from anything which has existed before. It is said that if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, the minority ought to be treated differently on the ground of difference of religion—the difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants. This is not the first religious question which has been before the House, and in connection with which minorities have had to suffer. When the party led by the late Leader of the Opposition was in power they went to the country in 1900 and asked to be allowed to complete the war. That was the only mandate they had, but they took the opportunity of bringing in an Education Bill in 1902 which outraged the religious' feelings of the whole of the Nonconformists in this country. It is true that there was passive resistance, but there was no armed force, and that minority have had to accept the position which that Act created.
  Then in 1904 they introduced a Licensing Bill for which they had no mandate. That Bill created a monopoly, and gave to licence holders property which they did not previously possess. At that time a large number of people were indignant. A large number of temperance reformers, and people who believe in temperance, had to submit, and I see no reason why there should be one treatment in this particular matter different from what has been done in regard to the other questions which I have mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London said that the Government should ask the people what they think about this measure. I would point out that they themselves took the opposite course, and instead of asking the people beforehand what they thought, they passed Bills for which they had no mandate. They took the course of passing them and leaving the electors to judge afterwards. There is a Bill to-day before a Committee upstairs which has passed the Second Reading in this House, and upon which hundreds and thousands of textile workers in Lancashire and Yorkshire feel strongly.

  1455
  Ballots have been held in regard to that particular Bill, and very large majorities have decided against it, but still that measure will probably become law, and these people will have to submit when that takes place.
  I consider that the Government have tried to meet the Opposition in regard to the Home Rule Bill very fairly. The Bill itself as passed in previous Sessions is full of safeguards. One safeguard after another was inserted, and we were beginning to wonder what the Irish Government were going to have left to them. Their powers are very limited indeed. The concessions which have been offered from time to time have only been used for the purpose of trying to get further concessions. My colleagues and I have been constantly engaged for many years in negotiating with employers with respect to industrial disputes. We do come across employers occasionally who, when we make offers of a peaceful character, think that that shows a feeling of weakness, and that all they have got to do is to refuse to come to an agreement in order to get more. That is the way many strikes are caused. The Opposition seem to have adopted the same attitude in regard to this question. They seem to think that because the Government are trying to seek peace by offering concessions they are weak. They are taking up the attitude that if they can only keep them longer, and bully them a little bit more, they will be able to extract a greater number of concessions. I think that no responsible Government in this country, to whatever party it belongs, can afford to give way to threats of that sort. I regret, and the party to which I belong regret, exceedingly, that Army officers have seemed to take sides. It has a bad effect on the organised workers of the country, and it will make the difficulties in connection with our disputes much greater in the future than they have hitherto been.
  I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London suggested that soldiers were entitled to act according to their consciences. It seems to us a strange doctrine that this question of conscience only comes in when it is a question of politics, and the politics of one side only. We have never heard at any time in the history of great trade disputes, when the military have been called out from time to time, of the question of Conscience coming into operation. On no
  1456
  single occasion has the soldier refused to act because it was a trade dispute and because his conscience would not permit him to act. It is against the best interests of the country that the question of the Army should be brought into matters of this sort. I think we have not heard the last of it, and I regret that such a matter should have been introduced. Everybody agrees that if there is any likelihood of a minority being injured or oppressed in connection with any Act of Parliament, they ought to be protected. We think what has been done, and what has been offered, so far as Ulster is concerned, will give the people adequate protection. It seems to me that the majority have not been sufficiently taken into consideration in this matter. The majority cannot be ignored in a question of this description. Anyone who has read the history of Ireland. and who knows what, has gone on during the last hundred years can come, I think, to no other conclusion than that the majority are perfectly right in seeking to have a Parliament of their own to try to improve the conditions in their country. The young and the sturdy have been compelled to emigrate because they were unable to obtain a living in their own country. Something must be radically wrong with the state of Ireland, when we find that during the last 100 years the population has been depleted by over 50 per cent. There is no other civilised country in the world which shows such a condition of things. Irishmen who have gone abroad, have taken prominent positions in the countries to which they have gone. I have been to America and I have seen Irishmen occupy the most, prominent, positions in some of the State Parliaments.
  The Irish nation, the Irish Nationalist section especially, has been subjected to coercion and eviction and absentee landlordism. People who for over thirty years send a compact body of eighty representatives to this House for one purpose only, I think deserve to be recognised. It certainly shows that they are in earnest in their demand for Home Rule, and so far as this Bill is concerned, we will give it our fullest support. The Irish Members of this House have generally been in favour of democracy, and have generally assisted the Labour party in doing what they desire to do. I have on a previous occasion mentioned the circumstances in which we had reason to be grateful for the action which they took in regard to textile Bills, and

  1457
  we support them to the full in what they are asking for. We never expected that, the Government would offer or even suggest, the exclusion of any part of Ulster. It came as a great surprise to us, because we consider that Ireland ought to be a united country in itself. I do not think that the working classes in Ireland generally are in favour of exclusion. I saw in the papers a week or two ago a resolution passed by the Belfast Trades Council, upholding the exclusion of Ulster from the Home Rule Bill. We look at this question generally from a different standpoint. from that of other hon. Members. To our minds this is an economic question. There are many problems in Ireland that require to be dealt with, and which are not being dealt with properly at the present time. The great bulk of hon. Members opposite seem to think that when an Irish Parliament is established it will be divided exactly as Irish parties are divided to-day, but the Nationalist members will form one section an the Ulster members will form another.
  I do not believe that anything of the kind is likely to happen. Among the eighty-six Nationalist Members I believe that there are as many different shades of opinion as there are in this House. I think that among them you will find Conservatives who will be able to act with the Ulster members, and that you will have some Liberal members, and you will certainly find some Labour representatives among them. I shall be very much surprised, indeed, if you do not find even some Tariff Reformers among them. But though they may all hold different opinions, they come here with one distinct object, and that object is nationality. They have come here as a national party, for the purpose of securing a Parliament of their own in which they can act in accordance with Irish ideas. When that Parliament is established, as it will be established, I think that parties will be divided exactly as they are divided here. We are looking for a strong Labour party in Ireland. We believe that there is need for it. We certainly know that there is great need for improvement in the linen mills of Ulster as regards the conditions of work, the rate of wages, and the abolition of fines. I have had the most extraordinary statements made to me as the result of investigations which have been made in regard to the conditions that exist there, and that would not
  1458
  be tolerated for one day if they existed in the textile mills of Great Britain. I certainly think that when the Parliament is established, each representative who is sent there will consider what is the best thing he can do for his own country, and Members will not divide themselves into religious sections. They will look upon their duty from the point of view of seeing what is most necessary to improve the conditions of the people.
  There are many problems of wages and hours of labour, and there is a big housing problem, not only for Dublin but for the rest of Ireland. Those of us who have had to do with the recent dispute in Dublin know what are the conditions that exist there. There is plenty of work for an Irish Parliament and work in which all ought to take part. There is no religious question in the trade unions—Orangemen and Catholics work together. A short time ago, I heard from a friend, one of the great international trade unions of this country which has members in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, opened a branch in Dublin. The district delegate from Belfast, who performed the opening ceremony, is an Orangeman. Practically all the members of this branch are Catholics, and they entertained him to dinner. In the very same society there has been an election for the position of president. There was an Orangeman from Belfast, and there was a Catholic, and there were several others, and in this particular branch in Dublin they unanimously voted for this Orangeman from Belfast as President. That shows plainly enough that working together so far as their affairs are concerned, they do not consider the religions question. That, to my mind, will be the attitude which they will take in the future when they have got a Parliament of their own.
  I think that everyone agrees that it would be better, if possible, to have a peaceful settlement of this problem, but it is impossible that those people in the North should be separated from the rest of Ireland, and that there should be two separate Governments. The rest of Ireland is in the most intimate connection with Belfast, and Belfast is in the same relationship with Dublin and other cities. of the country. People in the other parts of Ireland invest their money in banks in Belfast, and different articles required for other parts of the country are bought in Belfast. There is one Ireland now, but it

  1459
  would not be one Ireland if the people are separated in the way that has been suggested, and such a separation is bound to interfere with the industrial conditions not only in the rest of Ireland, but in Belfast itself. One naturally asks how is this situation to be dealt with. It is a problem which needs to be thought out very carefully. To my mind there is not much need for fear. As soon as the new Government is established, it will depend on that Government as to how it treats the people, and how it carries out the laws and administers the country. It seems to me that this is going to put the Government on its mettle, and that it will make it carry out the laws of the country in such a way that I believe the Ulster people will be glad to come in at the end of six years. It would be an incentive to good legislation and to administration.
  I do not know what the position would be in the future if this suggestion of the Government is accepted. Personally, I doubt whether many counties will vote themselves out. I have had conversations with prominent Irishmen, some in Ulster, and they are very doubtful themselves whether more than two or three counties will vote themselves out. I think if there is a fair field and no favour, and if the National Parliament starts in a peaceful manner, that Ulster—and it is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University asked for, namely, that Ulster should be won—will be won. As to a Referendum, personally I do not believe in that proposal. I do not think it is a practical solution of the problem, nor do I think if there were a Referendum that it would be confined to this one question. If the electors were left to themselves, and no meetings were held and nothing done, it would be found that they would not be got to vote, and a small minority ought not to decide an issue of this decision. But the ballot could not be confined to one issue, and I think that the parties would feel bound to do something for the purpose of getting a large vote. Meetings would certainly be held, and not only the policy of the Government, but that of the Opposition would be reviewed, and the whole of the voting would take place in relation to that condition of facts. Therefore, I do not think the Referendum ought to be taken into consideration at all; it would not settle the matter in any way whatever.
  1460
  A suggestion has been put forward which seems to find great favour in different parts of the House. It surprises me that such a development has taken place within the last few days in favour of the federal solution. There may be something in it. Everybody agrees that we want some system of devolution, not only for Ireland, but for the other three countries of the United Kingdom. There is a great deal of time spent here on small matters which might be dealt with elsewhere. Still, I think that the solution which is suggested requires to be considered with very great care indeed. So far as England is concerned, it will have to be dealt with very carefully. I believe that there is much business which comes before this House that might be very well managed in a local Parliament, but this question of federalism has many sides; there are some things to be said for it, and other things against it. A few years ago I paid a visit to the United States of America, and, while there, I found that a burning question, so far as industries were concerned, was whether they should adopt the Workmen's Compensation Act, as they have got it in this country. They found the greatest difficulty in different States in getting that Act pased. It was found that it interfered with the written Constitution of the United States, and the Supreme Court intervened from time to time in regard to the establishment, of this Act. On the other hand, there is something to be said for the system in the, United States. Within certain limits the States can do certain things. In Massachusetts, so far as factory legislation is concerned, they have got ahead of any part of the world, but had the whole of the United States taken the same view that would not have been done.
  In regard to the federal system, I do not think it would be fair or just, and certainly would not be generous, to Ireland. This Home Rule Bill has been before us for a very long time. The country is ready for it; Ireland has sent a compact body of Nationalist Members to this House ready to vote for it at all times; they have done that for the last thirty years—[An HON. MEMBER: "Forty!"]—at least for a long period of years, and they are absolutely united in favour of establishing a National Parliament in Ireland. As far as we are concerned we are prepared to support them, without any federal settlement interfering with the passing of this Bill. Questions have been

  1461
  put with regard to a General Election. So far as that is concerned the Opposition apparently require a lot of General Elections, for every time any question is put forward to which they are opposed they say that there is no mandate from the country for it. But they did not take that into consideration when it was a question of education, licensing, and other measures. The Parliament Act is a bugbear of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They want to get it done away with, but as far as we on these Benches are concerned we are not prepared to sit here for three years for the purpose of getting Bills through. I think the Government ought not to give way on this question, and that they ought to see their three Bills through, the Home Rule Bill, the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, and the Plural Voting Bill, also. Everybody who desires a peaceful solution of this question will find that it is only by being united on this point, and by being determined on all sides of the House, that a peaceful solution can be reached for the benefit of the nation.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I quite agree with the last few words of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill), but I must say that it seems to me he has not directed very much of his attention to the question of conciliation; rather, he seemed to confine his speech all through to the point that the Government should stick to their position. I think it is incumbent upon every Member who addresses the House on this question to do it in a sober way, conscious of the grave responsibility which rests upon each one of us in a grave crisis like the present. We have had several speeches in that tone delivered during this Debate. I should like to allude to the speech of the Foreign Secretary delivered yesterday. It was an utterance of great thought, and it went as far as any speech I have heard towards wishing for a peaceful settlement in order to avoid the horrors of civil war. The right hon. Gentleman said the door was not shut, and he invited still more conversations. I could not say quite the same with regard to the right hon. Gentleman who sits opposite to me to-night (Mr. Herbert Samuel). We did not hear anything from him in that tone. I regret it. I want to look at the position as it is now. For two years the people in Ulster have made it quite evident that on no account could they accept this Bill. The Government and their supporters through the whole of those two years said that it was a case of bluff, that
  1462
  they did not really mean it, and an hon. Member who made a speech from these benches this afternoon, the hon. Member for Poplar, I think, repeated that the Ulster Members were bluffing.
  The Government came to the conclusion, however, that there was a case, and, at the beginning of this Session, the Prime Minister came down and made certain important proposals to exclude Ulster, or parts of Ulster, for a period of six years. If the six years' limit had been omitted, personally, I think you might have done something by way of settlement. But the people of Ulster, who had to come in at the end of that period, felt that they must keep up their organisation, otherwise the position would have been intolerable. It reminds me of the time limit we had on the occasion of the Licensing Bill. The Government then proposed a time limit for all publicans in this country of fourteen years. After the expiration of the time limit, the whole of the licences were to be confiscated to the State without any compensation whatever.
  Mr. DICKINSON: No.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: Yes, I am perfectly right, that was the proposal. Although they were to go on paying their contribution towards compensation for the whole of those fourteen years, yet at the end of that time they were to be confiscated. That was defeated because everybody saw the injustice of it. This is a similar sort of case. I am perfectly sure that a great many hon. Members opposite, and perhaps also on the Government Bench, believe now that exclusion ought to be given without a time limit. I know that many hon. Members opposite think so, because I have spoken to them on the subject. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), who sits opposite, said so in this House. He said he did not see very much difference, if you gave a time limit for six years, why you should not give it without a time limit, or some words of that kind. My argument is, that the Government, by this concession, have admitted there is a case, and, having done so, I contend that it would be impossible for them to enforce the operation of this Bill by force. The opinion of the country would be so dead against them that it would be impossible for them to carry it out. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien), in a speech last night, ridiculed the idea of there being any difference between a six years' time

  1463
  limit and no limit. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the party on this side made a counter offer, namely, to take a Referendum on this question. He said:—
  "We will concede plural voting and we will have a straight issue, Aye or No, on the Bill with the exclusion of Ulster."
  That has been rejected. I have not heard any sound reason for the rejection of the Referendum. It is a very simple and easy way of finding out the opinion of the people.
  Perhaps the House may be interested to know that a month or six weeks ago I voted myself in a Referendum. In a Bill promoted by the corporation of the city (Sheffield) which I have the honour to represent three provisions were opposed at a ratepayers' meeting, and a poll had to be taken. We went to the poll, and there were ballot papers in exactly the same way as at an election, and on the ballot paper there were three questions. The first was: Are you in favour of Clause so-and-so relating to the erection of an abattoir or public slaughter-house by the corporation, yes or no? (2) are you in favour of the Clause giving power to the corporation to run certain motor-buses, yes or no? and (3) are you in favour of strengthening the law with regard to petty thefts, yes or no? The corporation won two Clauses and were defeated on the third.
  Mr. GILL: What percentage of the voters were polled?
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I do not remember. It was not a large one, I admit that.
  Sir HARRY VERNEY: Was it 20 per cent.?
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: It was more than that. It was, to my mind, an effectual test of opinion on those questions. Reference was made yesterday by the Foreign Secretary and by several hon. Members to-day to the question of federation. The Government all through these Debates have said that this Bill was the beginning of federation for the United Kingdom, but it is quite impossible that this Bill could be the beginning of a federal system. It is not in the Bill itself. The Bill is entirely antagonistic to the principle of federation, and, of course, especially on the question of the Customs and the Post Office. Federation, as known in the Colonies, is a very different thing from the federation
  1464
  which this Bill has taken as the standard. There is Colonial self-government as we know it, which is practically a separate nation, where you have only the string with the Crown and the Court of Appeal. Then you have other States of those Governments which are strictly under the central Government. They are ruled in the same way and all the laws act exactly in the same way in each country.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: That is not so.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I am speaking of Australia, for instance, and all the provincial States there have the same laws.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: That is not quite a correct statement. There is a difference in different States.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: They have exactly the same laws.
  Sir G. PARKER: The same powers.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: The same powers, that is what I meant. May I go back to the question of finance of this Bill, which is a most important thing. When this Bill was first introduced, the Government appointed a Special Committee to advise them. It was a very important Committee which called expert evidence, and it came to an absolutely unanimous decision, that the finance of the scheme must be, and the first principle of sound government must be, that the same authority that is spending the revenue should collect it. The Government rejected that for the purposes of this Bill.
  Mr. LOUGH: No.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: We never could tell the reason why. The scheme they substituted is this: that the British Exchequer is to go on levying and collecting all the taxes in Ireland just in the same way as they do now, and that out of that revenue they are to pay to Ireland a fixed annuity, the amount to be determined at the passing of the Bill by the Joint Exchequer Board on the basis of the cost of the transferred services to Ireland. The balance of the revenue will go towards the cost of the reserved services. It does not go the whole way, and there will be a deficiency, after that balance has been contributed, of something like £3,500,000.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: £2,000,000.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I make it £3,500,000. At all events, last year, after defraying the cost of the reserved services, it would

  1465
  have left a deficiency estimated by the Irish Secretary, in answer to a question on the 24th June, of £1,706,000. In addition to the transferred sum, there would be £500,000 for giving the Irish Government a start, and the English Exchequer would have to continue to pay the cost of the whole of the Imperial services. Ireland's share would probably come to about £3,500,000. Any further moneys which Ireland might require for her local services beyond the transferred sum, there would be only one way of getting, and that is by fresh taxation. We have been told, and I believe it is absolutely correct, that it will be impossible to make any economies in the present cost of the transferred services. Therefore, any additional money that was required would have to come out of fresh taxation, or increase of present taxation. Can anybody imagine Ireland being taxed over and above the present taxation? I cannot. But that is what I am afraid this Bill means. Ireland is restricted, no doubt, by the provisions of the Bill in reference to taxation, and I think she would find it extremely difficult to discover any fresh sources. There is the land, of course, but surely that is sufficiently burdened already. There are Irish industries, but if you put a special tax upon them they would not stay in Ireland.
  Under these conditions it is not at all likely that the people of Ireland will be satisfied. As to the British position, the Prime Minister told us on the introduction of the Bill, that one of the chief objects, so far as England was concerned, was to cut the loss. Personally, I do not think that we are going to cut the loss. In this Parliament we shall have an Irish representation of some forty members, whose chief business will be to look after Ireland, and if there is a shortage of money, to press the Government of the day for more money. One hon. Member from County Dublin said distinctly the other day that Ireland would be entitled to a share of any grant made by this House from the common Exchequer. That is not cutting the loss. The point arose in reference to housing. It was pointed out that if a Grant was not made towards housing in Ireland previously to the passage of this Bill, Ireland would have to come and ask for a Grant. That would not be cutting the loss. That would be a grant over and above the transferred sum. The hon. Member said:—
  "There is nothing in the Home Rule Bill to prevent an Imperial Grant being made to Ireland, at the same
  1466
  ime as to Great Britain for housing purposes. If a Grant can be made for housing, it can be made also for other matters."
  One of the most important questions in connection with this Bill is that of land purchase. We have already advanced a very large sum for this purpose. The Irish Secretary in July of last year put the amount for land and cottages at £124,000,000, and it was estimated that £61,000,000 would be required. So far the annuities have been very punctually paid. But if this Bill passes there are people in this country who feel anxious about the future, and I am rather afraid that Ireland will find herself in a worse position in regard to land purchase. I do not think that the Government of the day would be so inclined to advance money to Ireland when Ireland had separated herself from Great Britain. Therefore there would be a danger of not getting those advances. If the annuity was in arrear, according to the Bill, it could be deducted from the Transferred Sum. Therefore there would be sufficient security for that. But the Transferred Sum would be deducted by that amount, and Ireland would be so much the worse off. I should like to go back once more to the first objection of the Unionist party to the principle of Home Rule. The principle dates back over a hundred years, to the time of the Act of Union. What was the position then? This country was at war with France; we were very much pressed; there had been, I think, two attempts to land in Ireland, and the Government of the day came to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary for the safety of the country that the two Parliaments should be united. Pitt, who was Prime Minister, said in his speech on the Union:—
  "We must consider it as an act of great national policy, the object of which is effectually to counteract the restless aspirations of an inveterate enemy"—
  that is Napoleon—
  "who has uniformly and anxiously endeavoured to effect a separation between the two countries."
  The correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh which is given by Mr. Lecky in the third volume of his history, is a paper giving all the arguments as to why the Union was made. He says:—
  "Both the Parliament and the people of Ireland have for the last seventeen years"—
  that is, during Grattan's Parliament—
  "been almost entirely engaged in lessening by degrees their dependence on Great Britain."
  A little further on he says:—
  "The vast majority of the inhabitants of Ireland are either rebels or inclined to become such. The object of

  1467
  the disaffected, that is the great majority of this island, is confessedly a separation from Great Britain."
  Mr. Lecky adds at the bottom:—
  "These were, I believe, the true reasons that governed the conduct of English Ministers."
  That was the cause why the Union was made. The question I ask this House to-night is: Does not that cause exist at the present time? If we are to believe the statements made by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland in speeches which they have made, both in this country and in the United States of America, their ultimate object is separation from this country. That is their idea. This Bill, they tell us, is the stepping-stone towards that. The Unionist party, and I hope also Members on the other side, will say, "We never can consent to a measure which will in any way enable Ireland to lessen her connection with Great Britain. The two islands are inseparable by geographical reasons, and from stragetical and financial reasons it is of the utmost importance that this country should be one with Great Britain.
  Mr. AGAR-ROBARTES: I hope that the hon. Member who has just sat down will not consider me guilty of any discourtesy if I do not reply to the interesting speech he has just delivered. I want to turn my attention for a few moments to the Government. I really think that it would be almost impossible to find any politician gifted with sanity, or even a party hack, who could possibly congratulate the Government on the position in which they find themselves owing to their Irish policy—a policy, we must remember, that we were told would bring peace and prosperity to Ireland, and would usher in the millennium in a country which had been misgoverned in the past. It was stated on hundreds of platforms and in thousands of speeches that the days of coercion were over; that force was no remedy; and that "peace, perfect peace," was the policy of the Liberal party. I admit it all sounded very nice. It all sounded very easy. But unfortunately the Government fell into the mistake of ranging the position: "Sentiment against Sense." If two years ago, instead of under-secretaries and secretaries to under - secretaries gibbering, Cabinet Ministers had only begun to think, then the party to which I belong would not have found itself in the deplorable condition in which it is to-day. So far back as June, 1912, I found it necessary to warn those distinguished men who occupy the Front Bench that it was absolutely im-
  1468
  possible to bring Home Rule into operation unless you first excluded the four counties from the operation of the Bill. On that occasion I was looked upon as a knave by some, as a fool by others, and as both by the rest.
  My amendment on that occasion was vigorously and vehemently opposed by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, with the notable exception of my hon. and gallant Friend on my right (Mr. Pirie) and the hon. Member for St. Ives Division of Cornwall (Sir C. Cory). It was vehemently opposed by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. I well remember that my hon. Friend, if I may call him so, the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) was so determined in his opposition to my amendment excluding the four counties, that be threatened to sever his head from his body if the amendment was carried, and to sit opposite a truncated corpse. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, at that time I considered that as the only solution of the Irish question. [Laughter.] I do not mean the partition of my hon. Friend; but the division of Ireland into two parts. All that is ancient history. Far be it from me to labour the point, for I fully realise that the man who says, "I told you so," is very often a nuisance and invariably a bore. I hear one or two signs of agreement. Perhaps hon. Members on this side of the House will also agree with me when I suggest that we are nearer a settlement to-day than we were in those days when hon. Members on this side of the House, either thought that Ulster was bluffing, or else they themselves were bluffing! Personally I am very glad to find that wiser counsels have prevailed, and that the Government have made concessions. I think we may describe them as sacrifices. I think the Government deserve great credit for the concessions and for the proposals that have been made. Honestly I do not think that hon. Members opposite have received those concessions or those proposals as generously or in that generous spirit which they might have done.
  I want to examine very shortly the various suggestions which have been made for the settlement of the Irish question. First of all there is the demand that emanates from hon. Gentlemen opposite for a General Election—looked forward to by them with avidity—I might also say with greed—but not so eagerly anticipated by hon. Members on this side of the House.

  1469
  I should have thought it must be obvious that a General Election will not possibly settle what I should describe as the Ulster question. In the first place, a General Election would not be fought principally on the question of Home Rule. We should have farmers discussing, for instance, the last phase of Tariff Reform. We should have the agricultural labourer discussing the minimum wage. We should find ministers of all denominations wrangling round the Welsh Church. The Insurance Act would play a prominent part, and the deep-seated objection of certain people to licking stamps no doubt would produce again, as it has before, a vulgar abuse of the mother tongue. If hon. Gentlemen opposite got the best of the General Election; if they won it, and got the better of what I may describe as a slanging match, then there would be no settlement at all of the Ulster question. They would have to subdue the majority in Ireland by force. To my mind there can be no finality in such a settlement. If, as I suggest with great respect, the voice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer might prevail, if the party to which I belong were to win the election, what then would be the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University? Surely he could not return to his supporters and say, "The game is up!" If I understand the position aright—and I think I do—I maintain that we are dealing with Ulstermen who, I might say without offence, are fanatics; who honestly and sincerely think that if the Home Rule Bill were passed, and if they came under an Irish Government their civil and religious liberties would be in danger, their most cherished convictions would be ruthlessly rooted out, and even their lives and the lives of their children would be endangered!
  If that is the spirit of Ulster, and I believe that to be the spirit, then surely approval by Great Britain could make no difference to them! It would be no good going to Ulster and saying to them, "Your civil and religious liberties are in danger, still you have lost the election and Great Britain approves." If Ulstermen believe that, they would go on fighting in order to protect their faith. I had experience of that sort of fanaticism as far back as 1902. I remember perfectly in 1902, after the Education Act was passed, Cornwall was in a blaze, and the cry went up that "Rome was on the rates," and I remember perfectly well as
  1470
  long ago as that peaceful, respectable citizens refused to pay their rates, and that they had to appear day by day before the magistrates, that they were fined and their goods were distrained, and in many cases they suffered imprisonment. I remember one noble sacrifice by one of my Constituents who, in order to avoid payment of rates, made over all his goods and possessions, even to his toothbrush, to his wife. I merely give that as an instance, to show how fierce the Protestant flame will burn, how unquenchable and fiery the spirit of men who honestly and sincerely believe that their civil and religious liberties are in danger.
  Therefore I dismiss entirely the question of a General Election, or the demand for a Referendum as absolutely useless in solving what I describe as the Ulster question. That brings me to the proposal of the Government, to what is known as temporary exclusion. I, personally, am really desirous of seeing the question of Ireland settled. I maintain that it is absolutely impossible to turn a deaf ear to the repeated demands of the majority for self-government. I also believe it is unthinkable and impossible that the war-whoop of a faction or the bray of a minority should ultimately prevail over the cry of a nation. It is impossible that Ulster should take up the untenable position that because they do not want Home Rule, no one else shall have it, although I support and will support their demand, which I consider their right, to remain outside the scope of the Home Rule Bill. I believe it is absolutely impossible to bring these two incongruous elements together at least for many years. Temporary exclusion to me has one fatal objection. It is this: that at the end of six years the Government expect to be able to do what they cannot do now. Therefore, no one will contend but that the unrest and uncertainty in Ulster during that period of six years will be absolutely intolerable. I maintain it is quite impossible to keep Ulster in what I might describe as a state of siege for six years. Surely, if the Liberal party happen to be in power in 1921, and if the Liberal party can afford to be generous, then they can afford to be generous now and act up to all the old principles of Liberalism which used to read "trust the people," instead of the new fanatical principles of official Liberalism that read "Coerce them." Surely the Government ought to

  1471
  say to the Ulster counties, "if you do not wish to come in at the end of six years, then we will give you the option not to.
  I think it was the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University who said, speaking a day ago in the House that the people of Great Britain were sick of the Irish question. Personally, I entirely agree with him. I think the electors of Great Britain are tired to death and bored to tears with the Irish question. If my proposal was followed out it would be no longer an English question, for automatically at the end of six years the Ulster people would be given the option of coming in or staying out at will. If the prophecies are true of those who support Home Rule, that it will indeed bring peace and prosperity to Ireland, then the Ulster counties would be tumbling over each other to take their share and play their part in this rejuvenated Ireland. I have always maintained that the onus of proof must always fall upon the exponents. I would point out to hon. Members opposite that if they grant that option at the end of six years or ten years it would not, after all, be a bar or a bolt against the decree of a united Ireland. It is quite possible, as I have said, that if all the good things come of Home Rule the Ulstermen will come in. I should really like to make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, and it is this: After all, you, in days gone by, as I heard the hon. Member for East Mayo say, have experienced coercion—you have tasted it and tried it. Some of you, as has been said, have been imprisoned. Why should you wish, then, to bring these horrors upon your fellow countrymen. I am perfectly convinced you can never have a contented Ireland so long as you attempt to bring in people under any form of Government which they dread and distrust.
  There is just one other solution, and that is the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie). Personally, I must admit I am not particularly in love with cutting up and mincing Great Britain, for, as I have always considered, the clouds of a federal system are not yet above the horizon, but if the solution of the Irish question could be found through a federal system, I should have no objection to supporting my hon. Friend's suggestion, as I am anxious to see a solution of this question if possible. For, after all, graver issues
  1472
  have been raised during the last few days than the question of Ireland; they are far-reaching in my opinion, and, if persisted in, will be disastrous, not only to our Army, but also to our Navy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite blame the Liberal party—the Liberal party blame them. It would be presumption on my part, and far be it from me, to judge between you, but I am absolutely certain, if either party attempts to bring the Army or the Navy as pawns into our paltry party politics, sensible men will rise up and say, "Extinguish the light from the clock tower. A plague on party politicians and all their works!"
  Mr. ASTOR: I have listened with great interest to the courageous and interesting speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member opposite. I find a great deal that I agree with in what he has said. Perhaps there is so much in common between us, because both have the distinction to represent West-country constituencies. I have noticed one thing during the past months, that whatever audience I addressed, whether it was a speech at a political meeting or an after-dinner speech, the one certain way to get approval from my audience was by abusing the party system. All sections, large numbers of people throughout the country are against the party system, because they believe that we in the House of Commons have made a mess of things during the past few years. It is for us to show at this moment and during the future months that we can retrieve our good name, and that we can carry through this question and the constitutional question on a satisfactory national basis. I have listened to most of the speeches that have been made. I listened to some speeches of a distinctly conciliatory character from hon. Members opposite. I confess that I have been disappointed with the speeches which I have heard from hon. Members below the Gangway. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), as I understood their speeches, closed the only door for a satisfactory settlement—the only door through which I could possibly go. It was with genuine regret that I heard those two speeches. Hon. Members of the Nationalist party have referred to some of my colleagues and criticised their speeches as if the only suggestion we had put forward was for the complete and absolute exclusion of Ulster, and that

  1473
  nothing else should be done. If I may summarise the proposals which have come from us, it has been "exclusion pending federalism," which is quite a different proposition.
  The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool said Ulster would have six years to discover her mistake. But if at the end of six years they still believed they were right in asking to be left out of the Irish Parliament, according to the hon. Member they ought to be compelled to come into that Parliament. That is the essential difference between us. Hon. Members below the Gangway say the men of Ulster must come in. We say if they do it should be of their own free will. I think the Government bring forward Home Rule with the justification that in their opinion there is need of a certain delegation of powers from this Parliament to other bodies. In discussing this question I want to speak of Home Rule as little as possible, because Home Rule has bitter memories for all sides, there are bitter associations connected with it and all we mean by it, whatever our party may be. Therefore I want to speak of it as being a proposal for the delegation of certain legislative rights and powers, and examine it as such. Hon. Members on this side do say, and they have said, and say now, and I dare say a large number will continue to say, that they are opposed root and branch to the whole principle of Home Rule. Nobody on this side or on any other side can say that he is opposed to every and any form of devolution or delegation of powers. After all, this House is always delegating powers and rights to other bodies. The whole question turns on what are the legislative rights and powers that you are going to delegate.
  Secondly, what is the nature of the body to which you propose to delegate those rights and powers? Is that body to be associated with a geographical area or is it a body connected with sentiment or nationality? On these two points there might be a certain measure of agreement. I think we might agree that the powers to be delegated must be considerable, and that the body to which they are delegated must be a body of considerable importance. So far there may not be much difference, but then we come to the crux, and that is what is the amount of control and actual legislative powers to be maintained in the central Parliament in London which under the federal scheme would
  1474
  have supervision over subordinate authorities. On this depends entirely whether the machine you set up is centrifugal or centripetal, on whether the forces are disintegrating or unifying. The machinery you set up is centripetal when the central control is a real one, when the central Parliament has a real control and supervision over the subordinate bodies, and when the amount of retained services and legislative powers are real and considerable.
  Similarly, looking at the other side, the subordinate bodies to which powers are delegated must be really subordinate bodies, and under the central control and veto of a Parliament representing the whole of the United Kingdom here in London. That is what I propose to refer to as the federal scheme. I realise that federalism, to a large number of people, means a totally different thing. If you get two people discussing federalism, and one says he is a federalist and the other an anti-federalist, you probably find when they come to discuss what they mean by federalism that they mean exactly the same thing. Federalism may have certain advantages or disadvantages, but at all events it has this merit, that in many respects it is a safe solution of the difficulty. As far as machinery is concerned, it is a safe proposal, because it is unifying and not disintegrating. The alternative is a scheme of machinery where your central control is nominal, where the central Parliament has a veto, but it is a nominal veto, and it has not a real power of influencing and vetoing the legislation of the subordinate Parliament, where the retained services and legislative powers retained in the central body are infinitessimal and where too much is given away. That is what I mean by the anti-federal scheme. That scheme is one full of danger to the whole country, and I would oppose such a scheme as long as I have any power either in this House or out of it.
  Let me examine the present Home Rule Bill in the light of this. I find, first of all, it is unlike any federal system that we have in the British Empire. It is unlike the Canadian, the South African, or the Australian schemes. Therefore I begin with this discovery that the present Home Rule Bill cannot be compared with any federal system or machinery existing within the British Empire. At once I find a possibility of danger in the Home Rule Bill. My second point is that under the Home Rule Bill it is proposed

  1475
  to delegate powers and rights and authorities to the subordinate body which cannot possibly be applied to the rest of the United Kingdom, if you establish at some future time other bodies in Scotland, England, or in Wales. The hon. Member for East Mayo, speaking yesterday, said that he claimed that Ireland ought to have special treatment. I do not say that there must be absolute and entire uniformity, but you must have practical uniformity in the powers you delegate to your subordinate authorities, and it is absolutely impossible to delegate the powers given in this Bill and extend the present Home Rule Bill to England, Scotland, or to Wales. I do not think it will be possible to summarise the proposals contained in the present Home Rule Bill more accurately than by saying that it gives to Ireland subsidised separation. In the past we have known a section of a country, a community in a country, breaking away and setting up its own autonomous government. It is a novel proposal that the Mother Country should drive away from its own protection a section of its people and not only give them their own Parliament and the right of making their own laws, but, in addition to that, subsidise them in their separation. There is another thing in the present Home Rule Bill which I find dangerous and which I find anti-federal.
  What is the one thing which is the basis of our existence as a United Kingdom? It is national defence. Under the present Home Rule Bill it is not proposed that Ireland should give a penny towards the national defence of the United Kingdom. There is no proposal that in the future Ireland should give one penny towards our national defence. That, to my mind, is an element of danger, and is a point which I object to in the present Home Rule Bill. I need not refer to the Post Office, the Customs, and the Judiciary, which have been alluded to by several speakers in this Debate before this evening. To my mind this Bill is a bad Bill, and a dangerous Bill, because the foundation of it is separation. To my mind it is a bad Bill, and it is a dangerous Bill, because it is an anti-federal proposal. It is an anti-federal solution of the difficulties we are up against. What is our proposal on this side? First of all, we are the Unionist party. To our mind Union is best for the country. We are satisfied with the form of government which we have known. My
  1476
  own admiration is tempered to some extent by the knowledge that those ninety united votes, which 1 see below the Gangway, have enabled a minority of this House to pass a Budget which did not on its merits command a majority of votes in the House. That solid phalanx of ninety votes has enabled the Budget to be carried, whereas, on its merits, there was a majority against it. I see also the same ninety votes below the Gangway responsible for the temporary suspension of the Constitution. I see many grave dangers and menaces in the near future, and I attribute them largely to the existent of those ninety votes below the Gangway, solid on all questions. It is this which causes me to think that our admiration for the system of government as we have known it in the past must be tempered by the results of that government.
  We say that if there is to be any change, if force of circumstances makes it necessary to have an alteration, then that alteration must be a safe change. The alteration which is suggested must be safe for the United Kingdom, and the machinery set up must be unifying and not of a disintegrating nature. If there is to be any change whatever, to my mind there is only one solution, and that is the federal solution. What is the attitude of hon. Members opposite? It is very difficult lo reconcile the protestations which we have from the Back Benches opposite with the facts as we know them and with the attitude of the Front Bench. Hon. Members on the other side during the last few days have been throwing forward suggestions for a federal solution. They have, in fact, been echoing some of the speeches which were made by right hon. Friends of mine during last autumn. Hon. Members on the Back Benches have done that, but I have not seen the Prime Minister or any responsible Minister sitting on the Front Bench coming forward and putting before this House and the country a distinctly federal proposal for dealing with the Irish question. We have, first of all, this present Bill, which, to my mind, is an anti-federal Bill. Then hon. Members who sit below the Gangway tell us that federalism is slow, and that it takes a long time to establish it. But, because it takes a long time to establish a system of federalism, is no reason why your corner-stone should be anti-federal in character.
  I find it also difficult to reconcile the speeches of hon. Members who sit on the

  1477
  Back Benches opposite with the attitude of hon. Members of the Nationalist party. Hon. Members who sit below the Gangway have not only in the past, but have also recently used towards Ulster terms which can only be described as threatening. They have not so far as I have heard them, tried to win Ulster. They have said to Ulster, "You shall come in." They have not said to Ulster, "We will try to win you in to end our quarrel." The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) said the other day that he wanted special treatment for Ireland. I should have thought if he had been trying to win Ulster that he would have tried to repeat the words used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) in the autumn, that Ireland must have no special treatment, but that the treatment meted out to Ireland must be the same legislative treatment as is given to the people who live in the other portions of the United Kingdom. Then I find it very difficult to reconcile the conciliatory messages which are apparently sent forward from the Back Benches opposite with the attitude of the Prime Minister on this question. The Prime Minister has federalism on his lips, but I have never yet seen him take any action which leads me to believe that there is federalism in his heart. All can say is that, if there is federalism in his heart and in his mind as well as on his lips, he is evidently at the present moment not a free agent to give expression in a practical manner to those sentiments.
  In the autumn we saw hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House holding out what I may describe as an olive branch, throwing out hints of a federal solution. I did not see the Prime Minister take any action to grasp that hand. The Prime Minister waited, and last week he saw the result of his inaction. Then I find it also difficult to reconcile the utterances of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with the protestations, which I believe are absolutely genuine, which come from the Benches opposite. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has advocated Home Rule within Home Rule. If I understand Home Rule within Horne Rule, the right hon. Gentleman has put forward a suggestion which is entirely opposed to federalism for the United Kingdom. If it means anything, it means federalism in Ireland; it does not mean federalism in the United Kingdom. The
  1478
  other day the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think it was in this House, but on the platform outside, said that if the Conference of three years ago had discussed the federal solution it might have been practically ready at the present moment. In other words, he said that it is too late mow. He gave expression to the sentiment which I have heard also coming from hon. Members sitting opposite, that they cannot lose the fruits of the Parliament Act, and that they cannot afford to lose the two years gone by. Surely it is worth spending two years, it is worth spending four years more, if by so doing you can get a settlement by consent, because unless you do get a settlement by consent you are not going to get any settlement whatever.
  I find it indeed hard to reconcile the suggestions which I know are genuine, coming from the Back Benches opposite with the actions of the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Government Bench. It has seemed during the last few days as if it might be possible for certain Members who sit on opposite sides of the House to agree to certain amendments to the present Home Rule Bill, but by the Parliament Act we are precluded from putting down those pacifying amendments and discussing them, and, if we can come to an agreement, from carrying them through. The Government even have not been able to put down on the Paper their own amendments in connection with their concessions. The question I have before me at the present moment is not what I should have done twenty years ago, or what should have done ten years ago, but what is the position I am up against at the present moment, and what is it incumbent on me to do. I see the Constitution shattered, and that it is not being rebuilt or reconstructed, owing to the attitude of the Irish Nationalist Members in this House. I see a Budget which, on its merits, could not command a majority of the House of Commons, and I see at the present moment the shadow of convulsions, the shadow of dangers, which I do not care to probe. I see all these things, and when I realise the possibilities, dangers, and risks—when I realise all these things, then, as far as I sin concerned, I am prepared to take great risks to take a great step forward in order to try and get this question settled by consent and without bloodshed. I wish, as far as in my power lies, to avoid a crisis, and crises, which will make for bitterness

  1479
  not only in Ireland and in the United Kingdom, but in every Colony throughout the Empire. I want to avoid crises, which will endanger our position at the heart of the Empire.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. LOUGH: Members on both sides have taken great interest in this Debate, and I, for one, am glad that the time allotted for it has been extended. I listened with particular interest to the speeches made on the first evening of the Debate, but I am afraid that some of those delivered yesterday and one or two to-day have not proved quite of the same character. The right hon Gentleman the Member for the City of London, who opened the Debate to-night, made a remark about the situation which calls for some notice, especially as it was afterwards repeated by the hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). The Debate was chiefly about Ulster and its position under the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman said that what Ulstermen wanted was to be able to retain their full rights as British citizens. We have had that point constantly raised throughout this Debate. civis Britannicus has been often mentioned. I think hon. Members have been too ready to pick up the loose phrases used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College. I would like to ask this question. Have the men of Ulster ever enjoyed the full rights of free citizens? What are the full rights of free citizens They are the enjoyment in their local government of the control of their local affairs, and I believe the greatest test of British citizenship is for the ordinary citizen to have control over the police and not to live under a centralised police force. In that sense the men of Ulster have never enjoyed the full rights of citizenship, and they never can unless some such Bill as this is passed. Further than that they enjoy no rights over their schools or over their commerce. They are in a most pitiable condition. I speak as an Ulster man. Members of this House should look at the realities of the situation. If they did, I think the tone of their eloquence would be greatly changed. They say that Ulster must necessarily be oppressed if put under this proposed Parliament. Nothing of the kind. It will all depend upon what the Parliament does, and the mistake Ulster is making at the present moment is that it
  1480
  is crying out too soon. It is possible that the Parliament may confer great benefits, upon Ulster, and I would suggest that hon. Gentlemen might look at these brighter shades of the picture, instead of dwelling so constantly on the darker aspects. On the first night of the Debate we had an interesting speech from the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke). He asked the House to look at the realities of the situation. He said that Ulster was one reality. Another reality, he declared, was that the people of England objected to the Bill. But he did not allude to the fact that all the Celtic fringe around the Scotch, the Welsh, and the Irish, by great majorities are in favour of the Bill, and if England wants to live happily with her surrounding countries, as part of a great federation, she must consider the opinions of those parts. It is easy, therefore, to give an answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point. There is one reality which the hon. Gentleman did not mention, and I should like to direct attention to it for a few moments. This is a question between two islands, not so different in size as they might be, but very different in their conditions. The island of Great Britain is the most prosperous island in the world; the island of Ireland is in many respects one of the most miserable. [Dissent.] Why, the presence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College and of myself in this House could not be a better proof of that.
  Sir E. CARSON: But you come from London.
  Mr. LOUGH: I am a genuine Ulsterman. I am not a bagman in Ulster like, the right hon. Gentleman.
  Sir E. CARSON: You are a bagman over here.
  Mr. LOUGH: I am speaking of the realities of the situation, and I was about to give figures which appeal most easily to hon. Members opposite. Here is one island, Great Britain, which has doubled its population, as far as England and Wales are concerned, since 1851. Scotland has doubled its population since 1831. But in the case of Ireland its population has decreased by one half. In whatever respects you compare the two islands you see one going forward in prosperity and wealth in the estimation of every intelligent person throughout the world, whereas, when you

  1481
  look at the other you see it going backwards. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh at that. They may say that latterly there has been some improvement. I admit there has been some little improvement, but it is because Ireland has sunk so low that if any change did take place it could only be an improvement. But I also say that any improvement which has been won has been gained by the advance of this great question of Home Rule and self-government and by pressing the rights of the Irish people as they have been pressed by the Nationalist party. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit that Great Britain presents a great contrast with Ireland in respect of population, wealth, and general progress, and the object of this Bill is that the great reality of the retrogression of Ireland during a long period may be borne in mind, and accepted as a reason why some change might be made such as is here proposed.
  There is one other speech to which I listened with great interest. It was made by the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. Ronald M'Neill), who, like myself, although representing an English Division, is an Irishman and an Ulsterman. He has the faculty of making very plausible speeches, like sonic other hon. Gentlemen opposite, without giving away anything to the opposite side. Alluding to the proposal of the Government, he said that they had not selected the right area, and that the whole of Ulster ought to be excluded from the Bill. Let us look at that. On what was the argument based? He said that a certain section of the population—that is, the Protestants in Ulster, who are only 22 per cent. of the whole population of Ireland—objected to a Home Rule Constitution, and, therefore, we should exclude Ulster, which is one-fourth of the country, because that 22 per cent. of the population objected to the Bill. Take the province of Ulster. There we find that 44 per cent. of the population are Catholics. If you are to exempt Ulster from the Bill because 22 per cent. of the people do not like the proposals in it, why on earth should you not have respect to the opinion of 44 per cent. of her population? The argument of the hon. Member against the proposals of the Bill was just as strong as the argument he put forward on behalf of the futile scheme he laid before us.
  Perhaps it will be thought I am a little critical of hon. Gentlemen opposite and the suggestions they have made towards
  1482
  a settlement, but I am sure they will forgive me when I say I am just as critical of the suggestion put forward by the Government. What is the proposal for settlement that is made to us? I call the attention of the House to the spirit in which it has been made. It is that certain counties in Ulster, if they vote themselves out, shall be included after six years. My knowledge of Ulster prompts me to be against the whole policy of exclusion. I must not be accused of any disloyalty to my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench for discussing this matter somewhat freely, for they invited discussion. The Foreign Secretary quoted a sentence from the Prime Minister, and said, "Here is a suggestion for you, but it is not the only suggestion that has been made. We have also had the suggestion of Home Rule within Home Rule, and Sir Horace Plunkett's scheme, and we do not close the door to any suggestion." The object of this Debate is that suggestions may be thrown out and that they may be criticised. Therefore, I am going to criticise the Government's suggestion, which is exclusion for a time of certain counties of Ulster. I should like to call the attention of the House to one most peculiar thing about this proposal. I have been a long time in the House—over twenty years—but I have never heard a proposal brought forward by a Government in such an extraordinary way as this has been proposed. Its parents have said nothing about it; its authors never defend and never explain it. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), in his speech yesterday afternoon, said that he accepted it, but that he did so with pain. He did not explain it; he did not defend it. Why on earth should we live in this world of shams, and go on with a thing which nobody likes, which nobody understands, and in which nobody believes?
  Let me point out freely the defects of this proposal. It was taken from the Front Opposition Bench. That is a very had origin for anything. It was brought forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) in his celebrated Amendment to the Home Rule Bill. He said, "It is a bad affair. I do not believe in the policy of exclusion. I bring it forward to destroy the Bill." That was candid and honest, and I believe every word of it was true. The policy of exclusion is fatal to the Bill, and for that reason, and

  1483
  because of its bad origin and the necessarily evil effect it will have, the Government ought to have hesitated to bring it forward. As it is brought forward, let us look at it. What good can this do Ulster? All that the counties have left to them is to vote themselves out of the Bill. What will happen if they do? The first six years of the Irish Parliament will be the most important period in the history of the next fifty years for Ireland. In the first six years a new Government will be set up, the number of State Departments will be fixed, and a system of government will be entirely novel and different from anything that exists in the British Empire will be worked out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I hope it will be better than any we have yet seen, and that the experience of the Australian, New Zealand, and the other Home Rule Constitutions will be even bettered so that it may be a good scheme. While all this work is being done, Ulster is to be excluded. Afterwards she is to he asked to come in and live under a Constitution which will be fixed on iron lines, and in the fixing of which she has had no part.
  Mr. DILLON: Ulster will not be excluded unless she votes herself out. I very much doubt whether she would vote herself out.
  Mr. LOUGH: I quite agree. That is the second point I was going to make. I wish the hon. Member would have discussed the details, because he would know them much better than I do. What will happen is that the best part of Ulster—county Cavan—will not vote herself out. Donegal will not, and only four counties may. I only say "may." Perhaps they will not. There may be only three, but if the four do vote themselves out, what will be the result? The result will be that there would be no opposition in the Irish Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members opposite may disagree, but at any rate the representatives of the minority will be excluded, and that would be a ridiculous position.
  Mr. DILLON: There would be no minority.
  Mr. LOUGH: If there is no minority, everybody will be unanimous—they would all be men of one opinion.
  Mr. DILLON: Not at all.
  Mr. LOUGH: I think the point I am making will appeal generally to the House. I say that the great body of the representatives of the Irish minority would be excluded. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It would be a great pity if they were excluded. Wherever there is fighting to be done there Irishmen like to be, especially the men of Ulster, and they ought to be in the Irish Parliament, and in it from the beginning. The smaller the minority, the more imperative it is that it should be represented, and, above all, that it should be represented by Ulstermen. Even forty sensible men from Ulster in a Parliament of 160 that will meet in College Green would bring the light of reason and intelligence into that Parliament, which it could not possibly have without them. It would be a tremendous pity if the Opposition should be entirely absent front that Parliament. Further, there would be great administrative difficulties. Hon. Members from Ireland, especially the hon. Member for East Mayo, will admit, if they discuss the matter from a critical standpoint, that there would be great administrative difficulties in carrying out this proposal. How are all the questions connected with railways, rivers, and canals in the excluded area to be settled? The thing is almost unintelligible. You have the idea of cutting out a part that must be strictly defined. We have heard that the county of Londonderry may be excluded, while the city of Derry may be included. In that case, the Dublin Parliament would have to go through the excluded area to get to the city of Derry, which would be under its jurisdiction unless it went round by sea. If we look at the matter in a strict way we cannot but recognise that there would be the greatest administrative difficulties in carrying out this proposal.
  Then there is another point. What we ought to do to-day in setting up an Irish Parliament is to avoid all occasion for strife in the early years. If we set up a separate State in Ireland there will be jealousy between the two areas, the excluded area and the area under the Parliament, and I believe this jealousy will tend to grow. The Ulster people will be jealous of the benefits which are conferred on the rest of Ireland. I speak with considerable knowledge of Ulster when I say that no one in Ulster wants exclusion. That seems a very strong statement to make, seeing that the Members for Ulster all vote for it, but the

  1485
  opinions they have expressed in this House ought to be a good deal discounted by the fact that it is meant to destroy the Bill. It is the Opposition still aiming at the destruction of the Bill, not the improvement of the Bill, that has led to this proposal being brought forward. The reason Ulster does not want to be excluded is that she has a thousand ties of business with the rest of Ireland. For instance, the greatest business of all that Ulster does is not after all the linen business, of which so much is heard, but her banking business. Belfast, the centre of the excluded area, if there he any, borrows money from large areas of Ireland, which she lends out again to build up the industries of Ulster. Belfast does not want to be excluded from the rest of Ireland.
  Mr. DILLON: She need not be.
  Mr. LOUGH: But if she follows the advice of her friends she may be excluded. I see I have converted the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) up to a point. If I can get him to support me in allowing this undesirable proposal to drop, I shall have done something in my few remarks. The men of Ulster are not afraid. They are least of all afraid in these counties. They are too numerous there to be oppressed. We will never have any fires of Smithfield or religious persecutions lit in Ireland again [HON. MEMBERS: "Again?"] I apologise. That was a slip.
  Mr. DILLON: Was there ever anything of the kind in Ireland?
  Mr. LOUGH: Never. I have often said so myself. They do not fear anything of that kind, but they fear that they will be excluded from their share of control in the affairs of the new Parliament. We experience it now in many counties, especially in the favoured region of county Cavan under the county council. We had the same guarantees with regard to the county councils from hon. Members opposite, that all would be right, and that the minority would be represented. We have never had a representative of the minority although we are entitled to six in county Cavan since 1898. What is the reason? I cannot blame Irishmen for it. We have the kindest feeling all through Cavan. We do not mind being excluded because the county council is rather a dull place. What is the reason why there are no representatives of the minority upon the Cavan County Council? The fault is entirely
  1486
  due, not to the Irish, who are a people of great virtues, but to this House, which framed a bad Bill. This House took no pains when it was establishing the County Council Bill to secure that the minority would be represented, and especially this great minority that is scattered over Ireland. There are in the three Southern provinces no fewer than 260,000 Protestant people of all kinds who are not members of the ancient Church. None of these can have any representation under the Bill as it is framed.
  Mr. DEVLIN: What about the Protestant Mayor of Wexford?
  Mr. LOUGH: I see the sort of Protestant you mean. You mean the Protestants who would be elected by the Catholic majority.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I mean a Protestant as good as you are.
  Mr. LOUGH: Heaven help any Protestant who is not better. Catholics, although most excellent men and most useful representatives, are not just the same as men elected, whatever their faults and prejudices, to speak the opinion of the minority they represent. Take, as an illustration of what I mean, the province of Connaught. There are 22,000 Protestants there, and they would like to get representation in the Dublin Parliament. Everybody would like that there should be a voice chosen by themselves to express their views in that Parliament. Of course, it would be difficult to arrange, but still I think some method might be found to give them representation. It might be secured to some extent by proportional representation. You have already adopted that method with regard to some of the cities where it is not wanted. Why not apply it to the counties where it is wanted, and thus secure that the scattered minority would get representation under the Bill? I think they might get more representation than they were strictly entitled to at first. This would be the step I would take to reassure them, and to make them feel that they would be able to hold their own and that no oppression could ever affect them there. The hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford have spoken most sympathetically in regard to the matter for two years, and so has my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, but they have brought forward no proposal

  1487
  except that for the exclusion of Ulster counties by the vote of majorities. I am entirely against it. It can do no good to Ulster or anybody, and I think something more practical might come out of our Debates or before the Bill leaves us.
  Mr. DILLON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has got any support from Ulstermen for his proposal?
  Mr. LOUGH: I will tell you how that stands. I am sure it is the conviction of all Ulstermen, but for party purposes they do not like to be the first to come in. The idea is none the worse for being suggested by a small minority. I am quite sure from the sympathetic way my right hon. Friend has alluded to it that he is not hostile to it. Why has he not the courage to propose it?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Do the other side like the proposal?
  Mr. LOUGH: They do not like it. It is brought forward by the other side because it is a means of destroying the Bill. My right hon. Friend knows very well that that is the reason.
  Mr. BIRRELLindicated dissent.
  Mr. LOUGH: I do not think my right hon. Friend can be convinced of anything. I want to say one word upon another point. I deeply deplore that the question of the Army has been brought into this subject. The question how we can satisfy the people of Ulster is large enough with-cut having this mighty question in connection with the Army raised. [Cheers.] I am delighted to hear that hon. Gentlemen opposite are of that opinion. I hope that the question may be laid, and that we may hear no more about it. I would like to say that if there is to be an end of that question, hon. Gentlemen opposite have a duty to do with regard to it just as much as we have. A few days ago I was speaking on this point in the House, and I called attention to the British Covenant which is being scattered through our constituencies; and if anyone chooses to look at the origin of this question of bloodshed he will find that this is a perfectly accurate account of its origin. In the original Irish Covenant, of which I have a copy here, there was nothing about inducing soldiers not to frighten the people of Ulster. It is a
  1488
  beautiful document, in some respects rather crude with its appeal to the Almighty and its declaration that they will make what resistance they can in Ulster. When it was originally signed it was never thought that there would be any fighting at all. It was passive resistance that was intended. They were not to submit to the commands of the Parliament. But it was never thought that there would be an Army Corps and threats of immediate bloodshed. Then we have the Covenant in England with its direct appeal to force which I read to the House the other day. There was a distinct statement that, in certain circumstances in Ireland, those who sign the Covenant would use all their influence to prevent the Army in certain eventualities doing their duty. I want to read another document which is being scattered broadcast in Ireland now. A copy reached my hands to-day. This is the document in which it is stated how the war is to be started in Belfast:—
  "Dear Sir.—In case of necessity, it is proposed that the alarm shall be given in Belfast by the tiring of two signal rockets from one or more of certain points in the City, and it is proposed that this should be taken up by hooters in all the different works, sounding seven short blasts in rapid succession, repeated at intervals, and also by the ringing violently of all church and chapel bells. I shall be glad if you will let me know whether you will be able to assist in this in any way, and, if so, make arrangements for doing so as soon as possible.— Yours sincerely, J. T. SERVICES, Captain.
  For Commander, Belfast Division, 19th March, 1914."
  I describe that as a dangerous document to be scattered about among an inflammable population. I do not want to exaggerate it, because I know very well the people of whom I am speaking, but I do not think that this sort of thing ought to be scattered broadcast in Belfast. At any rate there is no use in right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite appealing to us to avoid all this threatening of force, if all the time an organisation of this kind with threats of this sort is got up against the peaceful inhabitants of a great province like Ulster. And I cannot leave this without reminding the House that it was, I believe, through a false alarm, a lying alarm, that the rebellion of 1641 broke out. Who can tell if this rocket might not be fired in Belfast any night by some irresponsible person. [An HON. MEMBER: "The First Lord of the Admiralty."] We have had all that about the First Lord of the Admiralty before. I have listened to the other side, and they might listen to my side. Hon. Members opposite have got their duty to do. If they are organising an army of their own which, such as the

  1489
  Army described in this document, which may be let loose at any moment, there must be some force arranged in such eventualities to meet it. Therefore I think that all this matter has gone far enough. These appeals to force should cease, and by some excellent suggestion, such as I have made to-night, if you do not like the Government's suggestion, or by that suggestion of Home Rule within Home Rule, or by any intelligent, decent proposition, you may arrive at a happy conclusion now of this long-standing trouble, and by so doing bring prosperity and peace not only to Ireland, but also to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. CAVE: The Debate has now proceeded for three days, and I am struck by three things: One is that, from beginning to end, not a Member on the benches opposite, except the Members on the Treasury Bench, has spoken in favour of the Bill now before the House; secondly, there have been strong appeals made, and from both sides of the House have proceeded proposals, obviously genuine, for the settlement of this question; and, thirdly, all those proposals, in whatever form they came, have been uniformly belittled and ultimately rejected, first by Members on the benches below the Gangway, and, secondly, by the Government themselves. I do not think that those of us who have desired to see a settlement of this question by consent need feel ashamed of the line which we have taken. It indicates no weakening of resolution, either on the one side or the other. But we know that we are at crisis, or near a crisis, of no ordinary kind. To hon. Members opposite, defeat in the contest before us means the loss of their work for two years past, indeed, for many years past. Victory, if they attain it, can only be attained at the cost of the suppression by force and by bloodshed, as I believe, of a great community in Ireland, and the creation of feelings of hatred from which this country will suffer for generations. For us, defeat means the destruction, as we believe, of our friends and of the Union; and victory, also, I agree, has its perils, for we must then deal with what. I agree is the strenuous demand of the greater part of Ireland for a measure of self-government. And to all of us the fight, when it begins in earnest, means bringing into the arena, and bringing into peril, some of the greatest things in our country. It means, whatever happens, a loss of strength to the country, and a loss of reputation for this House and for this
  1490
  Parliament. In the view of all of us, I suppose, we have for the last week or two been looking over the edge of the crater of a volcano, and it is no wonder if many of us, who love our country, want, if we can, to find some safe way round.
  Proposals have been made for a settlement. How have they been received? Let me refer to them very shortly. We proposed a Referendum, and in that I think my right hon. Friend went as far, perhaps further, than many of us would have gone. I do not say that for myself. He proposed that this matter should be determined, without the plural vote, by the majority of votes in this country. That was refused, and the only reason which the President of the Local Government Board gave for that refusal was that if there was one poll there would be frequent polls. But this is possibly the greatest crisis of our time, and even if there were reason to think that other polls might follow, yet the Government might well take this course as the easiest method of arriving at a decision. We proposed an election; we proposed it under conditions which would have kept alive the advantages they could claim under the Parliament Act by reason of the passing of the Bill in successive Sessions. We had the offer made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division on behalf of his party, that if you thought that the Parliament Act only applied to a Bill passed in three successive Sessions, and did not apply to it when passed in four successive Sessions, then we would consent, without spending the least time on it, to an Amendment of the Parliament Act in that respect. That again was absolutely declined, and the reason given by the President of the Local Government Board, was that the nation does not desire an election. How does he know? How on earth can he tell? The nation, when they voted in 1910, knew, little of the Ulster question as we know it to-day, because the Government themselves knew very little about it. How can you tell that the nation would not be only too willing, if the chance were given to them to reconsider their decision (if it were a decision) in 1910, to say by a straight vote whether they are in favour of this Bill or not. The fact is that both those proposals are rejected, I firmly believe because hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side object to them. There is another solution which none of us have favoured, except possibly the Prime Minister, and that is the proposal made by Sir

  1491
  Horace Plunkett that Ulster should be included, with the option of exclusion after six years.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Everyone.
  Mr. CAVE: No one is in favour of that scheme, which seems wholly impracticable.
  Mr. BIRRELL: All of us.
  Mr. CAVE: The Prime Minister himself objected to it.
  HON. MEMBERS: No, No!
  Mr. BIRRELL: The policy the Prime Minister rejected was his own.
  Mr. CAVE: At all events he did not propose it to the House, and no one on this side supports it for the obvious reason that you cannot sever the connection between Ulster and this country and restore it again in the same way after six years. The thing cannot be done, and nobody here thinks that a practical solution—I mean no one on this side of the House. Then there was a scheme which the Foreign Minister very justly associated with the name of Lord Hythe, although it was put forward in this House and elsewhere before Lord Hythe associated himself with it. As regards that scheme it received a great deal of support from Members on the Back Benches here and also from Members on the benches opposite, and the Foreign Minister said that the door was not closed on the proposal embodied in that scheme. It has been referred to here as the federal scheme. If I may, I desire with all respect to protest against the use of that word in connection with that particular scheme. It is really not a federal scheme. Federalism, Lord Morley said quite lately, is one of those conjuring words out of which you can get what you please. It means different things to different people. Indeed, the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) tried to show that it included the present Home Rule Bill. That only shows how dangerous it would be for us to adopt the word without knowing exactly what we mean by it. It is very undesirable that we should seem to be agreed when we do not agree in fact. We must be precise about our meaning. The scheme which I have supported, and some of my hon. Friends have supported, is a scheme, not of federation, but of devolution, and I believe, with most Members opposite who speak in favour of fede-
  1492
  ration, that is what is in their minds also. By devolution I mean, of course, the delegation of powers connected with local government from the central authority to a subordinate assembly in the area affected. That is not federalism; that is devolution. That is the scheme, and the only scheme, which most of us here have supported. It is just the scheme which operates now in the Union of South Africa. It is just the scheme which satisfies communities so diverse as the Transvaal and Natal. The same scheme, we think, ought to satisfy Ireland. I say, with conviction, that that proposal has great recommendations. To begin with, it recognises the paramount importance of a substantial and effective union between the different parts of the country, and reserves for the central body the last word in any matter of real importance. It is consistent with the national sentiment, it is consistent with local self-government; but it maintains the essential thing—the central authority. A friend who knows about these matters, having looked through the Statutes for many years past, has told me that the history of the Statute Book shows that nearly all the purely Scottish and Irish legislation passed since the respective unions is directed to subjects falling within the South African Provincial legislative field. Half the living "Public General" Statute law consists of what falls properly within "Provincial Ordinances;" add "Local" Acts, and nine-tenths of the whole bulk so falls. That shows how great is the area of legislation devolved under a proper devolution scheme. The surrender of what are sometimes called "National" powers. which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) in his striking speech the other day called "prerogative" powers, to the legislature of a part of the country only is a capital error. We shall make a great mistake if we delegate these national powers to the Irish Parliament; we shall be committing an error for which our successors will never forgive us. Whatever the intentions of hon. Members may be, we shall be sowing the seeds of the division of this people, and putting Great Britain and Ireland in exactly the position in which Sweden and Norway were. Further, devolution, at all events, recognises the existence of Scotland. I do not say that the scheme applicable to Ireland should or could be applied in its entirety to Scotland. But, at all events, it lays down some kind of precedent which

  1493
  might, if the House thought fit, be applied to Scotland, whereas this Bill, as it stands, could not be so applied. I do not think it is possible, whatever may be done for Ireland, that in the future the House should apply to Scotland the provisions of this Bill. Those Scottish Members who take an interest in federalism or devolution are right when they say that the Bill now proposed, so far from favouring the hopes of Scotland, is really fatal to them for many years.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: Will the hon. Gentleman please mention what are the provisions in the Irish Bill not applicable to Scotland?
  Mr. CAVE: I say most distinctly that I cannot conceive any Parliament setting up in Scotland a sovereign Parliament such as we are setting up in Ireland to-day. You would be dividing your country not into two but into three.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: How?
  Mr. CAVE: I do not myself think that that would ever be done. The hon. Member knows as well as I do the powers to which I have referred, for instance, the appointment of judges, the Customs, the Post Office.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: Hear, hear!
  Mr. CAVE: And half a dozen other things.
  Mr. PIRIE: We do not want the Customs.
  Mr. CAVE: Then I am right in saying that this Bill cannot be applied to Scotland! Under the present Bill I believe it impossible to effect unity in Ireland for many years. Under a scheme of devolution, while it might at the beginning be necessary to make a division between the two parts of Ireland, yet you would be creating a link between the two, and, possibly not at once, but in time to come the tendency would be towards Union. I think you would get under a scheme of devolution Ireland one, or, at all events, a better chance of seeing it one, than you will ever get under this Bill. Let me add this—for time is short and I do not wish to be misunderstood—hon. Members have spoken of passing this Bill and excluding Ulster from it, pending some scheme of federation. I want to say
  1494
  quite plainly that I do not think that the right course to follow. I do not think that would satisfy any real objection to the proposals which have been made. To pass the Bill, though you exclude Ulster—or a part of it—and then to set up a Convention for the purpose of considering a federal scheme would not prevent, civil war unless the period of exclusion was satisfactory to Ulster. Again, there would be no security that we should get any result whatever from the Convention which had been set up. It would be dependent entirely upon what might happen.
  Thirdly, the very passing of this Bill, even for a part of Ireland, would itself be a bar to devolution. The Bill is not only not federal, it is an anti-federal Bill. It seems to me ridiculous to expect that, having set up by this Bill a Parliament such as you propose, to some extent a sovereign Parliament, you will be able to undo what you have done. The proposal that we should pass this Bill as it stands and should afterwards take out of it the anti-federal elements, and produce anything like a real federal scheme, is not hopeful. Practical men do not expect to take away powers that are once given. If you pass the Bill as it stands you will never be able to undo the harm you are about to do. I want to insist upon that—and upon this: If you want a federal or a devolutionary scheme, you should have it now before the Bill becomes law. You could set up to-day a convention to deal at once with the matter, while this Bill is pending in this House. Time is short, through no fault of ours. The South African Constitution was really worked out in seventeen weeks. I am told that the practical work was done in six weeks out of that seventeen. What was done in South Africa—in a very difficult case indeed—would, I believe, after all our discussion, be well done in this country in the same period—at all events, I believe that that is the only way in which this devolutionary scheme could be effectively used.
  I know the real objection to it is because hon. Members from Ireland below the Gangway will not look at it.
  Mr. DILLON: Ireland would not look at it.
  Mr. CAVE: That is the real difficulty; they will not look at it, and unless you can get over that, to talk about a settlement is not of much value. The hon. Gentleman will have no arrangement, and will rather

  1495
  bring his country into very great peril and make himself responsible for all that is going to happen. The Duke of Wellington once said:—
  "I have probably passed a longer period of my life engaged in war than most men … and if I could avoid, by any sacrifice whatever, even one month of civil war in the country to which am attached, I would sacrifice my life in order to do it."
  The hon. Member does not take that view. He will make no sacrifice whatever—
  Mr. DILLON: We have made sacrifices.
  Mr. CAVE: None of any value.
  Mr. DILLON: I have been denounced for making sacrifices.
  Mr. CAVE: I did not intend to use provocative language to the hon. Gentleman. I certainly have no wish to do so, but I say in all seriousness that the responsibility is as much his as that of any man in this House, and that if we fail to come to an agreement—and, on both sides of the House, we are very desirious of it—it will be because he is not willing—
  Mr. DILLON: Really that is not fair, and the hon. and learned Gentleman is treating me very unfairly. If I were to enter into any negotiations as to the proposals he is now making, I would be hunted from the representation of any National constituency.
  Mr. CAVE: What is the use of hon. Members on both sides of the House discussing these proposals if at the very beginning the door is slammed in our face? I will leave that now, and say a few words about the only other alternative before us. If all other proposals fail, as it seems they do, there is nothing left but exclusion —not that we like exclusion. I believe it is a makeshift, and a temporary makeshift. It is not a settlement of the question. Nobody in the House likes it, but it is plain it is the only other way out unless you are prepared to go to the utmost limits of coercion. You must either coerce or exclude, and if you are going to exclude I beg the hon. Gentleman and the Government to face this question of the time limit, because their proposal will not bear looking at for five minutes. Why are you going to exclude for six years? Is it not upon the basis that you will not now bring in those who will not now consent to be brought in? If in six years they do not consent, will you then
  1496
  be prepared to force them to come in? If after six years you have won them over and they consent to come in, there is an end of it, and they cone in. If, on the other hand, they do not consent, are you prepared to use the whole of the forces of the British Crown, which, after all, are ours as well as yours, and all the strength of the country to compel these men to submit to a Government which they detest? If you are, we can hardly argue with you. You say to-day that you will not bring Ulster in because she will not consent. After six years you must give her the option of saying again whether she consents or not.
  11.0 P.M.
  Two elections are really no remedy at all. It is said they will give an opportunity of repealing the Bill. It has been answered to-day with great force that to repeal an Act is a very difficult thing. That course is against all our traditions, and it does not give Ulster a fair chance. It may be that at the first election we should win, and that at the second we should lose. We might have the measure repealed in one Parliament and re-enacted in the next. In the meantime think of the suspense in which you keep that country, and that will be a bar to a solution of the problem. Even now I am not without hope that the sense of fair dealing of the House as a whole will prevail, and that some method will be found of avoiding the terrible necessity of coercion in Ulster. If not, Sir, we must go into the fight, but we shall go into it with confidence as to the result. You have in your hands the machinery and the organisation, and the forces of the country for the moment are under your control. But Ulster, too, will have great forces behind her. She will be fighting, as she believes, for her flag and her freedom. The horror which you must feel for the hateful task before you will weaken your arm, while the arm of Ulster will be strengthened by the sympathy of more than half our country.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next (6th April).
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

  IRISH CATTLE TRADE.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. DUFFY: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing but the interests of my constituents would induce me at this late hour to prolong the sitting, but I have to call attention to a matter in which the powers of his Department are being exercised at the present time. It is the fact that foot-and-mouth disease exists in certain parts of Ireland, and so anxious are we to assist the right hon. Gentleman in stamping out the disease that none of us are prepared to criticise the conduct of his Department when they confine themselves to endeavours to schedule areas and streets where the disease is known to exist; but it is quite a different matter when, without scientific warrant they issue a wholesale Order prohibiting the farmers in the South and West of Ireland from disposing of their stock. Such an Order means the positive ruin of the farmers and merchants who happen to live within the prescribed area, and I protest against the unfair boundary line drawn recently by the right hon. Gentleman. Since the Order was issued on 27th March it has inflicted enormous loss on my Constituents. The important fair of Loughrea, advertised for 27th March, was rendered absolutely abortive by that Order. The April fair is the most important one of the year, and, without a day's notice, without a single bit of warning to the people to prohibit the fair, for that is what the Order really meant in its effect, and to destroy the whole of the cattle trade at a time when the trade of store cattle was at its height in a county absolutely free from disease for thirty years is absolutely incomprehensible. Having destroyed the Loughrea, Fair, the Department now propose to scourge the entire county of Galway by prohibiting the fairs at Athenry and Ballinasloe. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he retains the line drawn from Drogheda to Oranmore he will ruin absolutely the farming industry and all other industries that centre round the county of Galway.
  May I submit to the right hon. Gentleman three considerations which may, and should, induce the Department to shift the line of demarcation. The first is the scarcity of fodder in Galway. At this time of the year the fodder is absolutely used
  1498
  up: of grass there is none, as owing to the size of the holdings the supply of hay and straw is always timed to last the farmers up to the spring fairs. All the feeding stuffs at this moment are practically exhausted in the county of Galway The second consideration is the imperative necessity of the farmers disposing of their stock at the present time. First, they want to meet the special obligations that press upon them at this time, and there is a special necessity to sell the stock in order to provide, themselves with hay for the coming year. Owing to the beneficent legislation of recent years, a great majority of the farmers have had their holdings increased, and, in order to work the farms profitably, they were obliged to raise money in every manner possible. They had to dispose of their stock in the early days of April, so, as to have the meadows free to produce hay for the coming year. If the right hon. Gentleman persists in preventing these unfortunate people selling their stock in the coming fortnight they will have no hay on their farms, and they will have no money to discharge the obligations which specially press upon them at this time of the year, and which they are accustomed to incur at this period when they enter into arrangements for the supply of manures. The third consideration is that the overwhelming number of farmers who have stock to dispose of are small farmers who in recent years have had their farms increased in size on the strength of that security they have raised money at the banks, and if you prevent them now realising their stock you strike a deadly blow at the credit of the farmers all over the country. I am sorry to say the first to suffer from that would, in my opinion, be the Land Commission. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider these points. They are of supreme importance, not only to the county of Galway, but to all the towns along the entire route. I hope he will be in a position to make an announcement which will bring relief to all in the neighbouhood of Athenry and Ballinasloe.
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The House would hardly gather from the hon. Member who has just spoken that the act of which I have been guilty has been that I have freed one-half of Ireland and enabled it to export stock which could not be sent out of Ireland before I made the Order. That is really what the Depart-

  1499
  ment has done. The House would never have gathered that such an operation had been performed. Half of Ireland has been made free, by drawing that line, to export stock to Manchester, Birkenhead and Glasgow. The only question that arises is whether the line has been properly drawn. I think the House will agree that in drawing it very great difficulties arise, no matter how you draw it. Everyone on the wrong side of the line complains and objects, and says he is ruined. The line has been drawn with three things in view. In the first place, we have desired to bring as many districts above the line, that is, into the free district, as it was possible to do. We had to take into account the scheduled districts, that is to say, the districts scheduled for the disease. We have to keep the line as far from those districts as it is possible to keep it. Secondly, the line had to be drawn with a view to the possibility, first of all, of police guardianship, because there is no use in drawing a line if the police cannot guard it. The line was drawn in consultation with the police. The third thing is that we had to draw the line with a view to the capacity of the veterinary staff of the Department to deal with the subject and the circumstances arising out of it. I am far from saying that the line, as drawn, was a perfect line. I have met a large deputation to-day of Irish Members, and I have been in constant communication with my officers in Dublin since then. So far as we have gone, I have been able to bring some relief to the districts which the hon. Member (Mr. Duffy) represents. The line runs right across the country from Oranmore in the west to Drogheda in the east. and all above the line, that is, northward of the line, is free, and stock can be sent from the ports of Belfast, Londonderry, Dundalk, and Sligo.
  Mr. FIELD: To be killed.
  Mr. RUSSELL: Fat cattle to be slaughtered within ninety-six hours of their arrival. I must say that when the line was drawn, very great difficulties arose. Towns were divided into two. I find that half of Athenry is on one side of the line and half on the other. I believe that Ballinasloe, which is the centre of a great fair, is in the same difficult position. What I have arranged to-day—of course, it will have to be confirmed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture here—is to alter the line,
  1500
  bringing it from the Shannon, at Athlone, round by Loughrea on to Athenry. That will get rid of the difficulties of Athenry, the difficulties of Loughrea, and the difficulties of Athlone. That will show hon. Members that we have no pleasure in putting people to inconvenience, and that we are anxious to get a condition of affairs that will give as little trouble as possible. Mullingar is the last town of importance on that straight line. We have arranged with the local authorities for the holding of the two fairs. They profess to be perfectly satisfied with that arrangement and, of course, that arrangement will stand. That does away with the objection so far as the four towns on the line are concerned. I do not know that more could have been done at present. There are other proposals which my officers are engaged in examining now, and I hope to come to terms with hon. Members on that also. The second matter that arises is the opening of ports. We have opened four of the principal ports, and there is a demand, and I think a tolerable reason for the demand, that ports such as Ballina, Westport, Newry, and Coleraine should be opened. Coleraine will be opened at once, which will give satisfaction to hon. Members opposite. Our difficulty about the ports has been that our whole veterinary staff has been grappling with this disease. None of these ports are large, and we thought that it was more important to have the staff fighting the disease where it exists than to open ports which are very important locally, but which are not large ports for the export of cattle. I quite agree that we ought not to disrupt the general trade any more than we can help, and I shall in the course of a few days be able, I think, to announce that Coleraine, Westport, and Ballina will be opened, and in due course Newry.
  I now come to Drogheda. There are difficulties about Drogheda which do not exist anywhere else. Drogheda is in a very awkward position, and the line comes in very curiously there, because at present the cattle are absolutely driven down to Drogheda to the railway station on the way to Dundalk, and they pass the very ship which Drogheda people say they ought to take. The real reason why Drogheda has been closed is this: Eight of the cows which have carried the infection all through the country—and we have not received from the people of the country

  1501
  the assistance that we ought to have got in tracing and dealing with these cows—have been traced to Drogheda and found in Drogheda. It was quite impossible for the Department to open the port of Drogheda with such a state of affairs as that existing. At present I am unable to give any assurance until, at all events, some days have elapsed when the period of incubation is finally worked out as to the port of Drogheda. But what I really want to impress upon hon. Members is this: This is a very serious outbreak of disease. We have had more than fifty cases in the county of Cork. They are not only serious cases, but it is the most virulent type of disease that there has ever been in Ireland. We have had twelve or thirteen cases in Tipperary, and it is spreading in Tipperary now. There were three yesterday. We have had three cases in Kildare, and, worst of all, we have now had a case in county Dublin. I appeal to Hon. Members not to tie our hands in dealing with this great peril, because it is a great peril. Hon. Members may take it for granted that the Department is really seriously exercised about this matter. We are very anxious to remove the restrictions. Our first duty is to
  1502
  stamp out the disease, and I trust hon. Members will not press me unduly. Even to-day we have done a good deal of what hon. Members have asked, and whatever remains, if it can be done with safety, will be done as soon as possible.
  Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman began his remarks with something in the nature of a complaint that anything should be said in this matter. He has taken considerable time to elaborate his scheme for drawing a line across Ireland, but he failed utterly to explain what sort of line he draws with reference to the town of Mullingar. He may take it from me that the people of Westmeath are wholly dissatisfied with his line. Mullingar stands some fifty miles from the nearest case of disease this year. On what theory does he include Mullingar or any part whatever of Westmeath in the restricted area beyond the limit of fifteen miles?
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted and forty Members not being present,
  The House was adjourned at Twenty-three minutes after Eleven o'clock till to-morrow (Friday).

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  CASUAL LABOUR (PORT OF LONDON).
  CASUAL LABOUR (PORT OF LONDON).
  MARRIED WOMEN (EXEMPTIONS).
  MARRIED WOMEN (EXEMPTIONS).
  APPROVED SOCIETIES.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES.
  TUBERCULOUS PERSONS (SPECIAL NOURISHMENT).
  TUBERCULOUS PERSONS (SPECIAL NOURISHMENT).
  DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
  DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
  Land Purchase (Loss).
  Land Purchase (Loss).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Poor Relief (Ireland).
  Poor Relief (Ireland).
  Worn-Out Horse Traffic.
  Worn-Out Horse Traffic.
  Chapelizod Boys' National School, Dublin.
  Chapelizod Boys' National School, Dublin.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  GENERAL SIR ARTHUR PAGET (LETTER TO ARMY COUNCIL).
  GENERAL SIR ARTHUR PAGET (LETTER TO ARMY COUNCIL).
  MR. ROWLAND HUNT'S CIRCULARS.
  MR. ROWLAND HUNT'S CIRCULARS.
  Exportation of Horses.
  Exportation of Horses.
ROYAL NAVY.
  JOINT NAVAL COURT (VILA).
  JOINT NAVAL COURT (VILA).
BRITISH ARMY.
  ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
  ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
  COLONEL H. B. WILLIAMS' APPOINTMENT.
  COLONEL H. B. WILLIAMS' APPOINTMENT.
  WAR OFFICE OVERTIME.
  WAR OFFICE OVERTIME.
  ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH.
  ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH.
  Delhi (New Capital).
  Delhi (New Capital).
  Railway and other Schemes (India).
  Railway and other Schemes (India).
  Accountants in India.
  Accountants in India.
  Hanley Post Office.
  Hanley Post Office.
  Carrickmacross (Telephone Service).
  Carrickmacross (Telephone Service).
  Census Statistics (Counties).
  Census Statistics (Counties).

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Bedwas and Machen Urban District Council.
Chelsea Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

FALKLAND AND PLUSCARDEN ESTATES.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that in pursuance of Standing Order No. 163A relating to Private Bills he had on the requisition of the Chairman of Committees appointed Thomas Skene Esson, Writer to the Signet, partner in the firm of Messieurs Tods, Murray and Jamieson, Writers to the Signet, of 66, Queen Street, Edinburgh, as guardian or protector of the infants Ismay Catherine Crichton Stuart, Claudia Miriam Joanna Crichton Stuart, John Crichton Stuart, commonly called Earl of Dumfries, Robert Crichton Stuart, commonly called Lord Robert Crichton Stuart, David Crichton Stuart, commonly called Lord David Crichton Stuart, and Patrick Crichton Stuart, commonly called Lord Patrick Crichton Stuart, named in the Bill, to represent such infants before the Committee on the Bill.
ELLESMERE PORT AND WHITBY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
DEE CONSERVANCY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday the 23 rd instant.
CARDIFF RAILWAY (COMPOUNDING OF TONNAGE RATES) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LEIGHTON BUZZARD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]

    LLANFAELOG WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    NOTTINGHAM MECHANICS INSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
    BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY (HULL STATION) BILL. [H.L.]
    MABLETHORPE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills, and that the Bills be now read 3a; agreed to: Bills read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LEYLAND GAS BILL.
  MOLD AND DENBIGH JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
    PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY BILL.
    Brought from the Commons, read la, and referred to the Examiners.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS.
Regulations, dated 31st March, 1914, entitled the National Health Insurance (Claims for Exemption) Regulations (England), 1914: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 51.)
MIDWIVES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Thursday the 23rd instant.
WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to enable Women to vote at Parliamentary Elections—Was presented by the Earl of Selborne; read 1a, to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 5th of May next. (No. 52.)
BISHOPRICS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to facilitate the foundation of new Bishoprics and the alteration of Dioceses and to amend the Bishops' Resignation Act, 1869, and for other matters incidental thereto—Was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury (for the Viscount St. Aldwyn); read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Wednesday the 22nd instant. (No. 53.)
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Criminal Law Amendment Acts, 1880 and 1885, with respect to indecent assault on young persons and to the defilement of girls under 18 years of age, and for other purposes—Was presented by the Lord Bishop of London; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 54.)
PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing Petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, also the time for depositing documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess at Easter.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I think it was with the general assent of the House that I postponed the Second Reading of this Bill from a time of considerable political excitement to the calmer atmosphere which we have to-day. Indeed, I feel that I am introducing an uncontroversial Bill. I look to the Ministerial side of the House, and I know that the Bill which I am introducing was part of the much larger measure which was introduced by the Government in 1908, and therefore I anticipate with confidence their support. And when I look to the other side of the House I see many important members whose support I think I shall receive. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition was kind enough to write in 1908 to the Secretary of the Central Sunday Closing Association a letter in which he said—
"The question of Sunday Closing is, no doubt, one which might perfectly well be dealt with apart from what you properly describe as 'the very different and much more contentious proposals of the Licensing Bill.' You will probably have observed from the reports of the debate in the House of Lords that a suggestion has been made, and favourably received in all parts of the House, for the introduction of a Bill which might deal with these comparatively non-contentious matters."
900
Then the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken on the subject, but as he will no doubt address your Lordships in support of the Bill I will not quote anything that he has said. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, said in your Lordships' House in 1908—
"If it is possible for such a Bill as the right rev. Prelate has foreshadowed to be brought in and to be the proper subject of discussion, my impression is that it would be received with open arms on both sides of the House."
This is the very Bill which I am now bringing in. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldywn, said that the reform of Sunday Closing was valuable and useful, and he did not think there would be any serious opposition in your Lordships' House. He went on to say—
"What is to hinder the Government, what is to hinder the right rev. Prelate himself, from bringing in these clauses as a new Bill next week, and passing it through your Lordships' House? I have no right to speak for any but myself, though I may probably speak for others when I say that I believe any such action would be welcomed by many on this side of the House."
Then I have an expression of opinion in favour of these proposals by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, but I will not quote it as no doubt the noble Lord will, if necessary, speak for himself.
Then I turn to the chances which this Bill might have in another place. If your Lordships are good enough to pass it through its various stages here, the Bill has a favourable chance elsewhere, as it has obtained the ballot for May 8. There is in the House of Commons wonderful unanimity in favour of this Bill. The Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on October 30, 1908—
"In Scotland for fifty years there has been absolute Sunday Closing; and I can say with some assurance, having represented a Scottish constituency for twenty-two years, that I have never heard in my own constituency or in any other part of Scotland any complaint of that law or any agitation in any responsible quarter to secure its repeal or its modification."
Mr. Balfour said in the same debate—
"I will at once make the admission that the right hon. gentleman was right when he said that in Scotland a great value was attached to Sunday Closing as it has existed in that country for more than fifty years. I understand that the Welsh representatives—and I think very likely the majority of the population—take the same view in Wales."
The Labour leaders also give the Bill their support. Mr. Arthur Henderson, speaking in Leeds in October, 1908, at the time

901
when he was chairman of the Labour Party, said—
"Sunday Closing appeals to me with great force, because I believe it would assist in removing one of the greatest hindrances to the universal cessation of labour one day in seven. … My experience justifies me in saying that if we could but secure the curtailment of the hours on Saturday and the entire closing on Sunday, this reform would result in diverting thousands of pounds of the wages of the workers into channels that would produce greater economic and social good."
Now, what is the scope of the Bill which I am bringing forward this afternoon? I will put it very shortly. First, it would reduce the hours of sale on Sunday at midday from two, as at present, to one, and in the evening from five to three in London, and four to two in the Provinces. The hours of sale would be fixed by the justices, but one of them must be between 12 noon and 3 p.m. Secondly, it would increase from three miles to six, the distance a traveller must go before being entitled to be supplied with liquor. Thirdly, the Bill would empower licensing justices, on the grant or renewal of any licence of an hotel or restaurant, if satisfied that the public convenience so requires, to permit the supply of liquor on Sundays during the hours during which the premises might have been open but for the passing of this Bill, to any person taking a bona fide meal in a room set apart for meals; but no room exclusively or mainly used for the supply of liquor on week-days is to be deemed a room so set apart. Fourthly, the Bill would extend the Welsh Sunday Closing Act to the County of Monmouth. Fifthly, it would empower the justices, on the renewal of any licence, to attach conditions (a) of complete Sunday Closing and (b) further restricting the conditions under which liquor might be supplied to travellers. These conditions would be subject to seven days notice, to appeal by the licensee, and to abrogation by the justices themselves at subsequent Licensing Sessions. Sixthly, the Bill would empower justices to any general Licensing Sessions, by a general order, to declare that all licensed houses in their district should be entirely closed on Sunday, subject to the provisions for bona fide travellers and lodgers in licensed houses; such general order to be in force until rescinded at subsequent sessions. And, seventhly, the Bill would apply only to England, except the regulation as to travellers, which would apply also to Wales.
902
Your Lordships will naturally expect me to give what I may call the case for Sunday Closing. I took the, perhaps, unusual course of circulating to your Lordships a summarised case for Sunday Closing, because it contains so many facts and figures. If your Lordships have had time to read the circular it will have enabled you to understand more clearly the case as it stands to-day. May I then trouble your Lordships with a short historical account of how Sunday Closing has grown, and the wonderful results which have come from it? During the latter half of the 19th century Sunday Closing became law over the whole of the British Empire except England, also over nearly all the United States of America, thus illustrating the truly British and practical character of the movement. The first Acts of Parliament which really restricted the Sunday sale of liquor were promoted by the London magistrates and Police, who, by the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, secured the closing of all public-houses within fifteen miles of Charing Cross from Saturday at midnight until 1 o'clock midday Sunday. The results were so beneficial that in 1842 Liverpool, in 1845 Manchester, in 1846 Newcastle and Sheffield, and in 1848 the whole of the rest of England obtained the same restriction. In 1854 the Forbes Mackenzie Act closed public-houses throughout Scotland on Sunday. In 1878, during Mr. Disraeli's Administration, the Irish Sunday Closing Act closed liquor shops in Ireland, except in Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, where the hours were reduced to five, viz., 2 to 7 p.m. It was passed for four years as an experiment, but at the end of that period was renewed annually for twenty-four years by being included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, until 1906, when Sunday Closing was made permanent and the hours of sale in the exempted cities reduced to three. In 1881, during Mr. Gladstone's Administration, Sunday Closing became the law all over Wales. The Licensing Acts of 1872–4 reduced the hours of sale on Sunday in England, and fixed them as they now stand—two hours at midday (12.30 to 2.30 or 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock) and four hours (6 o'clock to 10 o'clock) in the evening. London has an extra hour in the evening, the hours being 6 to 11 o'clock. In 1888, during Lord Salisbury's Administration, Mr. Ritchie proposed in his Local Government Bill to give borough and county

903
councils the power to impose total Sunday Closing. In 1893–4 Sir William Harcourt brought forward Sunday Closing proposals, and in 1908 Mr. Asquith included in his Licensing Bill the proposals of the Bill which I am now presenting to your Lordships. On each occasion the proposals were well received and were only overthrown because of their connection with very different and much more contentious proposals. In 1909 the present Bill passed its Second Reading—Ayes, 246; Noes, 59; majority 185—and went through Committee.
Naturally we ask when we look into the history of Sunday Closing, What has been the result of it? Has it done any good? I have here some facts and figures which appeal very strongly to me as answering those questions. That these laws are beneficial is proved by the fact that every Parliamentary inquiry has resulted in a favourable Report. These investigations have been made at the instigation of opponents of Sunday Closing, usually persons having pecuniary interests in the sale of liquor. In 1860 a Royal Commission reported in favour of the Forbes Mackenzie Act. In 1888 a Select Committee of the House of Commons reported that the Irish Sunday Closing Act was a success, and recommended that the Act should be made permanent, that it should be extended to the exempted cities, and that public-houses should be closed at 9 o'clock on Saturday nights. The Royal Commission on Welsh Sunday Closing (1890) recommended that the Act should be retained and extended to Monmouthshire. The Royal Commission on Licensing (1899) reported strongly in favour of Sunday Closing in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and recommended its extension to Monmouthshire and reduced hours of sale in England. The Majority Report—and the majority included representatives of the trade—said—
"We are of opinion that in Wales, as a whole, Sunday Closing has been a success."
I submit that the permanence and popularity of Sunday Closing laws in communities conspicuous for their love of personal freedom and the favourable reports following judicial investigations completely and unanswerably establish the success of Sunday Closing.
But there are additional facts illustrating its good results. One allegation fre-
904
quently made is that Scotland with Sunday Closing is more drunken than England without it. This is disposed of by the fact that there are no complete official figures available for such comparison. The Prison Commissioners of Scotland say that they have no figures showing the apprehensions for drunkenness in Scotland. The Scottish figures are for "arrests"; in England they are for "convictions." A former Home Secretary (Sir M. W. Ridley) said in the House of Commons—
"The Scottish law as to drunkenness and its administration differs so much from the English law and its administration that it is difficult to draw any trustworthy conclusion from a comparison of the two countries."
The allegation, therefore, is based upon a false comparison. I should like to put before your Lordships what seems to me a true and useful comparison—the one that may be drawn between the number of arrests in a given period immediately preceding, and those for a corresponding period immediately following, the coming into force of Sunday Closing in the same country. All the available figures of this kind are conclusive as to the good effect of Sunday Closing in reducing drunkenness. Statistics prove that, notwithstanding an enormous increase in the population, Edinburgh and Glasgow are to-day far more sober than they were before Sunday Closing came into force, and that Sunday is by far the most sober day of the week. In Edinburgh before Sunday Closing the average of arrests for drunkenness between Saturday midnight and Sunday midnight in the year 1852–3 was 708; under Sunday Closing, in the year 1855–6, the number was reduced to 412, showing a decrease under Sunday Closing of 296. In Glasgow the result has been precisely the same. Before Sunday Closing the arrests for Sunday drunkenness averaged over 25 per Sunday. and after Sunday Closing the number averaged 6½ per Sunday. The figures show that Sunday is now the soberest day in Glasgow. The number of arrests for drunkenness on weekdays largely exceeded in each case a thousand, while the Sunday arrests were 337, and we must attribute that Sunday drunkenness largely to the fact that there are eighteen hotels there open to travellers. It is to these open houses, not to Sunday Closing, that the Sunday drunkenness which takes place must be attributed.

905
Then we come to the consumption of spirits. The Sunday Closing Act of Scotland, 1854, was followed by a reduction in the consumption of spirits of nearly 7,000,000 gallons during the next five years. The consumption of spirits for the five years ended December, 1853, was 36,039,712 gallons; the consumption for the five years ended March, 1913, was 30,496,368 gallons. This decrease of nearly 6,000,000 gallons is the more remarkable because during that period of sixty years the population had increased from 2,896,015 to 4,760,904. I will put it in another way. In 1852, when spirits were sold on Sunday, the people of Scotland consumed nearly 2·5 gallons of spirits per head, whilst in 1913 they consumed only 1·3 gallons per head. That this reduction is largely due to Sunday Closing is proved by the greater reduction in arrests on Sundays than on week-days. When we turn to Ireland we find again the same enormous success. Taking the figures for the last two and a half years under Sunday opening and those for the first two and a half years under Sunday closing, there has been in that country a decrease of arrests under Sunday Closing of 7,618. I turn to England. It was estimated by the late Dr. Dawson Burns that £17,000,000 per annum was spent on liquor on Sunday. That a very large proportion of this sum is spent by the working classes is shown by a statement made by Mr. John Burns in the House of Commons on February 17, 1909, when he said that he had been told by a gentleman opposed to him in politics that while he was manager of a bank in a North of England town he used to pay out from £50,000 to £60,000 in wages on Friday to engineers, boilermakers, shipbuilders, etc., and that on Monday between 9.30 a.m. and 4 p.m. he received from the publicans alone from £12,000 to £16,000 which he had paid out on the previous Friday.
When I come to the moral and religious reasons for putting this Bill before your Lordships, I would first of all quote what was said by the chairman of the Leicester Licensing Sessions. Sir William Vincent expressed his strong regret that on Saturday and Sunday evenings in particular some of the large public-houses in the town were "crowded with young men and young women not much beyond childhood." He added that—
"The most crying need of Christianity and morality is that something should be done that should take them away from the public-houses."
906
Sunday school teachers complain that many scholars are late or absent altogether from Sunday afternoon school through the parents being in public-houses. Let me give your Lordships a little experience of my own within a mile of this place. I could not go on Sunday, but I went at midnight on Saturday with a large band. I went round a square mile of Westminster and collected out of the public-houses in from half-an-hour to three-quarters of an hour about 200 young men between the ages of 18 and 30, all half drunk, and although it was a very sad sight it had its elements of humour, for when one of my officers began to sing "Nearer my God to Thee," these men commenced to sing "For he's a Jolly Good Fellow." It was sad to look upon in such a state young men whom we would like to see trained to defend their country. It was a spectacle of how the manhood and virility of the nation is being undermined. If I could take my band round on a Sunday I should doubtless see the same faces and witness the same sad sight.
I turn to the experience of my brethren of other denominations. I have an interesting letter here from the Rev. F. W. Newland, the superintendent of the Claremont Central Mission, Pentonville, one of the poorest parts of London. In it he says—
"I write to say how thankful we are that the Second Reading of the Sunday Closing Bill is to be moved to-morrow, and how much we hope and pray that your efforts on behalf of it may be crowned' with complete success. I am requested to intimate to your Lordship that at our men's meeting on Sunday and at our women's meeting yesterday a resolution was unanimously and enthusiastically approved, begging that this long delayed measure of relief may be passed this session. The women's meeting represents a membership of about 1,000 very poor women, and both meetings come from a district terribly devastated by drunkenness, but where the people are, to a very large extent, intensely anxious to have their temptations diminished. On the last two Sundays we have had the number of children—
This is a point which I do not think would occur to any one who had not lived in the slums, as some of us have—
"we have had the number of children carefully counted who came to afternoon Sunday school without having had dinner; and we found that in the girls' school one-third had come dinnerless, and in the boys' school one-quarter. These proportions would, of course, have been greatly higher if all our children had come from the poorest homes. I have also had two public-houses near by counted for the few minutes before turning-out time at 3 o'clock, and found that in one case there were 98–74 men and 24 women—and in the other 105–66 men and 39 women. Larger houses would have yielded greater numbers,

907
but these two houses, neither of them in a main street, indicate the terrible ravages of the two hours drinking in the middle of the day, for the soaking between 2 and 3 o'clock has no relation to dinner beer."
I myself have for nine years lived in one of the poorest parts of London, and I can bear out what my friend Mr. Newland says. If you saw the public-houses turn out at 3 o'clock you would see men, not at all persons who had gone in to get their dinner beer but men who had been sitting there for two hours, coming out very often in a most distressing state.
I come now to the labour reasons why your Lordships should pass this Bill—the unnecessary labour thrown on 300,000 people engaged as employees in the liquor trade. The need for Sunday Closing is shown by the long hours of labour and the consequent impaired health and shortened lives of those engaged in the liquor trade. The mortality tables of the Registrar-General reveal that the death-rate of publicans is nearly double, and that of their employees more than double, that of other shopkeepers. Sunday rest or at least reduced hours of Sunday labour is imperatively needed for the estimated 300,000 persons engaged in the trade. In a trade circular which has been sent to your Lordships it is stated that I have no justification for saying that such a change would be welcomed by the publicans. Of course, we clergy who move among the publicans cannot give them away. They say things to us, but we could not name the men or they would get into trouble; but we know how much they would welcome a shortening of the hours of labour. Here is a letter from a country clergyman—
"In my parish at least, publicans are as desirous, if not more so, of coming to church as any other class. Nearly all the publicans here would prefer complete Sunday closing, and all, I am convinced, would like closing during evening service."
The writer of this letter points out that public-houses were originally intended to be closed during the hours of divine service, which are still supposed to be 11 a.m. and 3 p.m., though the change for evening service from 3 p.m. to 6 or 6.30 or 7 p.m. is now almost universal. He goes on to say—
"In our large village of more than 1,000 population the hour is 6 p.m. in the church and in the two Nonconformist chapels. The public-houses, of which there are nine, open at the same hour, thus preventing attendance at church for all those engaged in the liquor trade."
908
We have also the testimony of the Salvation Army. We are all working side by side in this cause in London and all over the country. A Salvation Army officer says—
"I visited in all 58 public-houses, and although Sunday Closing is not a matter that publicans will talk freely on, approximately 75 per cent. of those I interviewed gave me to understand that they would welcome the closing of public-houses on Sunday."
This Salvation Army officer furnishes some samples of the replies made to his question. "If," said one, "all houses were to be closed I should be the first to do so." "Yes," said another, "I am quite in favour of Sunday Closing. I want a day of rest as well as others, but the public is to blame. Let people stop buying on Sunday and I should be only too pleased to shut up." "To my mind," said another "the majority of publicans are in favour of Sunday Closing; that is, if all were treated alike. However, we are not our own masters and cannot express our opinions freely."
Then there are the barmaids. Although naturally they cannot any more than the other employees speak out publicly without losing their employment, it is worth while taking the opinion given by a barmaid to a special commissioner of the Daily Sketch on January 14. This gentleman, who had been interviewing a number of barmaids engaged in better-class houses, speaks of "monstrous long work for meagre pay." One barmaid said—
"The public knows nothing about us. I start at half-past eight and go on, with two hours' rest in the afternoon, till closing time at half-past twelve. Then cleaning up, etc., takes at least another half-hour. … I get 13 s. a week."
The special commissioner says—
"Before the coming of the compulsory weekly half-day's rest it was the custom for the girls to be allowed a week's holiday a year. Since the half-holiday was imposed that holiday has in many cases been knocked off."
"But it is the Sunday work that is really killing," said one barmaid. "I don't think public-houses ought to be open on Sunday. If people want drink, then they ought to have to get it in beforehand, as they do with groceries and everything else." Mr. Burt, the Labour M.P., says—
"I have been surprised, when associating with the working people of this country, to find how thoroughly advanced they are in favour of the Sunday closing of public-houses, not only teetotallers but moderate drinkers, and some who do not drink moderately. I have again and again met with men who occasionally go to excess who

909
are thorough-going advocates of Sunday Closing, and who are anxious to be delivered, at least for one day in the week, from the temptations of the traffic."
I should like, my Lords, to insist upon the labour reasons for passing this Bill, because those who are in the trade cannot in present circumstances speak for themselves.
There are two more points—first, the demand for Sunday Closing; secondly, the evil we still have to surmount in the amount of drink that is consumed in England. The demand for Sunday Closing is backed up by many pieces of evidence. For instance, a National Convention to appeal for Sunday Closing legislation this year, held last November under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, was supported by the Bishops and the other leaders of all the religious bodies, including the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, the Methodist, Congregationalist, and Baptist Presidents, General Bramwell Booth, and the Chief Rabbi—an assembly of influential persons who had come from over 100 places in all parts of the country to represent all the great religious bodies. In these respects the National Convention was almost, if not quite, unique. The representatives came from over 120 cities and other places, including New castle-upon-Tyne, Exeter, Liverpool, Norwich, Manchester, Eastbourne, Leeds, Southampton, Birmingham, Brighton, Lincoln, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Bristol, Wakefield, Bradford, Oxford, and Bath. The one hand held up against the chief resolution only served to emphasise the unanimity and enthusiasm of the assembly. The Free Church Council and all the leading Nonconformist bodies pass resolutions in favour of Sunday Closing every year; the Lower House of York Convocation also passed a resolution in favour of this Bill; and a clerical memorial to the late Lord Salisbury was signed by 11,008 clergymen of the Church of England and 7,720 Nonconformist ministers. In plebiscites taken from 1866 to 1907, 1,501 places being canvassed, the votes of more than a million householders gave the following results—For Sunday Closing, 893,652; against, 129,503; nearly eight to one. And with regard to the opinion of liquor traders I may state that Colonel Hall Walker, a director of the Peter Walker Brewery Co., informed the House of Commons on March 12, 1909, that—
"If the consumption of drink through other channels was also stopped by Act of Parliament
910
the whole trade would acquiesce in any measure of this sort because it would give them a period of rest which they do not now possess."
Now I have to justify my proposal to extend the Welsh Sunday Closing Act to Monmouthshire. This is based on resolutions passed by the Monmouthshire County Council and by many other public bodies in that county, and upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Welsh Sunday Closing, 1889, and the Royal Commission on the Licensing Laws presided over by Lord Peel in 1899. And this proposal is backed up by a really interesting statement by Mr. Thomas Richards, Labour M.P. and Miners' Agent for West Monmouthshire. He said—
"I hope every effort possible will be made to secure an early extension of the Welsh Sunday Closing Act to Monmouthshire, and thus remove the border line from the thickly populated districts where it is at present. With respect to Sunday Closing generally, the unique experience of the inhabitants of Beaufort, who for a period enjoyed the blessings of the Welsh Sunday Closing Act, is a striking example that the open public-house on Sunday is destructive of all that is best in the Sunday life of the people. Upon the passing of the Sunday Closing Act for Wales, the whole of the public-houses of Beaufort, Rassau, and Dukestown were closed, and from that time forward it was a rare occurrence to see a person under the influence of intoxicants, although being on the border of Monmouthshire and open houses within half a mile or so to our neighbourhood. But upon the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888, and our being transferred to Monmouthshire for administrative purposes the publicans thought they had a right to again open on Sundays, and they did so; and although the Temperance Party secured a test case before the local magistrates, they (the magistrates) disagreed upon the matter. No further proceedings being taken, these public-houses have been open ever since, with the result that what was for a considerable time, under Sunday closing, a peaceful, quiet village—an ideal of the sweet repose that the Sabbath day was intended to confer upon our toiling masses—is now transformed on some Sundays into a perfect pandemonium. The number of public-houses thus affected is about twenty. It has been said that a poor man should not be deprived of his beer, but my experience shows that it is far worse to deprive him of his Sunday or to give him temptations to spoil it."
I must say one word upon what I know is the weakest part of my Bill, and that is the omission of clubs. All I can say with regard to that is that if both sides of the House would agree to put in a clause with regard to clubs all of us who support Sunday Closing would be ready to accept it. What I would urge your Lordships not to do is to reject this Bill on the plea that clubs ought to be dealt with. If a Second Reading is given to the Bill it will

911
be perfectly possible in Committee to introduce a clause with regard to clubs. I feel strongly, as your Lordships do, the harm which clubs are doing. It is not a fact that the advocates of Sunday Closing seek to close public-houses and leave rival clubs open on Sundays. Their object is to stop the unnecessary sale and supply of intoxicating liquor on Sunday anywhere and everywhere. They give their approval so far as it concerns Sunday to the principle of placing clubs under the same restrictions which the law imposes on licensed houses. The figures show that England with public-houses open on Sunday, has more clubs in proportion to the population than the Sunday Closing countries of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. In England, for instance, the number of clubs in 1912 was 7,991—that is to say, 23 to every 100,000 of the population; in Scotland the number of clubs was 628, or 13 to every 100,000 of the population; in Ireland, 250, or 5 to every 100,000 of the population; and in Wales 298, or 14 to every 100,000 of the population. It is not right, therefore, to say that the more you close public-houses the more clubs spring up.
It only remains for me to lay stress on the harm that the drink traffic is still doing to the national life. I would illustrate it from the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on the Liquor Licensing Laws, 1899, and I again emphasise the point that among those who signed the Majority Report were representatives of the trade. The Majority Report states—
"Most persons who have studied the question are of opinion that actual drunkenness has materially diminished in all classes of society in the last 25 or 30 years. Many causes have contributed to this. The zealous labour of countless workers in the temperance cause counts for much. Education has opened avenues to innumerable studies which interest the rising generation. The taste for reading has multiplied many fold within a comparatively brief period. … Yet it is undeniable that a gigantic evil remains to be remedied, and hardly any sacrifice would be too great which would result in a marked diminution of this national degradation. Nor is Parliament likely to rest satisfied with leaving things as they are."
It is one of those practical ways of which the Majority Report speaks which I have ventured to lay before your Lordships this afternoon, and it is in the hope that it may do something to remove this gigantic evil that I move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I hope I shall not be thought presumptuous in saying a few words in opposition to the Bill that has been brought forward by the right rev. Prelate, and in doing so I trust that the House and the right rev. Prelate will acquit me of being in any way anxious for one moment to prevent any well considered measure for in any way putting a stop to the gigantic evils of intemperance in this country from being dealt with. I am perfectly certain that every noble Lord in this House is a strong advocate of any well considered measure that can be brought forward and passed into law with that object. I only have risen to say a few words in opposition to this Bill because I cannot consider that this is a well considered measure with that object. There have been of late years considerable strides made by legislation with a view of putting down the evils of intemperance, and I think that the Licensing Act passed, if I remember rightly, when the late Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister effected a great deal of good in that direction. It is inconceivable, to my mind, how Parliament can have allowed the enormously unnecessary number of licences for public houses ever to have been granted in this country. Your Lordships will remember that the main point of the last Licensing Act was gradually to reduce the number of licensed houses, and I think any of your Lordships who have studied the question at all will admit that in all parts of the country the gradual suppression of superabundant licences has had a very good effect.
The right rev. Prelate quoted a considerable number of authorities in favour of this measure, and I am sure your Lordships will not dispute the weight and the authority of those persons and public bodies. But your Lordships at the same time will not forget that there are thousands, tens of thousands, of excellent and well intentioned people in this country who think that all public-houses should not only be closed on Sundays but on every other day in the week. I do not know that I can be numbered among those members of your Lordships' House who have been in the past the strongest advocates of what are called very democratic measures, but I oppose this Bill for one reason, in that I cannot help thinking that it is a distinctly undemocratic measure. If the

913
right rev. Prelate were to treat all classes alike he would have introduced clauses in this Bill whereby not only the opportunity was given to close all public-houses on Sunday, as Clause 2 gives the power, but to close all the coffee-rooms in clubs and to render it impossible for private individuals to avail themselves of their cellars. If this Bill becomes law you are treating merely one class to Sunday closure—namely, those who are unable to obtain intoxicating liquors if they require them except in a public-house.
But another strong objection that I see to this Bill is contained in Clause 2, which provides that licensing justices may attach to the renewal of any justices' on-licence any condition which they think fit to attach in respect of the closing of the licensed premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises during the whole of Sunday. I think that that clause puts a very unfair responsibility on the licensing justices, and I can see the most practical objections to such a clause being included in any measure passed by your Lordships' House. Just think what might happen in rural districts where petty sessional divisions are comparatively small. In one petty sessional division you might get the justices attaching this condition, but in the adjoining division the justices might take a different view. You would arrive at a most strangely variegated condition of affairs.
Then there is the fact—I am not sure that the right rev. Prelate did not himself refer to it as a blot on his Bill—that the Bill does not deal at all with the question of clubs. When I speak of clubs, I mean those places which, though they may have some other ostensible object, are nothing else than drinking shops. This Bill, if passed into law, would not only perpetuate the present evils in regard to these clubs, but would increase them tenfold; and I venture to think that without the matter of clubs being dealt with a Bill of this kind would prove practically inoperative. I dare say other speakers far more competent than myself to deal with this question will take part in the debate, and, I hope, speak against the Bill. But for the reasons I have stated I am quite prepared, if any other noble Lords will support me, to go into the Lobby against the Bill. Before I sit down I will again express my regret that I have been obliged to take this
914
course, and I hope the right rev. Prelate will allow me to say what I am sure the whole House recognises, that the objects which he seeks to attain are most beneficent but I do not consider that this Bill is best calculated to attain those objects.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, the right rev. Prelate began his speech by saying that he claimed the support of His Majesty's Government, and, I also understood him to say, the support of the members of the Front Opposition Bench in favour of this Bill. The right rev. Prelate is, of course, quite right in claiming the support of His Majesty's Government as regards those clauses of his Bill which are taken out literally from the Government's Licensing Bill of 1908. There is no need to assure the right rev. Prelate that the Government are quite as anxious as he can be to see those clauses adopted which were only defeated in this House because they were attached to another and very much larger measure dealing with the question of temperance. The object of these clauses is to prevent excessive drinking on Sundays, and also to relieve the working-classes especially from the temptation of spending many hours in a public-house, while giving them the opportunity to get their dinner and supper beer. I was rather surprised at my noble friend Lord Hylton's statement that he was very doubtful as regards legislation of this sort being of any advantage to stop excessive drinking. On the other hand, he seemed to think that it was a great advantage to have suppression where there were too many licences. Well, I have always understood that the argument for suppressing a large number of public-houses where they are in excess of the requirements of the population was to put away temptations and opportunities for excessive drinking. But Lord Hylton thinks that if you reduce the hours in which a man can drink it will not have the same effect. I should have thought it was really a distinction without a difference; because if you reduce the number of hours in which people can drink it is just the same as reducing the number of public-houses.
The Government, as I say, thoroughly and heartily support the right rev. Prelate in all those clauses which are practically the clauses of their own Licensing Bill which met with such an unhappy fate in this House some years ago, but not, I am

915
glad to think, upon the question of Sunday Closing. As regards Clause 1, that is mostly taken from the Government's Licensing Bill. But in subsection (3) there is a provision which seems to me to restrict the powers of licensing justices to a larger extent than the Government restricted them in their Licensing Bill in 1908. But, of course, in Committee the Government would have to consider their position as regards those points. I ought also to mention that there is a provision in Clause I, subsection (3) which prohibits the supply of liquor with meals except with the sanction of the licensing justices. That is making a very great alteration from the proposals of the Government, and it seems rather a large order to say that the justices in a particular district may prohibit a man who goes for bona fide reasons into an hotel or public-house from having a glass of wine or beer with his meals. That seems very unreasonable. The Government proposed in their Licensing Bill that a man could have a glass of wine or beer with his meals on a Sunday upon licensed premises.
As regards Clause 2, that is also similar to a large extent to the Government proposals, except that I notice there is a new subsection introduced—subsection (6)—-which gives power to the justices at the annual Licensing Sessions to make a general order by which they could close every public-house within their area on Sunday. There, again, I think great consideration will be required as to whether it is desirable that such a proposal should be introduced giving these new powers to the justices in this matter. The right rev. Prelate has already said that these particular clauses where they are like the Government's Bill of 1908 were received with very little opposition in the House of Commons, and were carried there by a majority of 289 to 39, showing that for all practical purposes the House of Commons approves of regulating the hours of Sunday opening and giving greater powers to the justices to make conditions upon these points. I think I have said enough to show that His Majesty's Government heartily welcome all those proposals in this Bill which carry out their own provisions in the Licensing Bill of 1908. They hope this Bill may have a Second Reading, reserving to themselves complete right to make any alterations in Committee in regard to points which seem to them inconsistent with their own policy.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships listened to the right rev. Prelate's speech with the greatest sympathy. We are all aware of the great work which he has done in the worst parts of London and the successful efforts which he has made to better the lot of the unfortunate population in the slum parts of this metropolis. Therefore everything which he says upon a subject like this ought to be, and is, listened to with the most profound respect. I hope he will realise that if I criticise his Bill in some respects it is not from any want of appreciation of his position or of his great services.
There is no objection to the principle of Sunday Closing. That is, of course, accepted by all parties and in all parts of your Lordships' House. As the right rev. Prelate has said, Inquiry after Inquiry has recommended the principle of Sunday Closing—that is to say, the curtailment to some extent of the hours of opening on Sunday. But your Lordships will observe that the Report of the Royal Commission to which the right rev. Prelate alluded—the Majority Report—did not recommend total Sunday Closing. They recommended a further curtailment of the hours, but they said that "opinion was not ripe for complete Sunday Closing." They went on to say that they thought the wants, wishes, and desires of bona fide, excursionists ought to be considered. Therefore I do not think the right rev. Prelate can quote—I do not say he would wish to for a moment—or that anybody can quote the Majority Report of the Royal Commission as in favour of any very drastic change in the law with regard to Sunday Closing.
Perhaps I may be allowed, for the sake of historical accuracy, to correct one observation of the right rev. Prelate, because he said that the representatives of the trade on the Royal Commission assented to this. I think he will find that there were a considerable number who dissented at the end of the Report. I think four members of the Commission differed on the recommendation as to Sunday Closing. However, it is a very small matter. The real point is the case made out for further curtailment of the hours of opening on Sunday, and with a view of satisfying your Lordships on that point the right rev. Prelate quoted a number of statistics. I am sure he will forgive me

917
if I express myself as having been too slow to follow in all respects all the statistics which he quoted, but I think I noticed one rather significant omission. The right rev. Prelate quoted the results of, as he thought, temperance legislation in Scotland and in Wales and in Ireland, all of them more or less connected with Sunday Closing. But he did not quote the corresponding statistics in England, which has no total Sunday Closing. Now, it is a remarkable fact that the improvement in sobriety in England is at least as great as in any of the other portions of the United Kingdom. That is a remarkable circumstance which seems to show that there are other causes at work besides legislation which are responsible for this most valuable and important improvement in the habits of the people.
I am not able to quote statistics with any great confidence for I have not verified them myself, but I believe it to be true that if you take the total offences for drunkenness in England during the last twenty-five years you will find that the annual average has diminished from eight per thousand to a little over five per thousand. That is a very substantial change. Supposing that anything like that progress were to continue we might expect in another twenty-five years that it would be reduced perhaps to between three and four per thousand, which would be a very small number comparatively speaking. It is also a striking circumstance that neither Scotland nor Wales can show anything like that progress upon the figures which have been submitted to me. During the same period Wales seems to have fallen from seven per thousand, which was less than England, to 5·6 per thousand, which is more than England is now, so that though Wales started rather better it has ended up rather worse, notwithstanding that during the greater part of that period Wales had the assistance of the Welsh Sunday Closing Act.
I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with any more statistics. I believe that quite as striking a case might be made out in respect of Scotland. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is an authority on that point. It will be found that Scotland does not show anything like the figures England does, notwithstanding the fact that England has no Sunday Closing Act. I wish I could give
918
—I wish anybody could give—the figures for Sunday offences. Unfortunately apparently the statistics do not exist. Up till about fifteen or twenty years ago figures were regularly collected for offences against the Licensing Laws on Sunday, but for some reason with which no doubt many members of your Lordships' House may be more familiar than I am those statistics were dropped. Therefore it is not very easy to make a comparison as regards Sunday itself. I cannot say that there has been any very great improvement in respect of Sunday. According to the figures submitted to me there has been no very great improvement in England with regard to Sunday offences, and a similar statement may be made in respect of Wales. I do not know how far that may be, but that is what I have been informed.
These are not conclusive reasons by any means against the right rev. Prelate's Bill, but they are reasons for approaching the subject with a considerable amount of caution. I should like to say, in passing, that though I would not yield to any man in your Lordships' House in my desire to diminish the awful evils of intemperance in this country, yet I am not very much struck with the figures which tend to show the large amounts of money spent in drink in the course of the year. The working-classes spend a great sum of money in drink. So do we, and so do all classes of His Majesty's subjects. And not only in drink do the upper and middle classes spend much but in every conceivable luxury, and I should doubt if you calculated it up whether the total figure, proportionately, of money spent by the upper and middle classes on luxuries does not greatly exceed what the working-classes spend. Of course, I am not speaking of intemperance. There is nothing to be said in mitigation of the awful evils of intemperance. But when it is a question of how much this vast body of men spend in enjoying themselves I think we should be careful in what criticisms we make lest people should say, "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."
I think there is a great deal to be said for the first subsection of the right rev. Prelate's Bill. That is so especially in respect of the hours of opening in the middle of the day. I do not know whether your Lordships felt like I did, but I was very much struck with the account which

919
the right rev. Prelate gave of his own personal experience of watching what happened during the open hours in the middle of the day in London. I can quite conceive that the right rev. Prelate is right, that in that respect the hours are too long. There must, however, be some sort of opening in the middle of the day in order that people—I mean the people who are in no way anxious to drink to excess, and do not drink to excess—should have what beer is necessary for their midday meal. But it might be right and proper that the hours should be curtailed and that there should not be so big an opportunity as there is at the present moment.
Then I turn to the bona fide traveller subsection. If I may make a confession to your Lordships, I have never been happy about the bona fide traveller. The original conception of the bona fide traveller was, I suppose, a person, who, moving about with considerable fatigue upon his business or his pleasure, even on Sundays, finds it necessary in order to recruit exhausted nature at perhaps one period in the day to have a modest glass of beer. But it has never had any correspondence whatever to the fact. The bona fide traveller is, in fact, a fraud, and always has been a fraud, and he has become much more of a fraud since he was instituted. In the old days there was something to be said for a distance measure in order to define a bona fide traveller. But since he first dawned upon our jurisprudence there have been various inventions. The first invention was the bicycle, and the second invention is the motor-car; and these two between them have simply knocked the bona fide traveller into a cocked hat. He really ceases to have any relation in reality to the original conception. I cannot see why you should permit a bicyclist to have a drink and not allow a man who is walking to have one, because that is what it comes to. The right rev. Prelate says, "Let us turn the three miles into six." But is it really worth while to make a change of that kind? If I get on a bicycle I more often go six miles than I go three; and I think it very unlikely that many bicyclists would be weeded out by the distance. Any one who lives, as I do, upon the Great North Road and sees what goes on on a Sunday, knows that the public-houses are quite full of bona fide travellers—ordinary persons doing what they are fully entitled to do, using their
920
Sunday opportunity to have an enjoyable afternoon. I am very glad they should, and I think it would be a profound hardship if they are not allowed to have what they require to drink in the course of the day. But the fact of the public-houses being open for the supply of this number of persons renders the whole law a farce. I do not think for a moment that the dealings of these public-houses are confined to bona fide travellers on Sunday. How is it possible with the masses of people going in and out to suppose that they do not supply people in the immediate neighbourhood? I do not think the bona fide traveller provisions are worth passing into law.
I then turn to Clause 2. My noble friend Lord Hylton has already made observations about Clause 2, as also has the noble Lord who represents the Government. That clause proposes to give the licensing benches a power to do two things—either to take individual houses and say that they shall not be opened on Sundays, or to take the whole of the houses and say that none of them shall be opened on Sundays. There are two different subsections which make those two different changes in the law. There is something to be said for the first of the two. I can quite conceive that there may be individual cases where, because of there being an undue amount of turmoil on the Sunday, it may be found by the magistrates a useful provision that they should be enabled to diminish the number of open houses. I think, though, that some direction, if I may say so, should be given on the face of the Act of Parliament as to the kind of reasons upon which the magistrates ought to act. There is nothing said here about that. It is left to their absolute discretion. Some sort of suggestion should be given to them, that "where they find in the interests of public order"—or some phrase of that kind.—"it is necessary to diminish the number of houses on Sunday in a particular locality," then these powers should apply. I think the general power would make it very difficult for the magistrates to act, as my noble friend Lord Hylton has said.
I should like to remind the right rev. Prelate on this head that this applies more to subsection (6)—that is, to the larger powers of closing all public-houses in a district on Sunday. The magistrates ought

921
to act in a judicial spirit; they ought not to act simply in order to carry out what they happen to think is good for the locality in which they live. That is really not their business, and the whole frame of mind which ought to surround a magistrate is really inimical to that power. He sits there as a judicial person trying to arrive at what he ought to do to carry out the law; not to interpret his own particular fad or the fad of any one else, but simply to do his best to interpret the law. Therefore I should very much object to giving magistrates a certain roving power to close public-houses completely in any district. I do not say that to close the public-houses in any district on Sunday is necessarily a wrong thing to do. Perhaps it might be right if the people want it, but then the people must say so. In that respect I agree more with noble Lords opposite and the Government, than I do with the right rev. Prelate. I think no such decision should be come to except by the wish of the people. I do not mean to say that I think it would be a judicious proposal that the people in any small licensing district should have the power to close all the public-houses in their district, but some popular authority ought to act in that matter and not a judicial authority. It is a question of policy, and a question of policy should not be left to the magistrates, who ought to approach any matter in a judicial spirit. Therefore I think subsection (1) of Clause 2 will require additional words giving the magistrates some indication of the lines on which they ought to act; and I am afraid subsection (6) ought to disappear altogether.
I have ventured to make those criticisms on the Bill. I will not say much upon the biggest criticism of all, because it has been mentioned by every speaker and has been already anticipated by the right rev. Prelate himself. But I am sure that no such Bill of this kind ought to pass into law unless you deal at the same time with clubs. It would be really in the highest degree absurd. The clubs are growing every day, and they are much less controlled than the public-houses. To propose to close the public-houses in order to turn all the persons who want to drink into clubs seems to me not only futile but retrograde. Therefore I hope the right rev. Prelate and those who advise him will turn their attention to the very difficult task of preparing clauses in respect of clubs. I can assure him that it is a very difficult task. We had some experience of
922
that in the debates on the Scottish Temperance Bill last session. But if he wishes to satisfy the conscience of the people he must deal with clubs. It is no good trying to deal with public-houses and leave the clubs out. I hope the right rev. Prelate will not think that I have been too drastic in my criticisms, but subject to these criticisms for my part I would be quite ready to assent to the Second Reading of the Bill. I think the right rev. Prelate will find in the subsequent stages—if I may use the expression—his work cut out for him; but I am sure your Lordships will feel that in any work he undertakes he is only animated by the highest principles, and we all wish him success.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I hope your Lordships are going to give a Second Reading to-night to this Bill. The principle which underlies the Bill and pervades it has received practically no opposition at the hands of any speaker this evening. I am particularly grateful to the noble Marquess who has just sat down for the emphasis with which he has asserted the fact that there is no objection to the principle of Sunday Closing—that is, to the curtailment of the hours of opening on Sunday. I am still more grateful to the noble Marquess for having in a masterly fashion carried out what many of us have been trying to do for many years—what he has himself described as "knocking into a cocked hat" the fallacy of the bona fide traveller. As far as I know the bona fide traveller is the only public character who is described by an epithet, and that epithet is, I venture to think, a singularly inappropriate one. He may be a traveller, but that he is a bona fide traveller in the vast majority of cases where he claims some privilege on that account I venture most cordially to doubt.
The principle of this Bill has been accepted by your Lordships to-night, and that is not wonderful because for years past alike on the part of Liberals and Unionists in both Houses of Parliament and on the part of the Labour Party in the other House this Bill has received enthusiastic support. And I venture to remind the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, with regard to his criticism that the Bill is undemocratic, that as far as I know the Bill has received the overwhelming support of the Labour Party and has certainly had that support for a great many years. Reference was made

923
by the right rev. Prelate in introducing the Bill to a conference over which I had the honour to preside which was held in Caxton Hall a few months ago. I do not think he exaggerated when he spoke of the remarkable character of that gathering. I have had the honour of presiding over many meetings of different kinds, but I do not remember, with possibly one exception, ever presiding over any meeting which was of so cosmopolitan a character. There were representative men there of every section of the population; every creed and every political opinion. They were practically unanimous in saying, not merely that it is a good principle that the magistrates should have power to curtail the hours of Sunday opening of public-houses, but that something of the kind is at this moment urgently and by general consent required if the popular wish is to become effective. It is not wonderful that that should be felt, for we are not speaking, as has been already said to-night but it requires reiteration, of an untried fad. We are speaking of something which has proved valuable in Scotland for sixty years, in Ireland for thirty-five years, and in Wales for thirty-three years. In some of those regions the provisions are more drastic than anything we are asking for here, and as far as I know no one would desire to go back on the matter now.
The noble Marquess criticised the figures quoted by the Bishop of London as failing to show that the improvement in temperance habits was really to be connected in any way with Sunday Closing. I did not altogether understand my right rev. brother to be quoting the figures in that way. I understood his figures to point to this, that if you take the years immediately preceding and the years which immediately follow Sunday Closing in Scotland, you will find that an extraordinary change came about, not gradually but suddenly, as regards the matter. And when we are told that the introduction of Sunday Closing will necessarily produce a large addition to the number of clubs, he showed that, instead of clubs being larger in number in proportion to the population in the regions where Sunday Closing exists, they are smaller than in the regions where it does not exist. No one will dispute for a moment the noble Marquess's contention that it would be fallacious to speak of Sunday Closing as we have it in different parts of the United Kingdom as having been the main cause of temperance improve-
924
ment. No one would suggest that for a moment. In England it is true there has been, even more markedly than in Scotland, Wales, or Ireland, a great improvement in temperance so far as statistics show; but I venture to think that the particular purposes for which those statistics were brought forward by the right rev. Prelate are perfectly good, and the statistics are valid for the argument for which he used them.
In the first place, I say that we have a practically unanimous opinion in favour of something of this kind being wanted. In the next place, we can say that the proposals in the Bill as here drafted, with the exception of certain particular clauses which I quite agree require reconsideration and very possibly amendment, if carried into effect would be in the result not hurting any one except those we want to help and not to hurt—namely, those who misuse opening on Sunday for purposes which cannot be called healthy purposes in any sense of the word. I expected to hear the argument to-night, and it came early from Lord Hylton, that many of us who support this Bill do not go far enough; we are wanted to go very much further. We certainly do not ask you to go very much further. But the fact that the Bill does not go far enough is not an argument against the Bill as it stands before your Lordships. I think we should be widely misled if, because there are many people who desire to go very much further than this House is inclined to go in the way of temperance reform, we should not take this particular step.
There are grave difficulties to be met in this matter. The first and foremost has been referred to by every speaker—namely, the question of the clubs. The noble Marquess who has just sat down hopes that the Bishop of London will before the Bill leaves the House introduce clauses dealing with that subject. I agree that that subject must be dealt with if this Bill is to be effective in its operation; but whether it is to be done by clauses added to this Bill or not I am not so sure. Why did the clauses about Sunday Closing perish on former occasions? Because they were combined with others which the House was not prepared to accept, because the subject was too complicated, too difficult, and too large. But we do urgently require legislation dealing with clubs if we take this step.

925
But I am not convinced that it should be by adding clauses to this particular Bill rather than having a separate measure on the subject of clubs. I am not prepared to say that the second method would not be a better proposal than the first. That is not a matter of principle but of detail, after all. Everyone who advocates this Bill feels that its provisions ought to be accompanied, either in this Bill or in another Bill, by legislation in regard to clubs, because the possibility of advantage being taken of additional Sunday Closing to multiply the number of drinking clubs is too palpable to require to be asserted. It goes without saying. We have to bear in mind the qualification of which the Bishop of London reminded us. Clubs are not more frequent in the regions where Sunday Closing prevails than they are in the regions where it does not. But I agree that we ought to have legislation of that kind either within this Bill or outside it.
This Bill deserves our support because it falls in so largely with the movement, wholesome in every respect, for additional security for the rest day for great portions of the population. It is appalling if any one will look into these statistics to see what are the hours now being worked by those concerned in the liquor trade as compared with corresponding workpeople in other trades. There are said to be 300,000 employees—I have had no means of testing the figures myself—in what may be called the public-house industry to-day. Almost all of these people are deprived to a very large extent of their Sunday rest, and they have the right to ask that they shall not be left out of consideration when we are dealing with a subject of this kind. Reference was made by the right rev. Prelate in introducing the Bill, and has been made I think by others, to the question whether or no the actual holders of licensed premises are themselves to any large extent in favour of this measure. I do not believe it would be possible to obtain figures to prove that matter. Licensees in almost all cases are far from being free agents, and it is difficult for them to express their desire for legislation of this sort. But no one can be familiar, as some Bishops are, with many of the men and women engaged in this trade without being perfectly certain that, although probably they may refrain from outward expression, they are themselves amongst the most cordial supporters of measures of this kind. It is not wonderful
926
if one thinks what the hours are, and sees what such a change as is proposed would mean for them.
The only question which startles one is that this Bill, which we all say is so much desired, has not become law already. I said in this House a little while ago that anything which has unanimous support runs a risk for that very reason of not having effect given to it. General unanimity of desire, as was instanced in the case of the reform of the Poor Law, is one reason why there has not been the fuel for the engine to press it forward in the ordinary give-and-take of Parliamentary affairs. I believe that after the welcome which has been given to-night in general terms—beyond reservations as to certain details—to the Bill which has been introduced by my right rev. brother, we may expect to see the principle at all events which this Bill contains made the law of the land before very long. I most cordially give the Bill my support, and hope it will receive a Second Reading.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise, not for the purpose of continuing the debate, but merely for the purpose of putting a question to the right rev. Prelate who has brought forward this Bill. I agree with what was said by the noble Marquess on this side of the House and also by the Archbishop of Canterbury, that it would be quite useless to pass a Bill of this sort unless there were also included regulations with regard to clubs. The most rev. Primate said just now that it might be objected that regulations with regard to clubs is a subject which is not entirely germane to this Bill. That may be quite true, but in the Scottish Temperance Bill of last year there were included stringent regulations with regard to clubs. If I recollect rightly, it was done on the motion of Lord St. Aldwyn. Certainly those clauses were regarded by this House and by the other House as being quite compatible with a Bill relating to temperance. But the question which I wish to put to the right rev. Prelate is this. Does he or does he not intend to insert such clauses? and further, is it or is it not a fact that at the present moment clubs are included in the first subsection of the first clause of the Bill? Because the other day I read a statement which was published apparently in favour of the Bill in which it appeared that clubs were included, or

927
were intended to be included. If the right rev. Prelate will look at the subsection he will see the words—
"all premises in which intoxicating liquors are sold or exposed for sale by retail."
Well, a club surely is premises in which intoxicating liquor is sold by retail. What I wish to know is this, Does the right rev. Prelate imagine that under that subsection clubs are included, or does he not?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Salisbury has so exactly expressed my feelings with regard to this Bill that I do not think I should have troubled your Lordships with any observations upon the matter had it not been that the right rev. Prelate who moved the Second Reading made a rather pointed reference to me at the opening of his speech, in which he quoted a short letter that I wrote to a correspondent in November, 1908. With all respect to the right rev. Prelate I think he read rather more into my letter than the text contained. In my view it amounted to little more than this, that I recognised that the subject of Sunday trading was one which could be best dealt with apart from the other much more controversial matters which we were then discussing. I also conceded that it was less controversial than those matters. At any rate, the right rev. Prelate must not regard my letter as a kind of blank cheque which I can allow him to fill up in favour of this Bill, or of any other proposals. I thought the right rev. Prelate was rather sanguine when he described this Bill as an uncontroversial measure. I venture to think, on the contrary, that it contains some extremely controversial proposals. For myself I always regard these proposals for the reduction of the liquor trade from this point of view. We have none of us ever admitted that the consumption or the sale of liquor is a crime. When, therefore, it is proposed to pass laws which have the effect of interfering either with the sale or with the consumption of liquor, we cannot disguise from ourselves that we are really interfering, and interfering in a very drastic manner, with, on the one hand, a lawful trade, and, on the other, a consumption which is perfectly legitimate and which has never been otherwise regarded by the law.
We have therefore in a case of this kind, in the first place, to prove that the abuse is there;
928
and, in the next, to prove that the remedy will be an effectual remedy. That there is a certain amount of abuse in connection with Sunday trading none of us will, I think, dispute; but I am on the whole under the impression that it is a diminishing and not an increasing abuse. I am under the impression that the individual in this country is becoming more sober with every year that passes, and the community as a whole more decent and orderly than of old. I also think that we ought not to lose sight of the fact that there are other agencies at work from which we may hope much will be done to mitigate the evils not only of Sunday drinking but of all drinking. The right rev. Prelate admitted with great frankness that there was a weak point in his Bill, the failure to deal with the all-important question of clubs. He told us that the two questions were not strictly connected. I cannot entirely agree with that contention. It seems to me that you cannot keep out of sight the fact that if difficulties are put in the way of those who sell liquor and those who consume liquor at public-houses, you do inevitably and automatically stimulate the sale and consumption of liquor at the so-called clubs which are now growing apace all over the country. These clubs seem to me now to parade attractions more seductive than of old. They axe under little or no Police supervision, their hours are unregulated, and they are often little more than mere drinking places. I was sent the other day a copy of a journal called Club Life, which I dare say the right rev. Prelate has seen. I find in it column after column of advertisements of these clubs. All of them, almost without exception, publish an intimation that they will be open at different hours on Sunday. There are lists of the artistes who appear. I will not read them. A good many of the clubs appear to have some political connection. I see there is the Mildmay Radical Club, the Hackney Liberal Club, the Mile End Reform Club; but all are able apparently to produce an extremely attractive variety entertainment, and at all of them I understand liquor can be freely obtained and consumed.
My noble friend behind me reminded the House that when we had to deal with the question of the liquor trade in Scotland we made it our business to deal with the clubs as well as with the public-houses, and that does seem to me to be a strong argument for the suggestion that has been

929
made that the right rev. Prelate should do the same. I observe that he quoted the testimony of Colonel Hall Walker, who speaks with knowledge upon the subject and who expresses himself favourably to these proposals, but only upon the condition that the consumption of liquor through other channels should be checked. That seems to me to be an eminently reasonable view of the case. With the question of the bona fide traveller my noble friend Lord Salisbury has dealt sufficiently. I was shown a few moments ago one of those cartoons which now play so large a part in our public life, in which there was portrayed a motor car travelling in a cloud of dust along the road heading straight, no doubt, for the nearest hotel or public-house, and two pedestrians smothered with the dust and unable to slake their thirst. I venture to say that legislation which allows that kind of discrepancy of treatment to take place is very mischievous legislation. I certainly hope that the right rev. Prelate himself, before this Bill goes to the Committee stage, will feel that it is incumbent upon him rather than upon us to produce clauses dealing with the club question.
The right rev. Prelate did not mention at all, I think, the question of the authority by whom this legislation is to be set in motion. I venture to think that it is very undesirable that the magistrates should be entrusted with the duty of deciding how this question is to be treated in the different areas for which they are responsible, and I am fortified in that opinion by the Majority Report of the Licensing Commission, in which I find a sentence to this effect—
"Many temperance reformers advocate that the question of hours should be placed within the discretion of the licensing authorities; but it would lead to public inconvenience, and is in other respects objectionable, that the regulations as to the hours of closing should vary according to the views of each licensing authority, in some oases exercising their powers within small areas. For instance, within the Metropolitan Police area there might be twelve or more different sets of regulations as to hours. We therefore recommend that all such regulations should be laid down by statute as heretofore."
I think that is an argument which appeals very strongly to one.
I have risen not for the purpose of throwing any difficulty in the way of this Bill. We are, as my noble friend reminds
930
us, pledged to the principle of the limitation of hours on Sundays; and I think I a m more moved than by any other argument by the argument of the most rev. Primate who made a strong appeal to us on behalf of the 300,000 persons employed in this trade. We should all of us, I am sure, be glad to see their heavy burden mitigated. But, my Lords, while I do not desire to throw difficulties in the way of the Second Reading of the Bill, I do think that it is only fair to warn the fight rev. Prelate that some of us may take perhaps more interest than he would like in the Bill during its progress through Committee, and that we shall in particular ask to have the question of clubs dealt with in a manner satisfactory to us.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, I desire to present for Second Reading the Government Annuities Bill. This Bill deals with annuities granted to the public for the reduction of the National Debt, and deals with Acts passed from 1829 to 1903. I may shortly say that the Bill is divided into three parts. Part I deals with Government annuities, the main object being that for the reduction of debt. Part II deals with Savings Bank annuities and insurances. The object of that part of the Bill is to provide and encourage the provision of saving and insurance amongst the working-classes. No doubt your Lordships know that the insurance is limited to the sum of £100. Part III is general, and applies to both classes of annuities. At the present moment the law is in a very chaotic state as regards this question of annuities. There are actually sixteen separate Acts of Parliament which are very difficult even for a lawyer to unravel and understand; and when you come to a layman it is practically impossible for him to understand them and it is necessary for him to get legal advice. There are a large number of women who invest, and it is necessary

931
for them to get legal assistance likewise as regards their duties and rights. I need not point out that that is very expensive and undesirable. Then, again, it is very desirable to have a Bill such as this to state in plain language and in a simple manner what the law is, not only for the benefit of the public but also to simplify the work of the National Debt Commissioners at the National Debt Office. Therefore I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I can assure the House that the Bill is purely a Consolidation Bill and makes no change in the law at all; and I understand that if it is given a Second Reading the Bill will go to the Joint Committee, and be there considered as a Consolidation Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Strachic.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

SOLICITORS BILL, [H.L.]
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday the 23 rd instant.

PAUPER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Mayo.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Out-relief for children other than orphans and deserted children. 52 & 53 Vict. c. 56.
1. Where the rights and powers of a parent of any child are vested in the guardians of any poor law union in Ireland under section one of the Poor Law Act, 1889, as amended by the Poor Law Act, 1899, the guardians may, if they think fit, provide for the relief of that child out of a workhouse under section one of the Pauper Children (Ireland) Act, 1898, notwithstanding that the child is not an orphan or deserted child; and the provisions of that section, amended as aforesaid, shall apply accordingly in like manner as they apply in the case of an orphan or a deserted child.
THE EARL OF MAYO: There are two drafting Amendments to this clause. The first is, after the words "deserted child" where they first appear, to add "within the meaning of that section as extended by the Pauper Children (Ireland) Act, 1902;" and the second to delete the words "amended as aforesaid."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, at the end of the line insert: (" within the meaning of that section as extended by the Pauper Children (Ireland) Act, 1902 ").—(The Earl of Mayo.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out the words (" amended as aforesaid ").—(The Earl of Mayo.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 55.)

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE IN IRELAND.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government as to the position regarding foot and mouth disease in the South and South-East of Ireland; and when it may be hoped that the Ports of Wexford and Waterford will be re-opened for the cattle trade. I hope that in putting this Question it will not be thought that I have any desire to make an attack upon the Board of Agriculture. My Question is only put in the desire to seek information in the very difficult situation of hardship in which the farmers in Ireland find themselves owing to the unfortunate outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in various parts of that country. I have put my Question in a rather extensive form, but I hope my meaning has been understood. I am more particularly interested in the county of Kilkenny. We share, in our freedom from disease, the position of Wexford, Carlow, and Waterford—a somewhat undeserved position in one sense because in none of those counties has there been any case of foot and mouth disease. No one will appreciate more than the noble Marquess who leads the House that it is, especially for small men, a great hardship that at this time of the year when they calculated on getting their cattle out they should be in

933
this position. The position is a very distressing one, and I am sure the noble Marquess will understand my feeling strongly about it. There are two particular points to which I should like to refer. One is as to whether anything can be done about the stall-fed cattle. Could they not, after having obtained a veterinary surgeon's certificate, be brought over and slaughtered immediately? The other is with regard to districts where there is no disease. Could not pigs there be brought to the railway to go to the bacon merchants for immediate slaughter? Knowing how serious the disease is and how wide its ramifications may become, I should like to ask whether there is any prospect of improvement, and whether I can take back to Ireland with me when I go there shortly any message of hope or comfort to my neighbours.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, my noble friend who usually answers for the Irish Department is unable to be in his place, and therefore I have undertaken to answer the Question. I can assure my noble friend that I entirely appreciate the motives with which he has asked this Question, and I in no way yield to him in the sympathy I feel for the Irish farmers, more particularly for the smaller men who are placed in a position of great difficulty and disadvantage owing to these regulations. But, on the other hand, I do not see how any impartial person can deny that the continuance of these regulations is absolutely needful. There have been a number of fresh outbreaks during the last few days. There have been outbreaks in Cork, in Tipperary, and in Dublin. Until the Dublin case, which was reported on the 30th of last month, that county had been entirely free from the disease. It appeared apparently in two sets of premises adjoining each other at practically the same time. There have also been cases within the last ten days in County Kildare. In those circumstances it is very difficult, as I am sure the noble Earl will agree, to hold out prospects for easing the situation so far as cattle shipments from Waterford or Wexford are concerned. As regards the two specific questions asked by my noble friend, I will make inquiry as to both of them. He is aware, no doubt, that exportation for immediate slaughter is allowed from some of the Northern ports—Belfast,
934
Sligo, and Londonderry, if I remember rightly; but it is not possible to allow it from the Southern ports in the circumstances I have mentioned. It is not easy—although I am sure the Board of Agriculture will give the fullest consideration to any representations made—to see how, in the circumstances which I have detailed, those regulations can at present be relaxed as regards the South. But I will cause inquiry to be made about that point, and also the point about the pigs which my noble friend mentioned.

SCOTTISH ANNUAL REPORTS.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government when the Annual Reports of the Scottish Board of Agriculture and Land Court will be presented to Parliament. The noble Lord who answers for the Scottish Office will, I dare say, remember that I addressed this Question to him last year on, I think, more than one occasion, and I believe it was asked in the other House. As the period when it was hoped the Reports would be laid on the Table has expired, or very nearly expired, I venture to hope that there will not be much delay on this occasion, because these Reports cover a period of very great activity on behalf of those two Departments, and it is very desirable that we should have them in our hands in sufficient time to be able to study them.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, I am informed that the Scottish Board of Agriculture hope to have their Report ready for presentation soon after the Easter recess, and that the Land Court are making every effort to ensure the presentation of their Report in the course of this month. If those hopes are realised the Reports will be presented earlier this year than they were last year.

THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE HOUS OF LORDS.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE rose to ask His Majesty's Government when the "proposal for reconstituting the Second Chamber" will, in accordance with the intimation made in His Majesty's Speech from the Throne at the beginning of the session, be laid before Parliament; whether the measure has yet been drafted; and whether it will be introduced in this or in the other House of Parliament.

935
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I make no apology for putting this Question to the noble Marquess who leads the House, who, I am sure, will not regard it either as indiscreet or unreasonable. For a long time past, even before the introduction of the Parliament Bill, it was admitted by His Majesty's Ministers that the question of the powers of your Lordships' House was closely connected with the question of its constitution. That was announced by the Prime Minister in the year 1910. I need not remind your Lordships of the contents of the Preamble of the Parliament Act, nor of the solemn recital which it contained of the intention of His Majesty's Government to substitute for the existing House of Lords a Second Chamber constituted on a popular basis. The pledge was re-affirmed by the Prime Minister on the Third Reading, with the additional intimation that His Majesty's Government intended to undertake the task during the lifetime of the present Parliament. There are other pledges which I will not recapitulate. We all of us recollect the references to the "debt of honour" and the reference made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, to the "twin Bills," one of which we have not yet had the privilege of seeing. Those citations are rather hackneyed, but they have not lost anything of their force. We have pressed in and out of season for the production of those proposals, and we have pointed to the utter unreasonableness of pressing upon Parliament measures dealing with great constitutional questions, as well as others, at a time when, by the admission of His Majesty's Government, the Constitution was in suspense. But, my Lords, our inquiries have been put by from time to time without any apology for what has always seemed to me a very grievous breach of faith. At last the other day we found in the gracious Speech of His Majesty an announcement that something was likely to be done. It may have been that Ministers realised that the lifetime of the present Parliament was drawing to a close—they have, in fact, themselves admitted this—and they may have felt that they could not in common decency postpone any further the fulfilment of their engagements. I am, therefore, prompted to ask the Question which stands in my name.
What I desire to know is whether the proposal referred to in the Speech from
936
the Throne has now taken the shape of a Bill, when the Bill is likely to come before Parliament, and in which House of Parliament it is likely to be introduced. May I with all deference suggest that as the House of Commons is very fully occupied, and as this House has considerably more leisure and has paid great attention to the subject, the Bill might be introduced here? The noble Marquess will not have forgotten the labours of Lord Rosebery's Committee in the year 1908; the famous Resolutions which resulted from that Committee; and he may perhaps recollect that some of us had the courage to produce in this House a Bill dealing with the constitution of the Second Chamber. It may not entirely have met with the approval of noble Lords opposite, but it showed at any rate that we were ready to address ourselves seriously and with an open mind, to this grave problem. I ask the Question that I have put down, and I trust that we shall hear from the noble Marquess that there is a Bill in existence, that it will very soon see the light, and that it will be laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I certainly have no complaint to make of the noble Marquess's Question as being either indiscreet or inopportune, and I will endeavour to do my best to give answers to the three heads in which his Question is framed, although they cannot be in all cases a complete answer. The noble Marquess first asks when a proposal for reconstituting the Second Chamber will be laid before Parliament. Well, he will not be surprised, particularly in existing circumstances, if I cannot give him a precise date; but I can assure him that the dealing with this subject will not be unduly postponed; and he can take it from me that it is certain, humanly speaking, that it will come before us during the present session of Parliament. The noble Marquess then asks whether the measure has yet been drafted. Again I am sure he will not expect me to indicate to the House the precise degree of preparation which the measure has reached; but I can assure him that the subject has been under our close and careful consideration during the last two years.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Two years?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes. And that, therefore, its preparation may fairly be taken by noble Lords opposite as being tolerably well advanced. Then the noble Marquess asks whether it will be introduced in this or in the other House of Parliament. The noble Marquess will not take me as making any engagement on this subject when I say it is very probable, as it appears to me, that it will not be introduced in either House of Parliament as a measure. It is exceedingly likely that we shall proceed in the first instance by Resolution—a method for which there are a number of precedents, as the noble Marquess well knows, some of old date and some of quite recent date. One advantage, at any rate, which attaches to that method of procedure is this, that it enables discussion on this subject, which, after all, affects both Houses, to be carried on pari passu in both, or at any rate within a very short interval; whereas if you proceed by Bill there may be an interval of considerable length before one House can consider the conclusions arrived at by the other. But I must repeat that I hope this will not be regarded as a positive engagement on my part. I am merely endeavouring, in my anxiety to give as much information to noble Lords as I can, to indicate what I think will very probably be our method of proceeding.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, no one can accuse the noble Marquess opposite of being over rash in the statement which he has made to your Lordships. We understand that it is very hypothetical as to when and where we shall see these wonderful proposals which have taken two years but which have not reached the form of a Bill. I know that the drafting of a Bill is difficult, but the sort of naked proposals which form the subject-matter of a Bill certainly would
938
not under most Governments have taken two years to put together. But the noble Marquess and his friends always proceed in public matters with great deliberation. They never exaggerate, we always observe; and we have an instance this evening. The noble Marquess will not tell us when the proposals will be produced and in what House; but he said he hoped they would be produced in both Houses at one time. But I gathered one thing which I think was almost an assurance—namely, that we should see them some time this session. Considering the circumstances of Parliament that is almost an incautious remark. The noble Marquess relies on the continuance of the Government in office. Therefore he is able to assure us that within a brief period we shall see these proposals. I certainly hope your Lordships' House will have an opportunity of discussing them; but I think it would have been far better if the noble Marquess had told us that while the other House is discussing these fundamental questions of destroying the Constitution we should be engaged here at the same time in trying to mend it. We are obliged to the noble Marquess even for the cautious method with which he has approached the subject.

THE EASTER ADJOURNMENT.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Tuesday, the 21st instant.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.