Sitting of 12 February 1914

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

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND).
Petitions in favour of the assistance to municipal authorities in carrying out housing schemes were presented by—
Captain Donelan, from Arklow and Bray.
Mr. Muldoon and Mr. MacVeagh, from Warren Point and Newcastle.

NEW WRITS.
For Leith District of Burghs in the room of the Right Hon. Ronald Crauford Munro-Ferguson (Manor of North-stead.)—[Mr. Illingworth.]
For Borough of Tower Hamlets (Poplar Division) in the room of the Right Hon. Sydney Charles Buxton (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Illingworth.]
For Borough of Bethnal Green (South-West Division) in the room of the Right Hon. Charles Frederick Gurney Master-man (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster).—[Mr. Illingworth.]
For City of Cork in the room of William O'Brien, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Timothy Healy.]

PRIVATE BILLS.
  ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL.
  "To authorise the Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Company to construct railways in the county of Monmouth; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  ALLIANCE AND DUBLIN CONSUMERS GAS (ELECTRIC SUPPLY) BILL.
  "To authorise the Alliance and Dublin Consumers' Gas Company to supply electricity within the urban districts of Black-
  292
  rock, Kingstown, and Dalkey, in the county of Dublin; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  ASHINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  "To empower the Urban District Council of Ashington to supply gas within their district and the adjoining neighbourhood; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL.
  "To extend the time limited for the construction of the Knoll Brook Waterworks by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Barnsley; to extend their powers with respect to their water and electricity undertakings; to make further provision for the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  BEDWAS AND MACHEN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  "To empower the Urban District Council of Bedwas and Machen to supply gas within the parish of Machen Upper in their district and parts of certain adjoin-in parishes; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  "To empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Birmingham to construct additional tramways and street improvements and to provide and work omnibuses; to make further provision in regard to the health, local government, and improvement of the city; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  BRECON AND MERTHYR TYDVIL JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  "To authorise the Brecon and Merthyr Tydvil Junction Railway Company to acquire additional lands; to alter the existing and to confer further running powers over the Bargoed branch line of the Rhymney Railway Company; to raise further money and issue new class of debenture stock with priority over existing debenture stocks; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
  "To extend the time limited by the Bute Docks and Cardiff Railway Acts for the purchase of certain lands and for the completion of certain works; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  CARDIFF RAILWAY (COMPOUNDING OF TONNAGE RATES) BILL.
  "To amend the Bute Docks and Cardiff Railway Acts, 1865 to 1912; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  CAVAN AND LEITRIM RAILWAY BILL.
  "To enable the Cavan and Leitrim Railway Company, Limited, to construct a new railway; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  "To empower the Central London Railway Company to enlarge a portion of their railway tunnels; to construct new subways and works; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  CHELSEA BOROUGH COUNCIL (SUPERANNUATION AND PENSIONS) BILL.
  "To provide for the granting of superannuation allowances to the officers and pensions to the servants of the metropolitan borough of Chelsea; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  CHESTERFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  "To authorise the Corporation of Chesterfield to construct and work additional tramways; to execute certain street works and improvements; to extend their area for the supply of electricity; to make further provision for the improvement, local government, and health of the borough of Chesterfield; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  CHISWICK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  "To confer powers upon the urban district council of Chiswick in relation to the acquisition of the undertaking of the Chiswick Electricity Supply Corporation, Limited, and to the supply of electricity;
  294
  to authorise the acquisition of lands; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  "To authorise the Corporation of London to execute street improvements at Spitalfields; to make provision with respect to the regulation of premises in the City of London in which celluloid and cinematograph films are manufactured, kept, or stored, and with respect to the use and testing of high pressure gas meters within the City; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first tune; and ordered to be read a second time.
  CLERGY MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL.
  "To incorporate the Clergy Mutual Assurance Society and to provide for the management of its affairs; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  CORN EXCHANGE COMPANY (MARK LANE) BILL.
  "To make further provision as to the affairs of the Corn Exchange Company, and for regulating the user of the Corn Exchange (Mark Lane)." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  CRYSTAL PALACE BILL.
  "To constitute a body of trustees for the purpose of acquiring the Crystal Palace and Park, and to empower them to hold and manage the same as a place of public resort and recreation; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  DEAL AND WALMER GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
  "To empower the Deal and Walmer Gas Company to supply electricity; to extend the limits of the company for the supply of gas; to change the name of the company; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
  "To empower the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company to construct additional harbour works at Fishguard and to abandon certain

  295
  authorised harbour works and railways in connection therewith, and to authorise the Great Western Railway Company to subscribe to the capital of the said company; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  "For conferring further powers upon the Great Western Railway Company in respect of their own undertaking and upon that Company and the London and North Western Railway Company in respect of an undertaking in which they are jointly interested; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  HAYWARD'S HEATH GAS BILL.
  "To extend and define the limits of supply of the Hayward's Heath District Gas Company; to provide for the conversion of the existing capital of the Company; and to confer further powers upon the Company." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  ISLE OF THANET GAS BILL.
  "To enable the Isle of Thanet Gaslight and Coke Company to acquire the undertaking of the Broadstairs Gas Company; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  KIDSGROVE GAS BILL.
  "To alter and define the limits of the Kidsgrove Gaslight Company for the supply of gas; to confer further powers on the Company; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  LEYLAND GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
  "To extend the limits of the Leyland Gas Company for the supply of gas; to empower the Company to supply electricity; to raise further capital; to change the name of the company; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  "To make provision with regard to high-pressure gas meters, music and dancing licences, lying-in homes, establishments for nursing or special treatment, cinemato-
  296
  graph films, celluloid and dangerous businesses; to make provision as to the administration of powers under the Lunacy Acts; to confer various powers upon the London County Council, the Corporation of the City of London, and the Metropolitan Borough Councils; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL
  "To empower the London Electric Railway Company to construct new subways; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  "To enable the Companies supplying electrical energy in the administrative county of London and the London County Council to enter into agreements for variation of date and terms of purchase of the Companies' undertakings." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time."
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  "To empower the London United Tramways, Limited, to enter into working and other agreements with owners of tramways and railways and agreements for variation of the periods within which and the terms upon which the tramways of that Company may be purchased; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  LURGAN GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL
  "To empower the Lurgan Gas Light and Chemical Company, Limited, to manufacture and supply gas in the urban district of Lurgan and the neighbourhood thereof and to generate and supply electricity in that district, and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  MARKET RASEN WATER BILL.
  "To authorise the Market Rasen Water Company to construct new works; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  METROPOLITAN AND GREAT NORTHERN RAIL WAY COMPANIES BILL.
  "To incorporate and confer powers upon a Joint Committee of the Metropolitan and

  297
  Great Northern Railway Companies; to provide for the leasing to such Committee of the Great Northern and City Railway undertaking of the Metropolitan Railway Company and the transfer to such Committee of the powers in respect of a railway authorised to be constructed by that Company; to empower the Joint Committee and the Great Northern Railway Company to construct new railways and works; to empower the Metropolitan Railway Company to construct a new railway and works and to acquire additional lands; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
  "To extinguish the tolls levied in respect of the user of certain roads in and adjoining the county borough of Middlesbrough, and to make provision for the maintenance of such roads; to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the said county borough to acquire the undertaking of the North Ormesby Gas Company, Limited; to confer further powers upon them with respect to their gas and electricity undertakings; to make further provision for the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (WESTERN ROAD AND IMPROVEMENTS AND FINANCE) BILL.
  "To authorise the construction of new roads and a road widening in the urban districts of Brentford, Heston, and Isle-worth, and Chiswick, in the county of Middlesex; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  MOLD AND DENBIGH JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  "To authorise the Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway Company to improve its undertaking; to raise further money; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  NORTHERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  "For incorporating the Northern Junction Railway Company and to authorise them to make and maintain a railway from the London and South Western Railway at Brentford to the Great Northern Railway, Enfield Branch, at Palmer's
  298
  Green; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  NORTHWICH URBAN DISTRICT BILL.
  "To authorise the urban district council of Northwich to construct new waterworks and to acquire additional lands; to sanction and confirm the construction of existing waterworks; to extend the limits for the supply of water by the council; to confer further powers on the council in regard to their water undertaking, and to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, and local government of the district; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  OSSETT CORPORATION BILL.
  "To confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Ossett with respect to the disposal of trade refuse and to make further provision in regard to the water and gas undertakings of the Corporation and the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  OXFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL
  "To authorise the City of Oxford Electric Tramways, Limited, and the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Oxford to make and carry into effect agreements for the purchase and removal of the Company's tramways and the provision by the Company of a service of motor omnibuses in lieu thereof; to extend the time for the construction of tramways and works and the purchase of lands under the Oxford and District Tramways Acts, 1907 and 1909; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY BILL.
  "To amend The Port of London Act, 1908, and to extend the powers of raising money under such Act; to confer further powers on the Port of London Authority; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  PORT TALBOT RAILWAY AND DOCKS BILL.
  "To authorise the Port Talbot Railway and Docks Company to extend the piers at Port Talbot; to construct a new en-

  299
  trance lock; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  PRESTON CORPORATION BILL.
  "To confer further powers upon the Corporation of Preston with reference to the Ribble Navigation; to authorise the Corporation to construct new streets and additional tramways; to confer upon the Corporation further powers with reference to their water undertaking; to make better provision for the health, local government, and finance of the borough of Preston; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  RHONDDA AND SWANSEA BAY RAILWAY BILL.
  "To confer further powers upon the Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Company; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL.
  "To authorise the Rhymney Railway Company to make a new railway; to acquire additional lands; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  RIDDINGS DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  "To extend the limits of supply of the Riddings District Gas Company and to empower them to acquire the undertaking of the Pinxton Gas Light and Coke Company, Limited; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  ST. ANNE'S-ON-THE-SEA IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  "To enable the urban district council of St. Anne's-on-the-Sea to acquire the St. George's Gardens and other properties, and to confer further powers upon the Council in regard to the supply of gas and electricity, the provision of motor omnibuses, and to the local government of the district." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  SEVERN NAVIGATION BILL.
  "To amend the Acts relating to the Severn Navigation and to confer further powers on the Severn Commissioners; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  SOUTHEND GAS BILL.
  "To extend the limits for the supply of gas by the Southend Gas Company; to authorise that Company to acquire the gas undertaking of the Southend-on-Sea Corporation; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE MINES DRAINAGE BILL.
  "To confer powers upon the South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Commissioners for the borrowing of moneys and the purchase and sale of lands; to confirm an agreement between the said Commissioners, the Company of Proprietors of the Birmingham Canal Navigations, and the Public Works Loan Commissioners; to vary and amend the provisions of the South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Acts, 1891, 1894, and 1904; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
  "To empower the South Suburban Gas Company to acquire lands and construct works at Erith; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  STOURBRIDGE NAVIGATION BILL.
  "To amend the Canal Tolls and Charges (No. 3), (Aberdare, etc., Canals) Order, 1894, in relation to the Stourbridge Navigation and Acts relating to that Navigation; to confer further powers on the Company of Proprietors of the said Navigation; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
  "To extend the time limited by The Taff Vale Railway Act, 1912, for the purchase of certain lands and the completion of certain railways." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  TEES VALLEY WATER BILL.
  "To authorise the Tees Valley Water Board to construct additional waterworks; to extend the limits of supply of the Board; to make better provision with regard to their water undertaking; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  UPPER MEDWAY NAVIGATION AND CONSER VANCY BILL.
  "To confer on the Upper Medway Navigation and Conservancy Board further borrowing powers; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  WADHURST AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  "For incorporating and conferring powers on the Wadhurst and District Gas and Coke Company, and to enable them to acquire the gas undertaking of the Ticehurst and District Water and Gas Company." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  WALSALL CORPORATION BILL.
  "To authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Walsall to construct street works and a tramway; to provide and work trolley vehicles and motor omnibuses; to make further provision with regard to the supply of gas and electricity; to increase the number of wards of the borough and the number of councillors and aldermen; and to make further provision with regard to the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  WEYMOUTH AND MELCOMBE REGIS CORPORATION BILL.
  "To authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis to reconstruct the Weymouth Swing Bridge and the Backwater Bridge, and to make other works upon and to fill in the Backwater, and to confer further powers upon the Corporation with respect to the regulation, management, and good government of the borough; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read the second time.

  YORK CORPORATION BILL.
  "To empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of York to construct a new street and street improvements and to provide and run trolley vehicles and motor omnibuses; to make further provision in regard to their light railway, electricity, and markets undertakings, and the health, local government, and improvement a the city; and for other
  302
  purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Bagnalstown Gas." Presented by Mr. ROBERTSON; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES.
Return [presented 10th February] to be printed. [No. 84.]
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Provisional Special Order made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, dated 18th October, 1913 entitled the National Health Insurance (Employment of Out-workers) (Ireland) Provisional Order, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 85.]
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS, 1911 AND 1913.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 18th August, 1913, made by the Treasury under Section 29 of The National Insurance Act, 1913, and Section 83 of The National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 86.]
ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
Copy presented of Statement of the Amounts due by the Public to Depositors on 31st March, 1912, and of the Receipts, Interest, and Disbursements during the year ended 31st March, 1913, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 87.]
TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 11th February; [Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 88.]
CONCILIATION ACT, 1896.
Copy presented of Eleventh Report by the Board of Trade of Proceedings under The Conciliation Act, 1896 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 89.]
TREASURY CHEST.
Account presented for the year 1912–13, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 90.]
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5258 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PRESERVATION OF ANCIENT MONU MENTS (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 1, 1914).
Copy presented of Report from His Majesty's Ambassadors at Vienna and Paris showing the systems adopted in Hungary and France for the preservation of ancient monuments [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SANTIAGO MISSION.
Copy presented of Correspondence with the Treasury in respect to the raising of Santiago to the rank of a First Class Mission, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Return of Evictions in Ireland during the quarter ended 30th September, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

COLLEGE CHARTER ACT, 1871.
Copy presented of Application received from the Most Honourable the Marquess of Crewe, K.G., for the establishment of an institution to be known as "The School
304
of Oriental Studies, London Institution," referred by His Majesty in Council for the consideration and Report of a committee of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council; together with a copy of the draft of the Charter applied for [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of the Post Office Annuity and Insurance Regulations, 1913, dated 28th November, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) ACT, 1900.
Account presented showing the Money issued from the Consolidated Fund, under the provisions of The Land Registry (New Buildings) Act, 1900, and of the Expenditure; the Money borrowed and the securities created under the said Act for the period ended the 31st March, 1913, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 91.]
NAVY (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT).
Copy presented of the Appropriation Account of the Navy for 1912–13, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon, and upon the Store Accounts of the Navy [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 92.]
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS, ETC.) FOR JANUARY, 1914.
Address for "Return showing, with regard to each Parliamentary Constituency in the United Kingdom, the total number and, as far as possible, the number in each class of Electors on the Register then in force; and also showing the Population in each Constituency (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 478. of Session 1912–13)."—[Major Morrison-Bell.]
PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (MONTHLY STATEMENTS).
Copy ordered "of Statements, for each month of the year 1914, of the number of Paupers relieved in England and Wales (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 71, of Session 1913)."—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]
POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy ordered "of Statement of the amount expended by boards of guardians for Poor Relief during the half-year ended the 30th day of September, 1913 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 111, of Session 1913)."—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909, relating to Kingstown."—[Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 8, Kingstown) Bill [Lords.]
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 8, Kingstown) Bill [Lords],—Standing Order of 13th August, 1913, relating to Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 8) Kingstown) Bill [Lords], suspended in the last Session of Parliament, read.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 8, KINGSTOWN) BILL [Lords] (SUSPENDED),
Read the first and second time, and referred to the Committee of Selection.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Outrages (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether anyone has been arrested for the murder of John Kildea, in county Clare, in the month of December last; and whether Kildea's body, riddled with shot, was found outside the door of a neighbour who heard the shots but was afraid to open the door, and so left Kildea to die outside?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Two arrests have been made, and six persons have been charged with misprision of felony in connection with this brutal murder. The case is sub judice and I can, therefore, make no further statement in the matter.
  Captain CRAIGasked whether anyone has been arrested in respect of the shooting outrage which occurred in King's County on the night of the 27th December last, when the house of one Denis Kelly was fired into, the pellets from two gunshots passing through the kitchen window; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that a shot was fired through a small window in the house of Mary Kelly, and another shot fired outside the house on the 26th December. The police are pursuing their inquiries, but up to the present no person has been made amenable.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that several shots were fired at two young men when returning to their homes near Loughrea, county Galway, on the night of the 15th September last, from the roadside, and that one of the young men was wounded in the back and side; and whether anyone has been brought to justice for this outrage?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that on the night of time 15th September last a gun shot was fired front behind a, wall at John Broderick and Patrick Kelly, the former being seriously wounded and the latter slightly. A police patrol who heard the shot hastened to the scene, but did not succeed in effecting any arrests.
  Captain CRAIGasked whether any arrests have been made in respect of the shooting outrage which occurred in the county Westmeath on the night of 27th December last, when a man named Patrick Leogue was fired at on the public road near Kilbeggan and very seriously wounded; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police have not yet obtained sufficient evidence to warrant the arrest of any person in connection with this outrage.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether any arrests have been

  307
  made or anyone made amenable in respect of the firing into the house of Michael Melvin, near Oranmore, county Galway, which occurred on or about the night of 26th August last; whether he is aware that the window of the bedroom in which Melvin and his wife were sleeping was riddled with shot, several pellets of which were found embedded in the wall just over the bed in which they were lying; and that Melvin was acting as herd on land used by the military as a camping ground?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that the house of Michael Melvin, who acts as herd for a grazing tenant of land used by the military as a camping ground, was fired into on the 23rd August last, as stated in the question. So far the police have been unable to obtain any information which would justify an arrest being made.
  Captain CRAIGasked whether any arrests have been made in respect of the shooting outrage which took place in the Athenry district of county Galway, on the 27th October last, when a man named Michael Lane was riddled with shot on the public road; and whether the reason for this attack was that he held a farm which was demanded by his neighbours for division amongst themselves?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police inform me that at 2.30 a.m. on the 28th October last Michael Lane was fired at and severely wounded, but he has now recovered from his injuries. The morning was very dark, and it has been found impossbile to trace his assailants. The motive for the attack is a matter of opinion.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mrs. Greathed, in county Galway, has for years past been subjected to outrage and intimidation because she refuses to part with her property in order that it might be divided up amongst her neighbours, that her house has been fired into and her labourers subjected to intimidation, and that it has been found necessary to establish a special police post of five men to protect this lady; and will he state what has been the cost to the public of this police post up to the present date?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware that for some years past Mrs. Greathed has been subject to annoyance and that on one occasion
  308
  her house was fired into. A special police hut has been erected for her protection and that of her family and servants. The cost of this protection is approximately £420 per annum.

  Volunteer Forces (Ireland).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether, outside the Ulster Volunteer Force, there are bodies of citizens being drilled and disciplined on military methods in other parts of Ireland; and, if so, whether he has any information as to the reasons which have led to their enrolment?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware that outside the Ulster Volunteer Force there is a movement on foot to organise a body on similar lines to be known as the Irish National Volunteers. I have no information as to the reasons which actuate the organisers of this movement beyond what has appeared in the Press.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent the movement has been organised, and in what parts of Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have had various reports from Galway and one or two other places, but it is very difficult for me to express any opinion as to how far the movement is meeting with success.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that there is a movement in the city of Dublin as well?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot say what movements are on foot; I can only speak about them when they exhibit themselves in overt action.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Are not men being drilled in Dublin under the direction of Captain White?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I believe that is so.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether the Commission recently appointed to inquire into grievances connected with the pay and promotion of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary has yet met; and whether it is intended to hear the evidence of certain selected sergeants and constables, or whether it will be left to members of the force to put forward their own witnesses to give evidence before the Commission?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Committee have already held a preliminary meeting, and will sit for the purpose of receiving evidence on Tuesday, the 24th instant. At the request of the Committee, the Inspector-General has afforded the various ranks of the force the opportunity to select witnesses to give evidence, and this has been done.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that the members of the force in Cork and Limerick refused to send witnesses to this Commission?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Of course, if they would not send witnesses to the Commission, I cannot help it.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask whether an opportunity will be given to urge the desirability of giving one day's rest in seven, especially in view of the extra work likely to be thrown upon them?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question hardly arises.

  Importation of Arms (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked whether any precedent exists for the issue of the King's Proclamation calling on the Customs officials in Ireland, under certain provisions of the Customs Consolidation Act, to prevent the importation of arms into that country; what sections of the Act give the Executive authority the right to interfere with the ordinary trade in firearms and ammunition between England and Ireland in times of peace; what arms and ammunition have been seized under this Proclamation up to date; and at what ports were the seizures made; whether the Proclamation is enforced at ports in the South and West of Ireland; and why it was not resorted to before to check the supply of firearms into these counties in the South and West of Ireland, in which outrages by the use of such weapons have been committed contniually with impunity for many years past?
  THE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The statutory authorities for the action taken are Sections 43 and 139 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and Section 8 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879. With regard to the third part of the question, it would not be in the public interest to give the particulars asked for. The reply to the
  310
  fourth part is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I am unable to accept the statement on which the hon. Member bases his question, and I would point out that the present Proclamation, when issued, was put into force over the whole of Ireland at the same time.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any arms have been seized in the South and West?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not aware. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down. I do not think there were.
  Mr. MOORE: Was this Proclamation made on the advice of the Irish Law Officers?
  Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities to those who are contesting the action of the Government in issuing this Proclamation, instead of holding back as they are at the present moment?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not quite sure as to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring. I should have thought that if there was anything illegal it could be taken into the Courts.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that action has been taken for some time past, and that owing to the procrastination of the Government the case has not been gone on with? They are putting all the difficulties they can in the way. Will they facilitate the trial?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not aware that the Government have taken any action for delaying the trial in the Courts.
  Mr. CASSELasked whether the Irish Law Officers were consulted as to the legality of the Proclamations relating to the importation of arms and ammunition into Ireland before they were issued?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir.

  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked whether the Report of the actuaries on the pension proposals of the Government for Irish national school teachers has now been received, and what representations have been made to the Treasury in reference thereto?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The Report has been laid before Parliament. The proposals are now under consideration.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the Chief Secretary whether he has now received the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the complaints of national school teachers in reference to the system of inspections; and what action does he propose to take?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Report has been received, and is at present under consideration.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Ireland).
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is now in a position to state that after searching enquiry his brother officers are satisfied that the recent case of foot-and-mouth disease was an isolated one, and that Ireland can now be declared free from the disease?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): Searching enquiries by the Department's officers have, so far, failed to reveal any case of the disease outside the limits of the two places in County Kildare where its existence was first confirmed. Hope is accordingly entertained that the prompt and stringent action taken in the matter has succeeded in eradicating the outbreak, but it, is only prudent that there should be a further period of observation before definitely concluding that Ireland is again wholly free from the disease.

  Southern Rhodesia (Land Ownership).
  Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the British South African Company has been informed about the question which has been raised in Southern Rhodesia as to the British South African Company's ownership of land in that territory has been referred to the Privy Council?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have proposed that the question of ownership of land in Southern Rhodesia by the British South Africa Company should be referred to the Privy Council for decision. I am awaiting a reply from the company on the subject.

  New Hebrides.
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the continued delay in effecting reforms in the control of the New Hebrides, he will approach the French Government with the suggestion that a joint commission of inquiry be set up to investigate and report?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The question of the steps to be taken for the improvement of the administration of the condominium is receiving the earnest consideration of the French and British Governments, and His Majesty's Government are in communication with the French Government on the subject.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has received a report of a meeting held in Melbourne and presided over by the ex-Premier of Victoria in regard to this matter?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, I think I have.

  Indentured Labour (Natal).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether free and indentured Indians working in the mines in Natal were recently, when found guilty of offences, sent not to prison but back to the mines to work; and, if so, can he say whether this procedure is normal in South Africa?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Under the powers given by the Union Prisons Act of 1911 certain mine compounds in Natal were declared out-stations to Dundee and Newcastle Gaols. This, as was explained by the Governor-General in his telegram of 19th November, printed at page 66 of Cd. 7111, was necessitated by the large number of Indians marching in organised bands with the avowed purpose of defying the law. Details will be found in the telegram referred to. The procedure appears to be legal, but like the occasion which called for it, fortunately not normal.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is this form of slavery one of the subjects that are being inquired into in Natal at the present time by the Commission?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not admit my hon. Friend's description of that method of employment; I believe that all the incidents will come under the purview of the Commission.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Would it be possible to make inquiries?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes. I have no doubt that I can find out by making inquiry in South Africa.
  Sir JOHN REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any complaints from or on behalf of the Indians themselves?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have received a very large number of communications relating to all these matters.

  Labour Trouble (South Africa).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether His Majesty's Government were informed by the Government of South Africa of their intention to deport the nine labour leaders to this country before the vessel carrying them was despatched; and, if so, what reply His Majesty's Government made to the intimation?
  Mr. HARCOURT: On 26th January Ministers informed the Governor-General that steps were being taken to expel certain persons on the 27th. This information reached me in a telegram from the Governor-General received on the afternoon of the 27th. It was, therefore, too late to send a reply, even if the terms of the communication had called for an answer.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the telegram be laid on the Table of the House?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I will consider that.

  Native Labour (British East Africa).
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in view of the importance of the work of the recent Commission on Native Labour in British East Africa, he will arrange to publish the Report as a White Paper?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The Report, which is a voluminous one, has already been printed and published in the Protectorate. I do not think that it would be justifiable to incur the expense of reprinting here, but I shall be happy to furnish my hon. Friend with a copy, and I will cause copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Government Building Contracts.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether contract work on Gov-
  314
  ernment buildings is being held up on account of the present lock-out in the London building trade; whether the Office of Works has been consulted in the matter; and whether consent has been given to this delay?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Work on lump sum contracts between the Board and members of the London Master Builders' Association is suspended. Necessary work of maintenance in public buildings is being carried on.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: In view of the conditions which the employers are seeking to impose upon their workmen, will the right hon. Gentleman take the contracts out of their hands?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I do not think that I can take any action with reference to the contracts.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether at the new Home Office, being erected under contract by Messrs. Holloway Brothers, young men are being employed from Borstal Prison, and that these young men have to report themselves to the police; and, if so, whether the Office of Works have been consulted and have given their consent to this innovation?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I understand that three young men who are under the care of the Borstal Association, which befriends and supervises lads discharged on probation from the Borstal Institution, are employed by Messrs. Holloway on the new Government building. They do not report to the police, and have been employed there since October or November.
  Mr. DUNCAN: Is the hon. Member aware that there is a dispute pending in connection with this particular contract?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: No. Beyond the fact that there is a dispute in the building trade I do not know of any dispute.
  Mr. DUNCAN: Does the hon. Member think it a proper thing that these young men should be placed on a building of this description when there is a dispute between the workmen and their employers?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: My hon. Friend is mistaken if he supposes that these young men are taking the place of men who are either locked out or on strike. That is not the case at all.

  Uncertificated Teachers.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to appoint a Commission to inquire into the claims of uncertificated teachers to pension or superannuation allowance; and whether he can hold out any hope that their claims will be recognised by the Government?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and I am not in a position to make any statement on the matter, except that the Government are fully alive to the importance Of the whole question of pensions for teachers.
  Mr. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an exactly similar reply has been made before, and does he propose to take any practical steps to meet these claims?
  Mr. PEASE: I am considering the whole matter. I am not in a position to make any statement at the present moment.

  Welsh Education Department.
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education whether any irregularities have been found in the accounts of the Welsh Education Department?
  Mr. PEASE: If the hon. Member's question relates to the Welsh Department of the Board of Education, the answer is in the negative. I presume, however, that he intends to refer to the Central Welsh Board for Intermediate Education. I am aware that certain allegations have been made as to irregularities in the accounts of that body, who, I understand, are now thoroughly investigating the matter.

  Elementary School Teachers (Pensions).
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked when the report of the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the question of the pension of those teachers who retired prior to 1911–12 will be presented to the House?
  Mr. PEASE: The Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into certain questions relating to the pensions of elementary school teachers has not yet reported. I understand that it has not yet received the Report of the Actuaries, upon
  316
  which all other questions referred to it were dependent, but I am informed that this report will be in the hands of the Committee in the course of a few days.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Actuaries' Report has been delayed?
  Mr. PEASE: It does seem to me that the actuaries have taken a rather prolonged period in order to obtain the figures necessary for the Committee. At the same time, I do not desire to reflect upon them in any way. They have carried out their work, and are now in a position to report.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    CONTRIBUTIONS OF INSURED PERSONS (RESERVE).
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the amount of money in reserve on the 1st January, 1914, derived from the contributions of insured persons and their employers who have died without drawing any benefit, and the total amount on 1st January, 1914, derived from persons who have forfeited their benefits on account of being in arrear?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: In answer to the first part of the question the contributions paid on behalf of members, of approved societies, who themselves have drawn no benefit, are applied to the benefits of those persons whose claims exceed their contributions, and this general rule of mutual insurance applies equally to contributions paid in respect of persons who have died as it does to the contributions paid in respect of persons still living. The contributions in question are therefore not in the nature of profits, and no separate account of them is kept by the societies. As regards the second part of the question, arrears will not affect the rate of benefit payable to employed contributors until after July next, and, since under Section 8 of the Act of 1913, any reduction, postponement, or suspension of benefits in consequence of arrears must be approximately equivalent to the value of the loss occasioned by the failure to pay the contributions in question, no profit can at any time accrue from this source.
    Mr. PETOasked the amount in reserve in the Post Office class on 1st January, 1914, derived from persons who have died without receiving benefit and from persons who have failed to keep up their contributions?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The sums available for payment, either as sickness benefit or under the provisions of Section 42 (f) of the principal Act, to representatives of Deposit Contributors whose deaths have been notified to the Commissioners, amounted in England to £577 on 1st January, 1914. As regards the second part of the question it is at present impossible to distinguish contributors who have gone out of insurance from those who have ceased to pay contributions as deposit contributors, because they have joined approved societies, as in a large number of cases notifications of transfer have not yet been received from societies by the Commissioners.

    MEDICAL PANELS.
    Mr. PETOasked the amount of the fund on 1st January, 1914, derived from persons who have chosen other doctors than those on the panels?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: If the hon. Member's inquiry relates to insured persons who have continued to be attended by non-panel doctors as private patients without reference to the provisions of the National Insurance Acts, no information is available as to their number, and no separate account is or can be kept in respect of them.

    DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked what proportion of insured persons are now deposit contributors; whether that proportion is increasing; and whether the Insurance Commissioners are seizing every available opportunity to induce deposit contributors to join approved societies?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Less than 3 per cent. of insured persons are now deposit contributors. The proportion has considerably decreased, and is still decreasing. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the case of deposit contributors must be dealt with by legislation this year, he will take an early opportunity of laying all available facts and figures about them, to the end of the first year of benefit, before the House, so that the subject may be studied and suggestions made by those interested?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Special investigations into the position of deposit contributors are in progress, and my right hon. Friend hopes to lay the result of them before the House at an early date. He will be very glad to receive suggestions in the matter from any hon. Members who are interested.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Court of Appeal on 31st January in Bonney v. Hoyle, which has placed approved societies in a difficult position by preventing them appearing in Court as interested parties in workmen's compensation cases; and, if so, what the Government intends to do to meet the situation?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: My right hon. Friend has seen report s of the recent case referred to by the hon. Member, and the effect of the decision upon the interests of approved societies is now under consideration. I would point out, however, that it does not in any way affect the right given to a society by Section 11 (2) of the National Insurance Act. 1911, to take action on behalf of its members in order to secure compensation.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it the fact that the decision practically tears up the Workmen's Compensation Rules allowing the societies to appear as interested parties at headquarters?
    Mr. BENN: The principal Act provides that a society may take action on behalf of members if they choose to do so. This decision does not affect that.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not the case that it affects their rights as interested parties?
    Mr. BENN: The degree in which it affects their rights, except those rights to which I have referred, is being considered by the Commissioners.

    INVESTMENT OF FUNDS.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked when the Report of the Committee on the Investment of National Insurance Funds is expected to be ready?
    Mr. BENN: The Committee referred to in the question is an Advisory Committee, and may, if it thinks fit, confine itself to offering confidential advice to the several Insurance Commissions and the National

    319
    Health Insurance Joint Committee as to the merits of particular securities. The question whether any recommendations of a general character should be made is, however, as I understand, engaging the attention of the Committee.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT (KENT).
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked if the Financial Secretary's attention has been called to the terms of a circular issued by the Kent insurance Committee to insured persons to the effect that, owing to the number of patients receiving sanatorium benefit and to the fact that the sum of money available for the purpose is limited, it has become necessary to reduce the quantity of nourishment supplied; if, in the case of a contributor named Hugh Storey, the committee have communicated with the tradesman who was under instructions to supply him with certain special foods ordered for him by the doctor concelling such instructions; and whether arrangements can be made to ensure all tuberculosis patients receiving the medicine and nourishment ordered for them by their medical advisers?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend is informed that no general circular has been issued by the Kent Insurance Committee making any such announcement as that suggested in the hon. Member's question. He understands, however, that in the case of individual insured persons who have already been in receipt of special nourishment for the full period for which such grants of nourishment are ordinarily given, the Committee, while continuing the treatment recommended, have in some cases postponed the question of any further grant of special nourishment in consideration of the immediate claims of other applicants, and with the object of securing the employment of the funds at their disposal to the greatest advantage. Such action was taken in the case of the insured person to whom the hon. Member refers, and a letter was addressed to him by the committee's medical adviser notifying him of their decision in the matter. He has, however, continued to receive domiciliary treatment under the supervision of the medical adviser, who recommended in his case the provision of a shelter for open-air treatment, with which he has been supplied. A further grant of special nourishment was in due course considered and allowed, and orders for its supply were issued on Monday, 9th February.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how long it took the Insurance Commissioners to arrive at a decision? Is it not the fact that attention was called to the case on 13th January, and up to the present the only solitary letter was received by myself?
    Mr. BENN: The matter is one primarily for the insurance committee, and not the Insurance Commissioners, but I will certainly find out.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: They might have given me that information in reply.

    TUBERCULOSIS TREATMENT.
    Mr. SOAMESasked how many persons have received treatment for tuberculosis under the National Insurance Act, distinguishing between sanatorium and other treatment?
    Mr. BENN: A Return containing the particulars asked for is in course of preparation, and will be laid before Parliament at an early date.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
    Mr. HARRY HOPEasked whether members of insurance committees now receive payments towards defraying the cost of their travelling expenses and for a subsistence allowance; and, if so, how many persons are now entitled to receive such payment; and what is the estimate of the total expenditure to be thereby incurred?
    Mr. BENN: Schemes for the payment of subsistence allowances under Section 31 of the National Insurance Act, 1913, have been submitted by a number of insurance committees, and are now receiving consideration. Payment of travelling expenses under Section 61 of the principal Act is being made in a number of insurance committee areas, but my right hon. Friend has no information as to the number of the recipients. The estimated annual cost of the travelling expenses authorised is approximately £7,300.

    ADMINISTRATION OF ACT.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet come to any decision as to transferring the administration of health insurance to some Department other than the Treasury?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): It is proposed that the arrangement

    321
    under which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has also been Chairman of the National Health Insurance Joint Commission should cease, and that the latter appointment should be held by a Minister of Cabinet rank.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Chancellor of the Duchy will be responsible to this House for matters relating to the Insurance Act, and whether, in the interval, he will himself be responsible to the Treasury?
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the duties are to be permanently attached to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will not say that. We will try the experiment.

    UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that certain employers who applied before 14th August, 1913, for a refund of one-third of their contributions to the Unemployment Fund in respect of payments for workmen continuously employed, under Section 94 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, have as yet not been paid; whether he can state the reason of such delay, and whether it applies to all such claims; and how soon the matter will be settled?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Burns): The first payments in respect of applications under Section 94 were made on the 16th October last, and up to the 7th February last the total number of applications dealt with was 23,840. The total number of applications made as required by the Section was just over 26,000, and as regards the balance of between 2,000 and 3,000 not yet dealt with there has, in the majority of cases, been delay on the part of employers in supplying further particulars required for the purpose of checking the application. The checking of these applications entails a very large volume of work and raises a number of questions of considerable difficulty, particularly in view of the fact that this is the first year for which the Section has been in operation. I fear that the administrative difficulties and consequent delays involved in carrying out this Section cannot be wholly avoided without legislation, and the Board of Trade are now considering the possibility of proposing an amendment for the purpose.

    State Registration of Nurses.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to instances of the abuse of nurses' uniforms during the past few months; and whether he will give his support to a Bill for the State registration of nurses in order to meet this and other evils that are leading to the scarcity of nurses in the ranks of the profession?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): During the past few months my attention has not been called to any case of the kind. The police will make inquiry, but so far as they are aware such cases are of very rare occurrence. Recent Bills on the subject of the Registration of Nurses have not touched on this matter, and there would be serious difficulties in framing any provision of the nature suggested. I cannot make any promise with regard to a Bill.

    Street Accidents (Metropolitan Area).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked (1) how many fatalities were caused in the Metropolitan Police area and the City of London during 1913 by each class of vehicle using the streets; and (2) how many street traffic fatalities occurred in the Metropolitan Police area and the City of London during 1913?
    Mr. McKENNA: The detailed figures for which my hon. Friend asks will be circulated with the Votes. The totals for which he asks in the second question are:—In the Metropolitan Police district, 608 fatalities; in the City, seventeen. Of these, 161 were due to horse-drawn vehicles, and 435 to motor vehicles.—[See Written Answers this Date.]
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Has my right hon. Friend any proposal to make for dealing with this exceedingly dangerous state of things?
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend knows that a Committee have recently sat upon this very subject, and have made certain recommendations. So far as those recommendations can be carried out by administration they are being carried out at this moment.
    Mr. BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures separately for motor cars, motor omnibuses, and tramcars?
    Mr. McKENNA: I could not give an answer without notice.

    Credit Drapers (Hawkers' Licences).
    Mr. FALLEasked if the Home Secretary can give any assurance that credit drapers will, in future, be exempt from the necessity of obtaining hawkers' licences?
    Mr. McKENNA: The requirement is imposed by statute, and I have no power to grant any exemption.

    Outworkers (Returns).
    Mr. FALLEasked if the Home Secretary is aware that tradesmen are obliged to make returns of outworkers on certain forms sold only by the Government printers at a certain cost; and whether he will arrange to supply such forms gratuitously or have such forms placed for sale in all large towns and avoid the cost of double postage?
    Mr. McKENNA: Persons employing outworkers in certain classes of industry are required to keep and furnish lists of such outworkers in the prescribed forms. The price of the forms as published is 2d. only, or with postage 3d., and they are required to be sent by the employer only twice in the year. The form can readily be obtained through any local bookseller or in the towns where agents are appointed for the sale of official publications direct from such agents. No complaints have reached me of any difficulty in obtaining copies of the form, but I shall be happy to inquire into any such case which the hon. Member may bring to my notice. I cannot undertake that the forms shall be supplied gratuitously.

    Victor Raleigh (Dorset Assizes).
    Mr. F. HALLasked if the Home Secretary's attention has been called to the sentence of five years' penal servitude passed on Victor Raleigh, a weaver, at the Dorset Assizes, for setting fire to a hayrick near Weymouth; and if, in view of the severity of the punishment in relation to the offence, he will consider the advisability of remitting some portion of the sentence?
    Mr. McKENNA: My attention has not been called to the case either by a petition from the prisoner or otherwise, and I would observe that the prisoner has not thought fit to exercise his right to apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal on the ground of the severity of his sentence. He has twice previously been convicted of arson, and upon the facts now before me, I
    324
    see no grounds for advising any exercise of the Prerogative.
    Mr. F. HALL: If this prisoner adopts the hunger strike, will he be released as are the Suffragettes?
    Mr. McKENNA: I must wait until the eventuality occurs.

    Labour Exchange (Canning Town).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state when the Labour Exchange building in the Barking Road, Canning Town, will be commenced; if he is aware that on the 28th April, 1913, he promised that he would see that the building was pushed along; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. BENN: Owing to the severe economies which it has been necessary to make in the Board's estimates for 1914–15 it has not been possible to make provisions for commencing this work. Additional temporary premises for women and juveniles have, however, been acquired, and it is proposed to extend the existing premises for men. It is hoped that the necessary work in this connection will be completed by the middle of March.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the hon. Member give any assurance as to when the work will be commenced? The land was purchased about three years ago and nothing has been done up to the present?
    Mr. BENN: I am afraid I cannot make any promise.

    Wheat Prices.
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the average price of wheat in London, Paris, and Berlin during 1913?
    Mr. BURNS: The average "Gazette" price of British wheat in London during 1913 was 33s. 1d. per Imperial quarter, and the average declared value of wheat imported into London during that year was 35s. In Paris and Berlin the average official prices of wheat per Imperial quarter—quoted irrespective of origin—were 48s. 5d. and 42s. 7d. respectively.

    Naval Prize Bill.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to reintroduce the Naval Prize Bill this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at present in a position to make any statement with regard to this Bill.

    San Francisco Exhibition.
    Mr. ASTORasked whether His Majesty's Government will reconsider their previous replies to the President of the United States' invitation to participate in the Panama-Pacific Exposition at San Francisco in 1915; and whether they can now see their way to accepting that invitation?
    Dr. CHAPPLE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask whether he is aware that a memorial to him on this matter has been signed by 170 Members, and is likely to be signed by more than half the Members of the House; and whether, if his answer is likely to be unfavourable, he will defer it until the memorial reaches him?
    The PRIME MINISTER: When the memorial comes it will receive most respectful consideration, but in the meantime, in answer to the question, I have to say that His Majesty's Government have recently reconsidered the matter, and I regret they do not feel able to modify their previous decision.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD FIRE.
    Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty the amount of compensation and pension proposed to be paid to the widow of Chief Yeoman of Signals Pook, who lost his life in the execution of his duty in the recent fire at Portsmouth Dockyard?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The compensation awarded to the widow of the late Chief Yeoman Pook is a gratuity of £219 1s. The award has been made under the provisions of the Government scheme framed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. As her husband was employed as a civilian, Mrs. Pook is ineligible for a pension.
    Mr. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that had Chief Yeoman Pook taken more thought of his life and less of his duty he could, in all probability, have saved his life, and will he take that fact into consideration, and under the peculiar circumstances award further compensation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The only assistance possible is that to which I have referred, the gratuity from the scheme under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

    H.M.S. "PSYCHE."
    Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the crew of His Majesty's ship "Psyche," New Zealand station, which left Portsmouth August, 1911, will be relieved?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): It is hoped to send out reliefs for His Majesty's ship "Psyche" shortly. Delay has been caused by particulars of the ratings required not being available until the arrangements for the organisation of a New Zealand Naval Force were settled.

    SUBMARINES (LOSS OF A7).
    Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has any information as to the sinking of the submarine A7 to give to the House; and and if it is intended to use these vessels in the future in deep waters?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked (1) whether the submarine A7, within a month or so before the disaster on the 16th January, sank to the bottom while exercising off Plymouth; and, if so, why, after that warning, she was ordered to exercise in deep water On the 16th January; (2) whether the "A" type of submarine belonged to the original trial class built in 1905 and was not fitted with safety appliances as effective as those carried on the more modern types; (3) whether the latest types of submarines are fitted with engines exceeding 2,000 horse-power, as against about 150 horsepower in the "A" type, with a radius of action of many thousands of miles, as against a very restricted radius; and, seeing that the "A" type was obsolete as well as dangerous, why are the "A" type still treated as efficient; and (4) whether he is aware that four of the "A" type of submarines have met with serious disasters entailing the loss of fifty lives, and that the only reported cases of foundering have both arisen in boats of the "A" type; and, if so, why A7 was employed so recently as January of this year?
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the date of the launching of submarine A7; was the vessel at the time of the accident in such a condition that she could be relied upon to perform any

    327
    manœuvre in perfect safety both as regards herself and the men and officers on board; how many submarines of the "A" class are now in being; and is it proposed to scrap the remaining vessels or to continue using them in the ordinary exercises of the Fleet?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The points raised in the several questions on this subject which appear on the Paper have been fully considered at various times by the Admiralty, and during the last two years all important questions connected with the practical use of British submarines have been referred to an Advisory Committee of submarine officers, who are constantly serving in and using these weapons. There is no reason to suppose that the "A" class submarines are not safe and efficient vessels for the purposes on which they are now employed, or that service in them within their proper radius of action is more dangerous than service in the larger and later classes of submarines which are constantly operating alone far out at sea in deep wafer against swiftly manœuvring fleets and squadrons. In addition to innumerable diving exercises, 1,350 attacks were delivered by "A" boats between January, 1912, and January, 1914, alone, and no submarine accident of any kind has occurred to an "A" boat since 1905 except the loss of A3, which was duo to a collision and not to any defect. The statement that A7 had on a previous occasion sunk to the bottom when exercising off Plymouth, and that it took an hour to get her to the surface again, is quite untrue. The vessels of the class now retained in the service are believed to be fully capable of carrying out the duties assigned to them without more risk than is inseparable from the submarine service as a whole. No vessel which is not thoroughly efficient for diving and manœuvring would be retained in commission for a day after her character and quality were exposed to doubt. Any vessel which the submarine officers considered was unsafe would be instantly condemned by the Board of Admiralty. As new vessels are completed, older vessels pass naturally and gradually into reserve But experience shows that submarines retain their military usefulness to a longer period than ordinary surface craft; the "A" boats average only about eight or nine years of age; and after a full review of the circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that there are no
    328
    grounds which make it necessary to withdraw the "A" class submarines from the service at the present time.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that portion of No. 60 which asks whether the A7 was fitted with safety appliances as effective as those carried on the more modern types?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, as the types and boats develop the appliances improve, and vessels of the "A" class are fitted with appliances necessary for their safety.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Not as safe as the most recent ones?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already stated that the service in the "A" boats is not more dangerous than service in the later types which go out to sea with the Fleet.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman justifies the use of those boats on the report of the submarine officers, and, if that is so, is it not unfair to them, and aught not the right hon. Gentleman himself and the Admiralty take the full responsibility?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I take the fullest responsibility, but I thought it right to mention to the House that in this matter I was guided, not merely by the opinion of my naval colleagues at the Board of Admiralty, but that we had reinforced ourselves by keeping in constant touch with the men using those weapons themselves.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked how many officers and men have lost their lives in accidents to the "A" class submarines?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: During the ten years since 1904 the figures are 10 officers and 47 men.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Does that point to the fact that the "A" class are as safe as the others, seeing the enormous proportion of men who have been last in the "A" class, and will the right hon. Gentleman explain that?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is quite true that the "A" class have been very unlucky, but the principal loss has been through collisions, which do not depend on the type of boats at all but on circumstances arising on each occasion of an accidental and unforseen character, and with the

    329
    single exception of the present accident, the cause of which must remain a mystery unless the boat is recovered, and it does not appear that any of those have been due to defects with the construction of the boats.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the amounts of pensions granted to the widows and relatives of the officers and men who lost their lives in submarine A7?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what pensions have been awarded to the widows of the men who lost their lives in the accident to submarine A7, and what grants have been made to their children; and is he now in a position to redeem his promise to reconsider the question of these pensions and grants?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The officers were unmarried and did not leave any dependent relatives. No pensions to officers' widows or relatives have therefore been granted. In the case of the men the following grants of weekly pensions to widows and allowances for children have been made:—In one case, a widow's pension of 9s. a week, with allowances for children of 6s. a week. In a second, a widow's pension of 9s. a week, with allowances for children of 4s. a week. In a third, a widow's pension of 5s. a week, with an allowance for a child of 1s 6d. a week. In a fourth, a widow's pension of 5s. a week, with allowances for children of 3s. a week. In the case of two of the children applications for admission to schools at the expense of Greenwich Hospital have been received and will receive sympathetic consideration. In one other case inquiries are not yet complete. The remaining men were unmarried and no applications on behalf of dependents have been received. With regard to the second part of the question asked by the hon. Member for Devonport, as I intimated in my reply to his question on the 19th March last, the scale of pensions and allowances granted in such cases has been reviewed, and in view of the far-reaching effect of any change it has not been considered possible at present to revise the scale.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: May I ask if the pension scale suggested is not the same as the pension scale for the relatives of men who have been lost in ordinary accidents, and would it not be wise for the Admiralty to increase the pensions for the relatives of those who undertake much more extra-
    330
    ordinary risks both in the submarine and in the air craft, when they lose their lives in the services?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The allowances have been computed under the regulations to grant pensions to widows and orphans of men who lose their lives.
    Lord EDMUND TALBOT: Up to what age will the children's allowances be continued?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Usually the girls' are up to sixteen, I think, and the boys' to fourteen.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make to the House regarding the loss of submarine A7 in Whitsand Bay with her complement; and what steps have been taken and are now being taken to raise the vessel?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already dealt with the first part of the question. Owing to continuous bad weather, causing a heavy swell and rough sea, salvage operations have so far been impossible. No final decision has yet been taken.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether it is the custom of the Admiralty to have a salvage lighter standing by while submarines are exercising, and, if not, will he consider the advisability of making this an Admiralty regulation in future naval manœuvres; was there stationed at Devonport a salvage lighter capable of lifting any one of the submarines engaged in the naval exercises at Whitsand Bay on the date of the accident to A7; and, if not, will he see that such a vessel is always stationed at Devonport and at the other naval ports; (2) whether he still adheres to the statement. that the salvage equipment in the possession of the Admiralty for raising submarines is sufficient to meet all the requirements of the Navy; in the event of the answer being in the affirmative, will he say how it happens that submarine A7 has remained at the bottom of Whitsand Bay for nearly a month; and whether he can say, seeing that the whole salvage resources of the country are at the disposal of the Admiralty, why those resources have not been taken advantage of in respect of the raising of submarine A7; and (3) whether any attempt has been made to remove the mud which is obstructing the salvage of submarine A7, and with what result;

    331
    have any of the plates of submarine A7 been broken by the salvage operations of the Admiralty; and, if so, is that likely to cause the submarine to fill with mud, and so make the lifting of the vessel more difficult?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not the custom to have a salvage lighter standing by while submarines are exercising, and it is not proposed to make this an Admiralty regulation. Lighters of a type which raised A8 were at Devonport at the time of the accident, and a specially equipped submarine salvage lighter was present before the submarine was located. Two more lighters specially designed for submarine salvage are under construction, one of which it is intended to station at Devon-port. It is not considered, however, that these or any salvage vessels in the world could have raised the vessel in time to save life when she was unable to rise by her own resources.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why he has not engaged the services of Lighter 96?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice of that question.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he received any offer from any salvage association or company to raise Submarine A7 without any cost to the country in the event of non-success; and, if so, will he explain why advantage was not taken of the offer; has any salvage expert been consulted, outside the officers in the employ of the Admiralty, with regard to the raising of A7; is it a fact that salvage is a profession requiring many years of experience, and has the Admiralty any officer possessing that experience; if not will he take the necessary steps to attach some salvage expert to the Navy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Such an offer has been received, but was not accepted.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: In view of other answers he has given on this subject, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he does not propose in cases of this kind to employ outside services?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Whenever it is considered that those services would be useful they will certainly be employed.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider, seeing that this submarine has been at the bottom of the sea for over a month, that the time has arrived when he should take advantage of outside services?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that all indications rather point to the fact that we had better leave the matter where it is.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether, during the last two years, any designs have been sent to the Admiralty for a buoy to be released in the event of accident to submarines, and so enable the position of a sunken submarine to be located; have any of the designs been accepted; and, if not, have the Admiralty any design of their own in view which will serve the same purpose; and was any such buoy on board Submarine A7 at the time of her accident?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The device of a detachable buoy for submarines has been frequently considered by the Admiralty, and hitherto the advice of the responsible submarine officers has always been against its adoption. I am informed that, with one doubtful exception in 1901, this is the first accident in the history of the British submarine service in which a detachable buoy might conceivably have been released, and even so it could in no circumstances have led to the saving of life. I have given directions that the question is to be again examined in consultation with the principal officers of the submarine service, who are in constant service in these vessels.

    NAVAL CONSTRUCTION (GERMANY).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if there has been such a retardation or reduction in German naval construction since 1912 as to justify the large and fully proportioned reductions in shipbuilding by this country, as was promised by him when introducing the Navy Estimates of 1912; and, if not, whether there has been any increase in the German construction programme beyond that which the Admiralty had in view when framing the 1912 Estimates?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There has been no retardation or reduction in German naval construction. Since the introduction of the British Navy Estimates on the 18th of March, 1912, the German naval construction programme has, by the Fleet Law Amendment Act of the 14th of June, 1912,

    333
    been increased by three battleships and two small cruisers. Of these, one battleship is provided for in the 1913 programme and one in that for 1916. The date of laying down of the third battleship and two small cruisers has been reserved.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the facts as stated by him have been contradicted by the President of the National Liberal Association?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We must not anticipate the interesting discussions which we will no doubt have on these subjects this Session.

    OIL FUEL.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many ships of all classes, built and building for the Navy, are fitted or to be fitted for burning oil fuel only; how many ships are to be fitted for burning oil and coal; what are the names of the vessels under each specification; and what is the maximum oil capacity for each ship?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that it has not been possible to collect the information asked for in the time available, and I must therefore ask the Noble Lord to postpone his question till next week.

    H.M.S. "INVINCIBLE."
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how long His Majesty's ship "Invincible" will take to refit; and what will be the cost of such refit?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is about nine months. The estimate is approximately £195,000, but a few details are still uncertain.

    H.M.S. "EMPRESS OF INDIA."
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will inform the House why the firing practices carried out when His Majesty's Ship "Empress of India" was used as a target were conducted in deep water; and if he will state the number and class of guns that were on board the ship at the time she was sunk in the Channel?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Perhaps I may take advantage of the question to give a full answer. The place and conditions of the "Empress of India" firing were selected by the Commander-in-Chief of the Home
    334
    Fleet in consultation with the naval members of the Board of Admiralty. I accept full Parliamentary responsibility for approving the course proposed. The object of the firing was not, as the Noble Lord appears to suppose, to ascertain the effect of shell fire on the structure of the target vessel, the soft armour and antiquated construction of which would have afforded no useful information. The object was primarily to give the officers and men of the Fleet experience in firing at a ship under conditions approximating as nearly as possible to those of war, and in these circumstances to test and correct the methods of controlling fire and fire tactics. Every effort was made to render the target unsinkable; but I was informed that it was advisable to anchor her in deep water so that in the event of her sinking she would not become a danger to navigation. All fittings and moveables of value were stripped from the ship. The guns on board, four 13.5 inch and ten 6 inch of very early patterns, would not have repaid for the expense of removal. I shall be very ready if desired to discuss fully the general policy of so costly an experiment when the Estimates are being debated. For the present it is sufficient to observe that other leading maritime countries, especially France, Germany, and the United States, have found it necessary in late years to employ old war vessels as targets under conditions which have in many cases led to their total loss, and considerable sums of money have, in addition, been provided for the experiments. We ourselves have periodically adopted a long succession of similar measures entailing, in the present century, the destruction, among others, of the following vessels: "Belleisle," "Scorpion," "Landrail," "Hero," "Edinburgh," and "Empress of India." In October last the Hussian battleship, "Chosma," a vessel of somewhat larger displacement and of approximate value to that of the "Empress of India," was fired at and sunk by a division of the Black Sea Fleet under similar conditions, and presumably for similar purposes as those of the "Empress of India" firings. The information derived by such experiments is considered by the responsible Naval authorities of this country fully to justify the expense involved, and is indispensable to the progress of British naval science and the efficiency of the Fleet. In these circumstances it would have been a very serious step for a Minister to over-rule his professional advisers, and on purely financial

    335
    grounds to deprive the Navy of experience and information for which other countries, to whom sea power is of less consequence, have shown themselves ready to pay.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Was the real object of firing at the "Empress of India" to see how soon she could be sunk in deep water?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given the Noble Lord an answer to his question in the full reply which I have read.
    Mr. WATT: Is it the case that the market value of this vessel was £50,000?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think between £30,000 and £35,000.

REX v. POTTER.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have given private notice, namely, whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at Clerkenwell Sessions yesterday, when, in the case of Rex v. Potter, Mr. Marshall Hall, counsel for the defendant, asked Miss Zelie Emmerson, a witness for the pursuer, whether she was aware that Scotland Yard is moving to have her deported, and on her replying in the negative assured her it was so; whether Mr. Hall was authorised to make this statement, and if co, by whom, and what action he proposes taking to prevent official information being used in an attempt to bias a jury against a witness giving evidence?
Mr. McKENNA: On the last occasion, when Miss Emmerson was charged with an offence, instructions were given that in the event of her conviction the Magistrate's attention should be drawn to the fact that the is an alien, with a view to his recommending her for expulsion if he thought fit to do so. Whether Mr. Marshall Hall's question was a proper one to put to the witness was a matter for the Court. My hon. Friend gave me notice of this question last night, but in the notice which he sent just before the House met to-day he has added two additional points which I have not answered. He asks me whether Mr. Marshall Hall was authorised to make this statement. My answer to that is: Not so far as I am aware, but no doubt Mr. Hall had information of the fact. The hon. Member also asks: If so,
336
by whom? That question, also, I cannot answer, because, so far as I am aware, Mr. Hall was not authorised to ask the question.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Now that the Home Secretary knows the gravity of the matter, will he cause inquiries to be made with a view to preventing a repetition of such action?
Mr. M'KENNA: I think I am aware of all the facts of the case. The questions which counsel thinks proper to ask in cross-examination are a matter for him and the Court, not for me.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The right hon. Gentleman misses the point of the question. I do not question Mr. Marshall Hall's right to put the question. I want to know from whom he got the information that Scotland Yard had come to this decision?
Mr. M'KENNA: The instructions were given on the occasion of the last proceedings against Miss Emmerson, and those instructions would be known to many people. I do not know how Mr. Marshall Hall knew; but they are not facts about which there would be any special secrecy.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. LYNCH: Yesterday, in the course of the Debate, the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) made a very distinct reference to myself which, if passed in silence, would in the end create a false impression. Speaking of the question of religious persecution, he referred to my own career, and said:—
"He could not have possibly done that if he had regarded Great Britain as anything but a foreign country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1914, col. 206.]
I intend to speak to the House not by the dexterous use of argument, but to give the plain statement of an honest man. I will say, frankly, at the beginning, that at the time of the South African war I would not have been disinclined to accept the definition of the Noble Lord. I was born in Australia, of Irish parents. I had no great respect for the British Constitution. I considered I had no attache to this country. In South Africa I fought for liberty. I was tried and condemned to death. That is a condition which produces reflection. At a moment like that a man

337
sounds deeply his own convictions, and lesser motives of rancour and vanity disappear. A man is face to face with his own soul. I can say to the House that never for a moment in that condition did I regret my actions or retract my principles. We are all condemned to death, Mr. Speaker, and we can only envy the man who can march straight forward, keeping unsullied his early ideals. Since that time, however, a great deal of water has flowed under the bridges. The very men with whom I fought, including my great leader, General Botha, have become subjects of these Condominions. I returned to this country on the same conditions, on those terms, and with no afterthought. Moreover, since that time a great deal has been done by this present Government for South Africa and for Ireland. I, myself, have declared on the floor of this House that if England were now attacked by a foreign enemy I would fight for England. I go further, and say that all whom I could influence would also fight for her. Before I sit down I will conclude, seeing that this reference Arose out of the question of religious persecution, by saying that temperamentally I have no quarrel with the men of Ulster. I go further, and say that if I believed what they believe, or believed what they profess to believe, that so far from opposing them, I would, even now at the eleventh hour, turn round and fight on their side.
Mr. MOORE: We would not have you.
An HON. MEMBER: They are glad to get anybody.
Mr. LYNCH: I have fought for civil liberty, but I believe there is one sentiment dearer to the human mind than civil liberty, and that is the great ideal of religious liberty. The fact that I remain in these ranks of itself proves that I have no fear on that score. I believe that when Home Rule does come, as it is sure to come, that it will redound not only to the glory of Ireland, but to the strength and honour of England.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  HIS MAJESTY'S GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    DEBATE OX THE ADDEESS. [Third Pay.]
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [10th February].
    "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign,—
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Mr. Walter Roch]

    UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (INDEMNITY BILL).
    Question again proposed.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "And humbly pray Your Majesty that instructions be given to the Governor-General of the Union of South Africa that the Indemnity Bill, now under discussion in the Parliament of the Union of South Africa, shall be reserved under Section 64 of the South Africa Act, 1909, until a judicial inquiry be instituted into the circumstances of the proclamation of Martial Law within the Union and into the scope of the Indemnity Bill, particularly the provision relating to the deportation of trade union leaders."—[Mr. Ramsay Macdonald.]
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I rise for the purpose of moving the Amendment which is down on the Paper in my name. I want to say right away that it is a matter of special regret to me that the Amendment should refer to anything done by the South African Government, a Government to which we owe much patience, much forbearance, and very much sympathy. Nevertheless, the action which it has taken in the proclamation of martial law and the special form winch it has given its Indemnity Bill compels us to take some notice of its action. I should like also, as a preliminary, with reference to the observation which fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he wound up the Debate last evening, and when he stated that the action which we would review to-
    354
    day with hostility would throw a very illuminating light upon the Home Rule controversy, to say that I admit frankly and freely that local self-government is bound to cause us difficulties in detail, such as those we are going to consider now. But I would far rather face those difficulties in detail than attempt to commit the insane folly of governing the Empire without self-government. The reason why my Amendment has taken the form it does will be apparent to the House if I may be allowed to quote the first part of Section 64 of the South Africa Act. That says:—
    "When a Bill is presented to the Governor-General for the King's Assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, and subject to the conditions of this Act, and to such instructions as may from time to time be given in that behalf by the King, that he assents in the King's name, or that he withholds his assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the signification of the King's pleasure."
    4.0 P.M.
    The matter has been specifically provided for in the South Africa Constitution Act. I therefore claim that the terms of my Amendment in no way entrench upon the rights of self-government enjoyed by the South African Union. I have quoted from the Constitutional Act. It was evidently premeditated and foreseen by the authors of the Act that matters of the sort might arise, and they are provided for specifically in the provisions of that Act. Therefore, no Member of this House can get up this afternon, with Section 64 in his mind, and accuse me of attempting, either by my Amendment or by criticism, to limit the rights of self-government given to South Africa by this Imperial House. I admit that there is one little difficulty which we have to face, that is the difficulty of facts, but in view of the way in which this Bill will have to be rushed through the South African Union Parliament, in view of the necessity of us allowing no chance to pass, and no opportunity to go without expressing our opinion on the events that have taken place in South Africa during the last few weeks, I venture to say that there is a sufficient body of facts now at our disposal to justify us in entering upon the Debate this afternoon. It is perfectly true that the cables have all been censored. That means, however, that only what was in favour of the action of the Government has come through. Therefore, we take them with that estimation of their value.

    355
    It is perfectly true that the news agency which has the responsibility for supplying the news from South Africa to this country has got a bias, and a bias always consistently and persistently against us. It is perfectly true that everything we have got has been carefully sifted and winnowed, so that if anything could be kept back in the nature of censure upon South Africa it has been kept back, and if upon the information we have got I can establish the simple proposition that the condition of affairs in South Africa did not justify the proclamation of martial law, then I submit that further evidence would be of the nature of strengthening my case rather than of weakening it. Let me begin by referring to the long statement made by General Smuts. I do not want to discuss it; I only make this observation: that all of us who have the pleasure and honour of some intimate personal acquaintance with General Smuts know he is a man not only acute, but able. We know perfectly well that if a case could be made out in favour of any action which the Government took General Smuts is the man exactly to make it. It must be remembered that the South African Government has seized private letters, private papers, private books, and private documents, and has laid its hands upon the offices of the Trades Union in Johannesburg. It has put policemen inside these offices, and it has taken their documents as well as their money. Therefore every particle of evidence that could have been at the disposal of any Minister was at General Smuts' disposal, and must have been reflected in the speech he delivered before the South African Parliament. I do not want to characterise that speech; I will allow Mr. Merriman to do it, and the only extract from Mr. Merriman's speech reported in our papers today that I will give is this: he said of General Smuts and the other speeches made that in each there was remarkably slender evidence of conspiracy. That is quite enough, I venture to say, judging by the speech which Mr. Duncan made at an earlier stage of the South African Debate, to show the line which Mr. Merriman is going to take will be supplemented by Mr. Duncan.
    Again, those of us who know the value of Mr. Duncan's services from the time he went out to South Africa, first of all under conditions of grave stress and exceptional difficulty, will, I think, bow with respect before any opinion Mr. Duncan
    356
    may express in the South African Parliament. There are one or two points that have appeared in our papers that perhaps the House will pardon me if I turn aside for a moment to consider. It has been alleged that the conditions in South Africa are such that severe measures, like the proclamation of martial law, can quite reasonably be taken much more frequently than would be justifiable for a Government to take either here or in Canada or Australia. I venture to say that whilst that as a general proposition may be perfectly sound, it will not be sufficient for hon. Members this afternoon opposing my Amendment to lay it down as a general proposition. They must give us the facts, they must tell us what happened during the last three or four weeks, if they base their action in regard to my Amendment upon that general proposition. There is the statement made that the strikers were in possession of dynamite. If that were true it would be serious, but, as a matter of fact, only four strikers were arrested for being in the possession of dynamite. Three who were brought before the magistrate were immediately discharged, and the other was discharged in a very short time after certain inquiries were made. That is the whole substantial case upon which the statement was made that dynamite was in possession of the strikers and the trade unionists or Syndicalists, of whatever name they go by, who have been subjected to the operations of martial law. But there is one curious thing in connection with this point which I hope the House will remember.
    In 1911 there was a strike of municipal employé in Johannesburg, and the accusation was made against a person of the name of Whittaker, a tramway worker, that he was laying dynamite on the tramlines. He was arrested, put in prison, in solitary confinement, and was not allowed legal advice or to interview his lawyer, and he was tried. In the course of the proceedings—I am not going into the full story—it was discovered that a witness against this man—it is all on record, and is not tittle-tattle—was in the pay of the police, and as a police agent had gone about and suggested to various persons that they should place dynamite on the public thoroughfares. The case came up before a magistrate, and then there was subsequent proceedings which came before the High Court, and which were the subject of various judges' decision, and in the end the accused person, Mr. Whittaker,

    357
    was acquitted. But what happened then? The police spy was immediately put upon Government railway service, and the Government knew his record. These men who are now being accused in a general way of using dynamite protested against working alongside of this man. Their protests were overruled and he remained in the Government's service. This incident which does throw a certain amount of light upon these extraordinary stories which are being told against the trade unionists of South Africa will, I hope, lead hon. Members of this House, at any rate, to reserve their opinion when honest trade unionists are accused of plotting diabolical actions against the lives of their fellow subjects.
    The other cause brought up is the racial peculiarities of the South African population. Again I admit quite frankly and unreservedly that that as a general proposition is perfectly true; but is there any evidence in the events in South Africa this year to justify the statement that the Government were faced with serious racial disorder and danger. The only case was the raid at Jaggersfontein, but everybody knows that had nothing to do with the strike. The natives living in Jaggersfontein considered that in regard to one of them who had been murdered, the case was not receiving fair and equitable judicial treatment, and they gave trouble as a protest against that; but that had as much to do with the strike as the suffragette procession on the occasion of the opening of this Parliament had to do with the proclamation of martial law in South Africa, and the curious thing in the Jaggersfontein raid or trouble, was the extraordinary way, in recent leading articles, and special article about the situation in South Africa, in which that incident was mixed up with the strike and the labour trouble, suggesting, I venture to say, rather dishonesty than ignorance on the part of those responsible. Then a final observation which I make under this head is the attempt to cast some slur upon the character, particularly of the deported men. The Law Courts are open. If there is anything to say against these men's characters let it be said in the proper place, but that does not justify martial law and deportation. I am not now dealing with individuals, but with citizens, and I venture to remind, at any rate, hon. Members who sit upon this side of the House, that Providence has very often chosen the most unsavoury characters in order to be the medium of progressive reform.
    358
    The name of John Wilkes is not altogether unknown to Radical politicians, and his reputation is not altogether unknown to the general public of the country. I have nothing to do with personal characteristics, I have simply got to do with certain actions of the Government which I believe are contrary to the traditions of the Constitution of this country. Now, what happened was simply this: there was social inconvenience on account of the strike. I admit it, there was a threat that the food supplies of Johannesburg might be cornered; prices go up, and a certain amount of inconvenience caused. I admit it. It is perfectly true Johannesburg is supplied by a single line; it is not the fault of the trades union, but of the Government. The Government all this time has closed its eyes to the fact that the facilities for the supply of the Johannesburg population are inadequate, and they have done nothing in providing better supplies to remedy the deficiency. That is its lookout, and not the fault of the railway servants or anybody else. We have in South Africa social inconveniences; we had an attempt on the part of the workmen, by combined action, to force it in front of the Government, so that the Government might sympathetically consider certain claims that they have made; and if the Preamble of the Indemnity Bill is carefully studied there is not a single phrase in it, there is not a single claim in it, there is not a single charge in it, that could not be made in respect, say, of the High Wycombe strike and the strikers active in that town at this moment. The 4th and 5th clauses of the Preamble go on to say, "Whereas certain persons whose names are set out in the Schedule to this Act have by various acts, words, and conduct, during 1913 and the present year, so created unrest amongst the wage-earners," and so on, in familiar language, but that simply amounts to a hostile description in general terms of the most ordinary trade-union action in times of trade disputes. That is all it amounts to. Up to now, at any rate—not even excluding the case of Natal, which every constitutional authority now admits was a bad case, although when I raised it in this House the House of Commons was not prepared to say exactly that it was a bad case—the only justification which has been accepted as adequate for the proclamation of martial law is a state of war. The expression "state of war" may be defined with a certain amount of liberal imagination, but no hon. Member can take up the

    359
    Preamble of this Indemnity Bill and pick out from it any statement, or any claim, or any charge, that can by any stretch of the imagination be construed into such a grave situation as to justify the expression "a state of war." That is the first point which I want to make.
    In order to make it clear, and to fortify it by facts, I hope the House will allow me to recite in a very few sentences what actually happened before the proclamation of this martial law. The House will remember that in July there was a strike on the Rand. In order to quell that strike the South African Government applied to the Governor-General, Lord Gladstone, for Imperial troops; those troops were supplied, and in due course the strike was settled. General Smuts, in a speech which he delivered the other day in moving the Second Reading of this Indemnity Bill, used an expression regarding the settlement of the strike which I hope does not escape the observation of hon. Members of this House. General Smuts said he felt that in settling that strike, and in putting his hand to the instrument which closed it, that he was disgraced and grievously offended in consequence. It was evident from the words which he used that the whole thing had rankled in his mind ever since then. It is quite clear he approached the present Government with prejudices rankling and rampant in his mind. He has confessed so much. How do the recent circumstances arise? The railway men had very great grievances, and the Government admitted those grievances so far that it appointed a Commission to inquire into them. No sooner did the Government agree to appoint a Commission than it began to take action which unsettled the confidence of the railway men that the Commission was going to do anything for them or that it was going to act in a judicial capacity. The representatives of the railway men were to be elected first of all. It is perfectly well known that the South African Government—this came over in the newspapers long before the trouble broke out at all—did its very best to get Mr. Duncan elected as the men's representative. The men themselves nominated Mr. Poutsma, who is now on the high seas, deported. He was elected as their representative by an overwhelming majority. It was a bad opening for the Commission that there should be some conflict raising suspicion in the minds of the
    360
    great mass of the trade unions concerned, but that is not all. I see the fact that this Commission has been in existence has been used as a reason why the men should not strike.
    This Commission, when it was still taking evidence, was told by the manager of the railways that the men were going to be discharged One of the grievances and one of the complaints of the men was that retrenchment was being pursued as a definite policy of the railways, and therefore one of the questions which was referred to the Commission was actually being dealt with whilst the Commission was sitting. I ask any hon. Member, irrespective of his political opinions, what he would do under those circumstances? Would he wait if he found that claim after claim he was making, and grievance after grievance he was voicing, instead of being considered by the Commission, was actually being dealt with by the Government whilst the Commission was sitting and taking evidence on those points? That actually took place. Hon. Members opposite will have great sympathy with this, because I remember it was dealt w7ith by the late Mr. Lyttelton one year when considering the question of retrenchment in regard to Civil servants. I admit it was a somewhat different point. The fact of the matter is the men see the volume of railway business going up, they find the trains being lengthened, and the numbers increasing, and then when retrenchment takes place at that time and when reductions in wages also take place, what conclusion can they come to? What conclusion can they come to when they find the people who are retrenched, discharged, and the people whose wages are reduced happen to be the active men in the trade unions? All this happens whilst the inquiry is going on. Moreover, when they make their protest, the manager says he is only retrenching seventy men, but, as a matter of fact, they have evidence that 494 names are on the list waiting for discharge. These are the things which unsettled and upset the railway men in South Africa before they came out on strike, and it was those experiences which, acting upon their minds, had inflamed their feelings and suspicions, and made them declare for a strike. That was the first thing.
    Then our syndicalist friends came in. I will tell the House what I think of syndicalists and syndicalism. I consider them the greatest enemies to organised labour. I have said so before, and I am prepared to

    361
    say it right through. They came in, and a general strike was declared. What I want this House to remember—I am still trying to make it clear that no state of war was ever created in Johannesburg at all. As soon as the syndicalists came in, a great meeting was held on 11th January in the Market Square of Johannesburg, and a resolution was carried declaring a general strike. The newspaper accounts of that meeting are quite unanimous in describing it as large and peaceful, and the speeches as dull. Every man who addressed that meeting begged it to keep quiet, and begged it to do nothing except simply come out on strike. They told it that any display of force or any threat of violence would be immediately met by armed force on the part of the Government, and the description of its dispersal was that the people simply went quietly away, as if they had been attending some Sunday religious service, and were going home to think over what they had heard at the service. One paper says there was no enthusiasm in the meeting, and the dispersal took some time, the people talking quietly together in groups. Then after that the speeches which men like Mr. Bain delivered in great quantities and at considerable length did not contain, so far as I have seen—and the newspapers are over here now—one single sentence that if read in with the sentences that preceded or succeeded it, could be taken to mean anything at all except the ordinary exhortations of a leader of men trying to keep his men united. Three days after the strike took place, Mr. Bain made a statement in which he said:—
    "He would suggest us a working basis that they should form a hoard of administration of railways, composed equally of nominees of workers and the Government."
    This revolutionary person who is supposed to be advocating civil war is actually asking his followers to authorise him to go to the Government to suggest, the formation of a board of management which would be composed partly of working men and partly of Government officials. That is true, not only in Johannesburg but in Cape Town In Cape Town there was a mass meeting of men employed on the railways, and their secretaries and presidents went to it and urged them to vote against a strike. They did vote against it, and they remained at work; but owing to one of those unfortunate blunders that very often happen under those circumstances, Sir Thomas Smartt obtained liberty to go inside the railway works and address the men next day. The men re-
    362
    sented interference. Mr. Poutsma was arrested, and then, and only then, did the Cape Town men join the strike. These facts one can glean from the newspapers, and occurred and were published before martial law was proclaimed. These are the facts which would enable one to follow in their minds the development of this unfortunate trouble, and I repeat that the whole circumstances of the case, troublesome as they were undoubtedly, and difficult as they were, never came within a thousand miles of justification of the proclamation of martial law. This is a sentence from a memorandum of a leading trade union which an official sent to me:—
    "The story which has been assiduously put about by the Union press, and no doubt cabled home, of a syndicalist revolution is entire rubbish and without the slightest foundation, being designed partly fur British consumption and partly to enlist middle-class sympathy out here."
    That is a description of what was taking place in South Africa, and on that martial law was proclaimed. My first contention is, that that does not justify the proclamation of martial law. Immediately martial law was proclaimed, as hon. Members know, a series of arrests took place. The executive of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers was arrested, and its money was taken. Several representatives of the railway men were arrested, members of the Union Parliament were arrested, including Mr. Cresswell and town councillors. No charge was made against them, and no solicitors were allowed to see them. Men standing conversing in the streets like Mr. Cresswell were taken charge of by a policeman. One man who smiled at a policeman was brought before the magistrate. Remember that it was an exceedingly hot summer, the middle of January being the summer there, and people frequently went out to spend the cooler parts of the evening on the slopes in front of their houses. Hon. Members can understand what a curfew law is when put into operation if a man standing on his doorstep smoking a cigar in the evening is regarded as having broken that law, and hon. Members can understand what absurd provocation was used by the South African Government in the administration of the proclamation under martial law.
    There is the case of a man standing on his own doorstep, because his house was so frightfully hot on account of the weather, smoking a cigar, arrested by a policeman, brought before a magistrate, and fined £2 with the

    363
    option of seven days' imprisonment. Whilst all this was going on, the law was perfectly effective. Let us assume that there was conspiracy, and let us assume that there was sedition talked. The law was perfectly effective; the judges were sitting in their courts every day, and nobody ever obstructed them or threatened them. As a matter of fact, an application was heard with reference to the deported persons, and the judge expressed certain opinions which are, very valuable, and which ought to guide the Home Government in its action in this respect. General Smuts said that they could not get convictions under the Law of Sedition in South Africa. Of course, it is unfair to say that his statement is inaccurate because his full statement has not come over apparently, but, if he did say what he is reported to have said, he is absolutely inaccurate, because convictions have been got under the Sedition Law in South Africa. Sentences up to seven years may be imposed, and sentences have been imposed; certainly one to my knowledge of six months. The difficulty that the Government of South Africa had to face was that it had no evidence at all. Even when it got all the evidence that was at its disposal, all the books and all the private letters of the leaders of the Labour party in South Africa, it had no evidence to bring any of them before the courts. That is why they resorted to martial law. We admit that trade unionism is being very very troublesome to the present Government. General Smuts is smarting under the humiliation of the July settlement. Victimisation has been practised by Government officials against trade unionists on the railway, and men prominent in the trade union movement have been practically banished from the country by being boycotted by Government officials. Wanting to finish it altogether, wanting to make a complete job of it, and not being able to pursue the matter in the courts because they knew perfectly well that they had got no evidence upon which the courts would convict, they made up their minds that by one fell and comprehensive swoop of illegality, the Executive would clear the whole thing out and crush out trade unionism on the Rand if they possibly could. There is another sentence from a memorandum published:
    "There is the gravest reason to believe that the crisis was deliberately sought and prepared for by the Government in order once and for all to kill the labour movement by a coup de main. As it has been an
    364
    essentially constitutional and law-abiding movement, this could only be effected by suspending the law. It is a deliberate effort to suppress political opponents by removing their leaders and terrorising their rank and file, and at the same time to swamp Herzogism by exciting Dutch reprisals against a common enemy."
    Sir J. D. REES: Who is the author?
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: It is a memorandum, which I have got here and which I will be very pleased to hand to the hon. Member, issued by several leading trade unionists, including Members of Parliament, who say that certain members who would have signed it have been either deported or sent to gaol, and would prefer that their names should not be given in public, and I think that the House will, under the circumstances, observe that. It is a very admirable statement of the case. They say:—
    "Several gentlemen who agreed in the first instance to the outline of this memorandum have, since its drafting, been cast into prison under the provisions of Ordinance 38 of 1902, and consequently, under the terms of Government notice 43 of 10th January. 1914 —although only awaiting trial — prisoners are not permitted to sign any document not revelant to the subject of their discharge, for these and other obvious reasons, the gentlemen not yet in prison under Ordinance 38 of 1902–all British subjects—are not prepared, for the sake of their wives and families, to sign their names to this memorandum. We trust in these circumstances that the authorities at home will not hesitate to accept our bona fides, remembering the difficult position in which we are at present placed. All we ask is that Great Britain shall be just to her sons before she is generous to the strangers within her gates. Do we ask in vain?"
    I think that explanation will be sufficient to excuse me from mentioning the names, which I can perfectly easily impart to any hon. Member who desires to have them. We had then an attempt on the part of the South African Government to suppress trade unionism. There is not the least doubt about that. Trade unionism and the action of trade unionism in South Africa are no doubt awkward and troublesome, but, nevertheless, collective bargaining, with all that it means, from merely joining an association to coming out on strike, has been the one method by which the working classes of every country in the world have been able to improve their conditions. In the Australian Colonies the labour movement has gone in for politics. It has supplemented its industrial action with political action, and, having established a confidence in the State, it has apparently surrendered its right to strike under any circumstances, because it has protected itself by legal and judicial safeguards; but until those legislative and judicial safeguards are set up in any country, it is, I assert, part of the essential rights of citizenship that working men may combine,

    365
    may meet in common, act in common, may hold meetings, may elect officers, may give them plenary powers, and in the last resort may strike and lay down their tools until their grievances have been considered and redressed. That is my first point. Nothing in the circumstances of South Africa justified the proclamation of martial law.
    The next point is a little bit more serious. We all admit, at any rate I am not one to resist it, that if a Government proclaims martial law it is going to have its indemnity. We can proclaim and protest against it, as I think we ought if we feel as I certainly do and as my colleagues do regarding the circumstances under which martial law was proclaimed in South Africa, but when it is over, and when the crisis has passed, then the Government produces its Indemnity Bill, and I suppose it must go through, though it must, I submit, go through after very careful scrutiny, and the Home Government ought to be exceedingly careful not to allow Indemnity Bills, year after year, to be widened in their scope and to change steadily every time that we have a new Indemnity Bill the constitutional principles upon which Indemnity Bills were supposed to be drawn. They allowed a Natal Indemnity Bill to go through with provisions that had never been, inserted in any Indemnity Bill before. Now, there is a new thing in this, and I would appeal to the Government not to allow this Indemnity Bill to go through in its present form. I refer to the deportation clause, Clause 4, with its complementary schedule. I see that General Smuts, in that speech which he delivered, referred to certain action I took with reference to the deportation of a gentleman known as Mr. Cole from British East Africa. He informed Parliament that I. signed some memorial to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Harcourt) asking for his deportation. I never heard of such a memorial I never saw such a memorial, and I certainly never signed such a memorial. I only mention this now in case somebody has got it up his sleeve, and to save time.
    Mr. PAGE CROFT: Did the lion. Gentleman approve of his deportation?
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: If the point had been raised in that way it would have raised another matter altogether. I make this statement with a great amount of assurance: There is not a single lawyer
    366
    in this House who will say that the deportation of Mr. Cole from British East Africa has any likeness whatever, or any similarity whatever, from a constitutional point of view, to the deportation of the nine men from South Africa. I simply deal with facts. It is stated that I signed a petition in favour of his deportation. I say that I never saw such a petition, and I never knew that there was such a thing. As a matter of fact, I have made some inquiries, and I do not believe that there ever was such a memorial. It has been laid down by the courts of South Africa as recently as 1907 that deportation cannot be a punishment for any crime. I understand that is the case. If the Government of South Africa, in its Bill of Indemnity, had asked indemnity for deporting those men, I think it would have been in order. If they are going to be indemnified at all, they must ask to be indemnified for every illegal act they have done. Therefore, I would not have raised the point at all if they had simply asked to be indemnified for having ordered and having effected the deportation, but that is not what the Bill says. The Bill goes further. It is not an Indemnity Bill at all. In Clause 4 we have got a separate proposal; we have got a separate legislative proposition, and that proposition is in the nature of a Bill of Attainder. Surely we do not require at the beginning of the twentieth century, to ask the British House of Parliament to express an opinion upon a Bill of Attainder. The Legislature has gone back upon everything which was supposed to have been settled in that respect, and it says we are not only in times of suspension of the law to punish people, but we are going to put a Clause into our Indemnity Bill which makes that punishment a legislative act. We are going back to the old times when Legislature, and not the Judiciary, punished criminals.
    I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Cannot we for once, at any rate, in spite of the many divisions that separate us, unite in trying in some way or other—I suppose they will say that voting for my Amendment would be the wrong way; very well, I do not mind, but cannot we unite in some way or other, either by an expression of opinion in this House, publicly made, or by private representations in some way or other to convince the South African Government that it must take Clause 4, in so far as it is a Bill of Attainder, out of this Indemnity Act? Clause 4 declares that these men

    367
    shall be undesirable aliens, or "prohibited emigrants," is, I think, the phrase used. If the South African Parliament or the Government wish to redefine what an undesirable alien, or prohibited emigrant should be, let it do it by general legislation. Let it introduce a Bill and get it passed, and then, if any of the gentlemen who are deported care to go back to South Africa, let them raise their case in the Courts, and let a judge, sitting as a judicial authority, listening to and weighing the evidence, settle whether they are going to re-establish their domicile there. I believe that from every quarter of this House I shall receive assent to my proposition in that respect. I believe my right hon. Friend has only to express an opinion to the South African Government, through the Governor-General, to that effect, and the South African Government, on calm consideration, will see that it is destroying the constitutional liberties of the British people, and that it is doing a great disservice to the Empire of which it is part, and will remove the objectionable parts of that Clause.
    I have raised this subject, and it is a very difficult subject to raise here. One has to skate over somewhat thin ice. One is perfectly well aware of the jealousies of self-governing Dominions; one desires to be absolutely generous when giving self-governing powers, and one does not desire to interfere in the exercise of those powers once they are given. But there is a great problem now facing this Empire. It faced it in a very acute form, unfortunately again in South Africa, only a few months ago. I do not believe any Member of this House can appreciate what the feeling was as a result of the treatment of the Indians in South Africa unless they had been privileged to be on the spot, as I was, when that was the subject of cables and articles in the newspapers every day. We have to face this problem regarding our Imperial citizenship. Is there any meaning at all in the expression Civis Britannicus sum? Has it any common meaning from one end of the Empire to the other? Is it going to give us any pride, any inspiration? Is it, or not, a fact that the privileges habeas corpus, Petition of Rights, and so on, have given us are going to be carried with us wherever we go, provided we keep under the shadow of the Union Jack and within the bounds of the British Empire? Is that going to be the case or not? If it is not, I venture to say your Empire cannot possibly remain
    368
    in the place of honour which it occupies to-day. If the civil liberty which is ours, the civil liberty which has come to us, not merely by generous accident, not merely by accidental events, but because it is essential to the very spirit and genius of our people, is not going to be an assumption in the constitutional procedure of the Governments of our self-governing; communities, then the expression "Empire" must be used in future in an exceedingly limited and exceedingly narrow sense. But it is because, at the back of my mind, I have an idea that Empire really stands for something that is constitutionally magnificent, I feel I am in duty bound to raise this question, even although at the same time I desire to be absolutely generous in my thoughts and in my criticisms of self-governing communities exercising their rights as self-governing communities. The greater force of unity, the greater force of the British Empire, with its traditions of the past, and with some sort of earnest that we are going to have a future that is not going to be a smirch on our past, compels me to bring this question before the House and to move this Amendment.
    Mr. POI NTER: I beg formally to second the Amendment.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I think it will probably be for the convenience of the House if I state at once, as shortly as is possible, the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the recent occurrences in South Africa; and, in doing so, I should like to express my appreciation of the eloquence and moderation with which this Amendment has been brought before the House by my hon. Friend. The House will, I am sure, forgive me if I attempt to survey a rather wider field, because those whom my hon. Friend generally represents, and whose views he voices in this House, have not been quite so moderate outside, either in the charges they have made against the Governor and the Government of South Africa, or in the demands which they have advanced as to the methods by which the British Government should deal with this question. I acknowledge the recognition which the hon. Member gave to the special circumstances surrounding the existence of responsible self-government in South Africa, and I hope the House will throughout this Debate bear those circumstances in mind. This House has great responsibilities. It also has great powers—powers

    369
    which are decreased and not enhanced by a capricious or careless exercise of them. It is quite possible, in the observations I have to make in relation to South Africa and others of our distant possessions, I may use phrases and express opinions which may seem to hon. Members opposite applicable, or at least available missiles, in our controversies nearer home. I do not grudge and could not prevent their use in the future for that purpose. I will only beg them not to-day to confuse a debate which may turn on grave Imperial topics with those matters which concern our controversies in this country. The speeches to be made here to-night will be cabled throughout the Empire, and any words said here in derogation of autonomous rights will reverberate throughout our Dominions.
    I would not for a moment suggest that autonomous rights can be divorced from Imperial duties. Autonomy carries with it no immunity from Press or public criticism, but it deserves and is entitled to the largest amount of relief from official interference and Parliamentary censure which is compatible with the inherent rights of freedom. British citizenship to which my hon. Friend referred is really a misnomer. It does not, in fact, exist, it is an attempt to make too literal a translation of the Civis Romanus sum. What does exist is British subjecthood, which entitles its possessor to the protection of his Sovereign through the Executive. But it gives to the individual no right of entry to and no licence in any part of the Empire if he violates laws which it is within the competence of the Dominion to pass and to administer. The Imperial Parliament here cannot grant responsible self-government, as it has done throughout nearly a century in varying degrees, in different climes, and to different races, with practically unqualified success, and then hope or attempt, when its feelings or prejudices are aroused to interfere or intervene as if it were dealing with a Crown Colony or a Protectorate. The late Mr. Lyttelton said, in 1910, that—
    so far as policy is concerned, the Governor of a self-Governing Dominion is bound to take the advice of his Ministers."
    I deal especially with this point because, outside this House, there have been violent demands for the recall of Lord Gladstone. Mr. Lyttelton went on to say:
    "The Imperial Government makes no claim whatever lo interfere in the local or internal affairs or measures of self-governing Dominions, even if those measures be entirely repugnant to our views."
    370
    I think it was the late Prime Minister who said, on one occasion in this House, that it was more important to a country to be self-governed than well-governed. You may dissent from that view, but, even if you do, we can still boast, as I shall do, that our Dominions are both. We have? never insisted on similarity or simultaneity in their law-making. We have allowed them, without let or hindrance, to try what many people in this country regard as experiments, and some people regard as dangerous experiments. We have not interfered. In Australia and New Zealand there is compulsory military training, which at present is neither in force nor in favour in the United Kingdom. In Canada, South Africa, and elsewhere there is compulsory arbitration in labour-disputes, which makes, under certain circumstances and conditions, a strike a criminal offence. These are not our laws or practice, but we do not prevent the Dominions from trying them, and every British subject entering one of these Dominions is legally liable to those laws.
    In South Africa the laws and surrounding circumstances are widely different to our own. In the Transvaal many clauses of Lord Milner's Indemnity and Peace Preservation Act, 1902, are still in force, with a very different definition of sedition to our own. Under that Ordinance a man may be arrested, without warrant, by a police officer, and charged with sedition, and sentenced to a maximum of five years, and, under certain circumstances, of seven years' imprisonment for these offences:—"Inciting His Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure, otherwise than by lawful means, an alteration of any matter in the Transvaal by law established; or inciting any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the public peace, or to arouse discontent and dissatisfaction amongst His Majesty's subjects, or to promote violence, ill-will or hostility between different classes of His Majesty's subjects." I wonder how many Members of this House would be safe from conviction for sedition under this Ordinance?
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Quote the next sentence.
    Mr. HARCOURT: That qualification makes no difference to my point. I believe it was under that ordinance that Mr. Poutsma and other leaders were originally arrested. I spoke just now of the conditions and surrounding circumstances in

    371
    South Africa. It is only necessary to mention, in relation to that, the fact that there are less than 1,250,000 whites and over 5,000,000 natives in the Union of South Africa, inextricably mixed up in location and occupation. The gold mines have collected around them, as they do everywhere, a cosmopolitan and polyglot community which has not more and sometimes less regard for legal obligations than other classes of labour.
    5. 0 P. M.
    In Johannesburg alone there are 250,000 natives employed upon the mines, and when work ceases in the mines these natives are idle, hungry, restless. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the illustration of Jaggersfontein and the outbreak of the Basutos is not in point. It arose, I believe, from a suspicion that the death of a black man might be attributed to one of the white overseers. At all events, hon. Members can realise for themselves that that is the sort of volcano on which everyone is sitting in South Africa. It is no part of my duty—indeed, I think it would be a grave indiscretion in the office I hold if I were to offer publicly any opinion upon the incidents of Dominion administration. I shall express neither criticism nor approbation. It is my duty to keep an eye and an ear upon all the Dominions, and to try, as best I can, to hold the balance even between the interests of this country and of our great Dependencies. But I know there are some people who think that the Union Government have erred in action and in judgment. I express no opinion, but I would say to those who think so: "When you gave self—government, did you think that you had discovered any immaculate and impeccable race? Did you think no Dominion would ever commit an act with which you disagreed?" If you did, it was a dream of infallibility you would not dare to claim for yourself. It is human to err and it is humane to make allowances for what you regard as errors. You could easily smash the Empire by a day's Debate in this House if you evinced a desire to meddle and to muddle with the vital affairs of your Dominions whenever their action does not coincide with your ideals of legislation or administration. I hope and believe that this House will commit no such folly to—day.
    I am prepared to express my opinion on Lord Gladstone's action. While I express neither condemnation nor approval of the
    372
    action of the Union Government in recent events, I am bound to make their case for them, because I am their only representative in the Imperial Parliament. They have, rightly and fortunately, had an opportunity of making their own justification and their own explanation in their own Parliament) though we have not yet had time to receive it fully. I ask the House to look for a moment at what has been their situation and their experience during the last eight months. Six months ago they had the Rand strike, which led to very grave disturbances in which dynamite was used. Men were asked to come armed to public meetings. A general strike of all the public services was threatened. Two hundred and fifty thousand natives in the compounds at Johannesburg were alleged to have been approached with attempts to raise them also against the authorities. In the transition period of local defence the Imperial troops had to be used. Many people were, unhappily, killed, and the innocent, as usual, suffered most. Then, in November, came the Indian so-called "passive resistance." I do not want, and I hope the House will not endeavour, to discuss that matter to-day, because there is a Commission now sitting in South Africa, with the countenance of the Indian Government and with the assistance of a distinguished Indian Civil servant, with, I believe, very good hopes of arriving at a settlement. There, again, on that occasion, there was considerable loss of life and much disturbance both of peace and of labour.
    Then, in December, came the railway strike. I will not deal with its merits. It arose, I believe, out of a desire of the Union Government for retrenchment and economy, but its original merits were soon lost sight of. A sympathetic and general strike was declared; dynamite and sabotage were threatened and effected. My hon. Friend challenged me as to the dynamite outrages, which he declared to be either untrue or exaggerated. Within the last few days a Return has been laid on the Table of the Parliament in South Africa giving the number of the dynamite outrages between 7th January and 30th January as twenty—four. The participators in all this work were known to be, and were, indeed, instructed, to be armed. All industry, all the public services of health and light, were threatened by a stoppage from want of coal. The whole population were threatened with

    373
    starvation by the stoppage of the food supplies. The Union Government regarded this as a condition of anarchy and of revolution, which necessitated extra-legal action for the moment. No suggestion of and no request for the use of Imperial troops was ever made. So far as I know there was no contemplation of that. No communication as to Imperial troops was made either to Lord Gladstone or to The Union Government mobilised their own forces, and, whatever you may think of the object with which that was done, you must admit that it was done with extraordinary rapidity and success. They dealt with the situation by and for themselves. Happily there was no collision between the local forces and the population. No lives were lost, and there was no firing upon crowds or upon the people. The Union Government, knowing the facts as we here cannot know them, deemed the proclamation of martial law to be essential to the safety of the country. On their Ministerial responsibility they advised Lord Gladstone to sign that Proclamation. He did so, in my opinion rightly and necessarily, and without any reference to me. There was no time and no necessity for that. I could not judge here of the gravity of the emergency.
    Lord Gladstone was fully apprised of the facts, and he was aware, of course, of the immensity of the danger of a native conflagration throughout the Union and the Protectorate. He properly assented to the only method which his responsible advisers recommended to deal with an existing and urgent situation. But he did so on the assurance that his Ministers would immediately endeavour to obtain from their Parliament the ratification of and an indemnity for the action they proposed to take. That is the Indemnity Bill which is now before the Union Parliament and which is fully within their competence. At a later stage the decision—a serious one I admit—was taken by the Union Government to expel from South Africa certain men who had been primarily concerned in the preceding events. After the proclamation of martial law—which is a of course, a contradiction in terms, because it is a negation of all law, and action under it is illegal until it has been indemnified by the law—making power—Lord Gladstone ceased to have any direct or personal responsibility for the action of the military or the Executive. His consent to and concurrence in the expulsions was neither sought for nor obtained. He was informed of the fact
    374
    at the time it was taking place. He took note of the information of his Ministers that the expulsion was required, in their opinion, in the interests of public order in the Union, and that the Ministers' action would be immediately submitted to Parliament for confirmation. Lord Gladstone had previously been informed by his Ministers that they might feel it necessary to expel possibly a dozen men, that the Ministers were fully aware that this would excite strong feeling in England and elsewhere, not excluding South Africa, and that they would not undertake it without clear and urgent necessity. Lord Gladstone took note of that information. Having done this much, he had, in my opinion, done all he was entitled to do in his position as constitutional Governor with responsible representative Ministers.
    Where an act is irreparable and final, like the execution of a death sentence, other considerations may arise, but undoubtedly expulsion is a less severe penalty than the five or seven years' hard labour which might have been inflicted on these men had they been convicted under Section 17 of the Peace Preservation Act, which I have just read. Indeed, expulsion could have been made under the process of the ordinary law which has been in force iii the Transvaal from 1907 to 1913, a law which was only altered and amended by the passage of the new immigration law of last year. It is probable, indeed, I suppose it is certain, that legal questions will arise in this country in regard to these expulsions, and, pending the decision of the Courts, I would not wish to offer any opinion on the situation which may arise here in this matter. As to the legal prohibition of their return to South Africa, no confusion should be allowed to arise from the fact that it is included in the Indemnity Bill. Many matters germane to the future peace and good order of a country have been often included in Indemnity Bills, as anyone will at once see if he looks at the Transvaal Ordinance of 1902, which I have already quoted. It is admittedly within the competence of the Union of South Africa to legislate as to the class, the type, and the nature of immigrants whom it is prepared to admit. This power of restrictive immigration has long been in active operation in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
    I will now deal for a moment specifically with the action and position of Lord Gladstone in relation to these events. It is said by some—in fact, by a good many out

    375
    Side—that he ought to have refused his assent to or prevented the proclamation of martial law, and that, failing to do so, he ought to have been recalled by His Majesty's Government. I entirely deny the validity or the justice of such a suggestion. The position of Governor-General of South Africa is, in the main, largely analogous to that of a constistutional Sovereign in this country, and those who suggest Lord Gladstone's recall would be the last to suggest here that a constitutional sovereign should neglect or act contrary to the advice of his Ministers possessing the confidence of an existing Parliament. But assuming their premiss for a moment, let me ask them what they think that Lord Gladstone or any Governor of any Dominion could do in such circumstances by attempting to act contrary to the advice of his Ministers? A situation had arisen, with a railway and general strike in operation, in which a body of responsible Ministers had deliberately come to the conclusion that martial law must be proclaimed. No body of men would lightly come to such a decision as that. They so advised the Governor-General. What do hon. Members think would have happened if he had refused his assent to their advice? It is no use making pretences to ourselves or blinking the facts. Only one result could have followed on such action: General Botha's Government would have resigned, and no other Government could have been found to take its place. Lord Gladstone would have remained a solitary and powerless figure with a state of public tumult round him which he could neither conciliate nor quell, and with no resources to his hand except those Imperial troops, which we must all be glad have not had to be used on this occasion. As to the expulsions, Lord Gladstone had no responsibility. That was the act of the Executive and the military authority after the proclamation of martial law. I said it was neither my duty nor my intention to offer comment, by way of criticism or approval of the acts of the South African Government, and that that course would be an unwise and a dangerous precedent. I beg hon. Members to believe and to realise that a habit of nagging criticism of the conduct by the Dominions of their own internal affairs is the worst cement which we can apply to the distant democracies of your Empire. But in the case of Lord Gladstone, as Governor-General, I feel bound to speak,
    376
    and I desire to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we feel that, in the circumstances as we know them, his action was entirely correct, and that he retains the full confidence of the British Government, which he has possessed throughout the tenure of his post in South Africa.
    I turn for a moment to the subject of the Indemnity Bill which is before the South African Parliament. We know its contents by telegraph, and I have circulated them in a White Paper for the convenience of the House. We find that it conforms in every way to the proper wording and structure of such measures, of which there have been more than one in South Africa, with, of course, the addition of the Expulsion and Exclusion Clause. I am now aware that Clause 1 will be altered in Committee in South Africa in order to bring martial law to an end immediately everywhere, on the passage of the Bill. It has been suggested—in fact, it is suggested by this Amendment —that Lord Gladstone should be instructed to reserve this Bill until some inquiry has been granted and held. A motion to that effect is at this moment before the Union Parliament in. South Africa. If they agree to that suggestion, hon. Members will get the inquiry. If they reject it put there you cannot hope to obtain it by reserving the Bill. It has been suggested and demanded that I should advise the disallowance and veto of this Bill. That would be an unprecedented and wholly unjustifiable course. It would be unprecedented, because the case of New Zealand—the Act of 1866–is not really in point. Assent was withheld from that Act because it did not contain he usual provision that the Acts indemnified should have been done in good faith, hut when a new Bill containing these words was passed through the New Zealand Parliament in the following year the Act was immediately assented to. When I said the withholding of assent from the present Bill would be unjustifiable, I did so on the ground that such legislation is essentially one of the attributes and prerogatives of the responsible and popularly elected Parliament of South Africa. The hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) a few days ago used some very admirable words—I wish he had repeated them to-day—describing the situation. He said:—
    "The Union Parliament is the proper battleground. We cannot fight these battles from the House of Commons. It is the trade unionists of South Africa through elected Labour member who have got to fight their own battles in that self-governing community."

    377
    That I think is the true and proper view of this matter. The Union Government is responsible to the Union Parliament. If that Parliament gives them their support and passes the Bill which indemnifies their action, then it would be in the highest degree unwise and impolitic to attempt to reverse that decision here. If the democracy of South Africa is dissatisfied with its Government it should put pressure upon its representatives to reject that Bill and to turn out the Government. If they fail to do so they will have an opportunity of a General Election, which, like our own, cannot be delayed beyond the end of next year; but with that early and sufficient opportunity you will not, if you are wise, attempt to interfere with the discretion of the Union Parliament. It is hardly necessary for me to remind the House how sensitive are responsible Governments even of supposed reversals of matters which are under their direct control. Hon. Members will not have forgotten that a few years ago a predecessor of mine asked for the suspension of some capital sentence that had been passed in Natal, merely in order that he might have time to obtain the particulars. The Government of Natal, erroneously thinking that their discretion was being interfered with, immediately resigned, and they only withdrew their resignation after an assurance by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that—
    "His Majesty's Government at no time had the intention to interfere with the action of the responsible Government of Natal."
    And to show the House how closely these events are watched throughout the Empire, I would remind them that within two days of the resignation of the Natal Ministry formal protests against the supposed action of His Majesty's Government were received here from the Governments of Australia and of New Zealand. I have said this much in order to show the House why, if and when this Indemnity Bill has passed both Houses of the Union Parliament, I shall not advise its reservation or disallowance, subject to any new fact or situation which may arise in the meantime, and I would remind hon. Members who wish me to take the opposite course that the possible and probable result of such action would be that martial law would be maintained in South Africa until the Indemnity Bill had been assented to.
    Expulsion, except of undesirable aliens after conviction, is foreign to our ideas and methods in this country, but the word and method are more familiar to
    378
    residents in South Africa, because they have been taught them by ourselves. In July, 1900, during the war, on the discovery of a plot at Johannesburg to murder British officers, no fewer than 1,700 men of various nationalities were arrested and, without any trial or process of law, were sent by train to the coast and deported in British ships. Again, in 1901, after the war had long been officially declared to be over, there were some burghers still resisting our authority, and Lord Kitchener, on instructions from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) and the British Government, issued a Proclamation that unless these burghers surrendered in five weeks they would be
    "permanently banished from South Africa."
    I only quote those two instances to show that on previous occasions expulsions have been threatened and effected against people in South Africa, and that for the last six years it has been part of the ordinary law of the Transvaal. If this Debate is to continue, I hope it will be conducted with careful regard to the feelings and the just sensitiveness of the people and the Governments of our self-governing Dominions. I would say to the hon. Member who moved this Amendment that to labour, above all classes in the community, the maintenance of responsible self-government and the constitutional action of the supreme authority is of an importance which transcends any apparent or alleged departure from administrative correctitude; and I would say to all those who are interested in the Imperial connection, though it is a well-worn platitude, that the Empire is held together by a silken cord. Beware lest you twist that cord into a whip-lash, for the crack of that lash would be the knell of your Empire. We here have created of our own free will these great free Parliaments and institutions which are wide flung throughout the world. They are our constant pride, and only our occasional embarrassment. Treat them with a broad mind and a wide confidence and we and they shall win through for all that is the essential basis of freedom and of civilisation. But it is your toleration and your restraint which can alone proclaim your confidence and your generosity, and which alone can maintain the good fellowship of a united Empire.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: I think every Member of the House has listened to the speech of the Colonial Secretary with

    379
    great respect. I also think that the Mover of the Amendment was strictly moderate in his statement, and was careful to avoid any incitement to controversial or acrimonious debate, but while I am willing to acknowledge that, and gladly, I do not think I ought to let the speech of the Colonial Secretary pass without some comment as moderate as his own speech was eloquent. I am entirely in agreement with him that we should be extremely careful indeed in making comment or criticism upon the executive action or the legislative action of the Governments of our Overseas Dominions, but it is just possible to carry eloquence a little too far and to give the impression that we ought to preserve a hushed admiration in the presence of the acts of our Overseas Dominions, through their Legislatures, without remembering that this Parliament cannot rid itself of the final responsibility for any act of any Legislature or any Governor within the King's Dominions. I will not presume to call myself in evidence, but I remember a debate upon martial law in Natal when the extreme mildness and the extreme care which the Colonial Secretary has shown this afternoon was not exhibited in the same degree by the spokesman of the Government. He took, as I believe, a more constitutional view, for while the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon was very careful to say that the final authority rests with us, he said, in effect, "Hush! you must say little, lest you disturb these Overseas Dominions in the exercise of their authority, and you must be careful how you question the authority of the other links of the Overseas Dominions, because they are so slender that they are but as silk." Our Overseas Dominions are not quite so thin-skinned as the right hon. Gentleman would suggest. There have been such things as copyright law being thrown back on the Colonies. There have been such things as the Acts of British Columbia made the question, of strong protests upon the part of this Government to the Canadian Government. I take the statement made by the Attorney-General at the time of the declaration of martial law in Natal as the proper view on this matter, rather than the extremely eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. In reply to myself and others, the Attorney-General (Sir W. Robson), speaking in this House on 3rd June, 1908, said:—
    "He really could not help believing that the legal advisers of the Natal Government were, he would not
    380
    say not doing their best, but were not really weighing all the legal considerations they ought to keep in mind in dealing with the situation, because undoubtedly we were under obligations both of law and of honour which we could not, and ought not. and would not seek to escape. There was no desire to enter into a conflict, unless of an academic character, with Natal with regard to the general operations of martial law, because martial law was not necessary to our contention so far as Dinizulu was concerned. At the same time he might express the hope, and perhaps the belief, that Natal would see the danger and inconvenience of allowing martial law to prevail under the particular circumstances for so long a time. Undoubtedly it was a matter within the cognisance and the rights of the Imperial Government. The Imperial Government were always slow to move because of the great constitutional difficulties involved. There might come a situation—he hoped it would never come—when, however slow the Imperial Government might be to act, it might find itself forced to act."
    I do think that that is a more correct constitutional view to take. Undoubtedly, as the Colonial Secretary pointed out, the situation in South Africa was an extremely grave one, and in making this protest I am making it in view of the fact that the utterence of the Colonial Secretary this afternoon is a most momentous one. I am making the protest that he has strained the point, that he has coloured too much in order to condone the present situation. I do not think it was necessary I do not believe that if the hon. Member for Leicester had sought to excite the feelings of this House in opposition to the Union Government of South Africa, he would have succeeded in exciting even the Members of his own party to a strong condemnation of the act of the Union Government. It is done, and cannot be altered. The Act of Indemnity, as the hon. Member said, must be passed, but the Empire still goes on, and other questions will arise, and it may be necessary for the Government of this country at some future time not to take issue, but to enter a strong protest to some Dominion Government for some Act which might appear to interfere with, we shall say, the rights of British citizenship, or some Act which would materially cross the bounds of an Act this House had passed in the interest of the Empire as a whole. When that time comes, I should not like to see the speech of the right hon. Gentleman quoted. I should prefer to go to other authorities and advisers than himself, though I do frankly admit that the right hon. Gentleman was moved by a tremendous sense of responsibility, and I am frank to admit that in recognising that responsibility, he used every power of his intellect and of his known capacities to influence this House. If it were not that the question was an extremely grave one, I should want to

    381
    present a protest against the too-strained interpretation of our constitutional position. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that there is no such thing as absolute British rights throughout the Empire.
    Mr. HARCOURT: I said citizenship.
    Sir G. GLBERT: I beg pardon, I meant to say rights of British citizenship throughout the Empire. I would ask the House to allow me, since we are on a constitutional matter of importance, to quote my authority on that matter. I have seen in the Press, and it has been persistently said by the friends of the hon. Member for Leicester, and the hon. Member himself said it this afternoon, that we ought to know what was the position of British citizens throughout the Empire; that we ought to be able to say such and such are the rights of a citizen of Great Britain in Australia, or in Canada, or throughout the British Empire. The Colonial Secretary has wisely said that it is not possible to do so.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I was perfectly well aware of the great controversy going on with reference to citizenship, and subject citizenship, and I have lent my position in favour of that. I said that there were certain fundamental rights. I refer to habeas corpus. I want to know whether when we go to South Africa we carry habeas corpus. At the present moment I know that we do not. My argument is that if the Empire is to mean anything, we must be a little more distinct in regard to citizenship than we are at the present moment.
    Sir G. PARKER: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for putting his case more clearly to me. I wish to say that that position which he would like to see established cannot be established by this Legislature. It must be established by the steady and sympathetic co-ordination of laws passed throughout the Empire in the different Legislatures, representing a general principle in their application. I shall take the liberty of quoting from Mr. F. T. Piggott's work on "Nationality." Referring to the rights of British subjects not being uniform in the Empire, he writes:—
    "But though the law which governs nationality in the Colonies is the same throughout the Empire, it does not follow that the rights of all subjects are everywhere identical Even in the case of common law rights, generally presumed to he inherent to the quality of the British subject we have seen that in conquered or ceded
    382
    Colonies they do not exist, and that. British subjects therein—and not necessarily born therein—are under another code of rights altogether. And those which depend on Statute do not apply to the Colonies without express reference. Even in the case of Magna Charta and the Habeas Corpus Act, the question whether the legislation extends to the Colonies must be decided on the same principles as any other Statute."
    Passing from that point, I want to say a word about the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester. I frankly admit that he was bound, representing the interests that he does represent, to speak in this House to-day. I found the earlier part of his speech strangely unconvincing. He presented to the House evidence which he had got from private sources, and which this House could not secure by any means in its power. He declared that martial law was unwarranted in the circumstances. It is not necessary for me to reply to that. The Colonial Secretary has replied to it by repeating statements made by the responsible Minister of the Crown in the South African Government, and he has added to that the view of this Government that ire the circumstances the action of the Union Government of South Africa was justified. I do not think the hon. Member for Leicester is quite fair—and I can only attribute that to lack of full knowledge of South Africa—when he refuses to take into consideration the immense danger that exists where there is a native population. In South Africa there are various tribes, uncivilised, and as yet not drawn: very far within British control and governance. I would point out to the hon. Member for Leicester that he and his friends were very hard upon Members of this House, like myself, who at the time of the granting of the Transvaal Constitution said that it was being granted too soon. Members on this side of the House believing in the granting of constitutional responsible government, bade this House wait. What for? We said that our new fellow citizens in South Africa, the Dutch had not by their experience come into harmony with the ideals, constitutional or otherwise, of the British race. We strongly advised a period of probation in which there should be and would be a coalition Government representing both Dutch and British, understanding all those ideals which underlie the activities of our constitutional Government within the British Dominions.
    The hon. Member for Leicester is very hard indeed upon General Botha and his Government, whom he declared we have no confidence in and do not sufficiently esteem. The hon. Member thought and

    383
    believed that when that Government came into power, for which due preparation was made by the gerrymandering of the constituencies, the case of his friends connected with Labour would be no worse than it was generally under the old condition. What does he find? He finds a Government which acts with an iron hand —I am not saying justly or unjustly, wisely or unwisely—and which passes laws which Can, effectively prohibit trade unionists from exercising what he considers lawful functions in this country. I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Member when he states, that there ought to be freedom in these matters until laws are passed which provide for the regulation of trade matters, such as have been passed in Australia and Canada, for dealing with trade disputes, and giving facilities for employers and employed to come together. Until that time comes labour ought to have the right, I think, in this country to strike. But the hon. Member is not justified in coming here to-day and making so tremendous a protest against the operation of martial law which we all, with the exception of the hon. Member and his friends, believe to have been justified in the circumstances, and he was not fair either to himself or to his own opinion. I believe that he was impaled upon the horns of a dilemma from which be could not escape.
    The hon. Member said that the Jaggersfontein riots were not a matter of grave concern. They were just a sign of what would have happened if railway communication had been interrupted, and if the authorities had not been able to arrange throughout the country that there should be no disorder, which it was not in their power to quell. Think of the terror of the situation! A handful of whites scattered throughout the district at the mercy of an excited horde of savages—for that is what they are—is a thing to appal the minds of all men. The hon. Member treated it, as I think, all too lightly. As for the merits of the retrenchment, I thought that the point which the hon. Member made was very petty. He said that there were 490. I should liked to have asked the hon. Member how many trade unionists were attending to work in South Africa. I should have said that even 490 was but a small number compared with the whole number employed; but when he asserts, in this Case, that a Government that depends
    384
    upon votes, and the votes of the very class whose interests were involved, is going deliberately to pursue a course of intimidation against the voters in the country in order to pursue a policy of exclusion of trade unionists, he makes too large a call upon our credulity. At any rate, I should like to hear better evidence than the hon. Member has adduced to this House this afternoon. The hon. Member said that the Courts were sitting, and that the Government could have tried these men who were deported before the Courts, and that instead of that, by one comprehensive swoop of illegality, they attempted to wipe out trade unionism in the land. If the case which the Union Government put and which the Colonial Secretary put this afternoon is a correct one, there was a danger, through interruption of communication and lack of supplies, of an awful calamity falling upon the people of South Africa, and in these circumstances the idea of taking these men into Court and awaiting a legal decision is really absurd. If their position was a correct one, and if they were justified at all in their act of establishing martial law with the assent of the Governor, then it seems to me that the suggestion that legal action ought to be taken at such a time is ridiculous.
    But suppose I am wrong. It is quite certain that the friends of the hon. Member in South Africa are, to a certain extent, responsible for the situation that has arisen. It may possibly be that the Government of South Africa struck too hard. I do not assert that they did. But the incidents of July brought not only consternation into the minds of the South African Government, but a deep-seated anxiety into the minds of the whole of the South African people, except the combination of trade unionists on the land. No Government can exist long without the confidence of the community. I may point to the notable fact that those papers which have been most opposed to General Botha's Government, and those members of the Union Parliament who were most opposed to the Union Government, were among his strongest supporters in that crisis. Mr. Merriman, as the hon. Member says, did not think deportation was necessary, but the hon. Member failed to state that Mr. Merriman approved of the proclamation of martial law. I believe that that is the case. But as in past years I took a considerable part in the discussion of South African affairs, particularly with

    385
    regard to martial law in Natal, I felt bound to say these two things: First, that the Government of this country is still responsible for the acts of the Governor-General appointed to represent the Crown in South Africa, and the Attorney-General accepted that responsibility for the acts of the Governor-General. The hon. Member for Leicester did not raise that question this afternoon as to the wisdom or unwisdom of the Government. I am very glad that he did not do so, but I do want to repeat, as one who is anxious always that the Government of the Overseas Dominions shall not be interfered with, that I believe if our Constitution is to work freely and well throughout the Empire, the authority of this Parliament should not be exercised unduly, but should be exercised in influencing, where necessary, so that it shall not be diminished; and, in the second place, I want to say that the action taken by the hon. Member for Leicester this afternoon, warranted as it was from his standpoint, has behind it no warrant in one sense, because I believe, honestly, that the crisis was brought about by circumstances which, if he and his friends had sought to influence them, might not have happened, so that there might not have been, either the riot of last July or the martial law of January, 1914.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary was evidently a carefully prepared essay which had no relevance to the speech of my hon Friend the Member for Leicester. He entirely ignored the trouble which was said to exist, which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, was an ordinary strike. He overlooked the fact that at the time martial law was proclaimed there was no racial struggle more than usual, and that, during the whole of the alleged industrial trouble, not a shot was fired and no crime was brought home to anyone in connection with the dispute; and he submitted no proof of any crime or anything having occurred in the nature of sedition. The fact that the Courts were sitting, and in full operation, has hitherto been held to be a preventive of martial law being declared, and the suspension of the ordinary law has been justifiable only when the law has ceased to run, and when the Courts cannot administer the law. None of these things were alleged to have taken place during the recent disputes. He dwelt with much elaboration on the risk run to the permanence and goodwill of the Empire
    386
    if this House attempts in any way to interfere with the action of the Governor-General in sanctioning the proclamation of martial law and the deportation of these men, or if there is any refusal to sanction the Indemnity Bill which the South African Parliament is now considering. He did not tell us what the clause is there for. Is this House never to Have the right to interfere? And if not, what is the meaning of the clause in the Constitutional Act which expressly gives the Attorney-General power to assent to a measure to withhold his assent for the time being, to hold the measure up until it has been considered here, or even to suggest amendments? When are these powers to be operative if in a crisis like the present, when everything which has hitherto been supposed to be constitutional has been reduced to smithereens? If that is not an occasion for interfering, then when can such an occasion arise?
    6.0 P.M.
    Several references have been made to the strike of last year. I was surprised to hear the Colonial Secretary repeat all the old stories told then, which are now known to have had no foundation in fact. He told us about handbills being issued calling upon the workers to come armed to defend themselves. He did not tell us that whatever truth there is in that statement is due to the fact that the right of public meeting had first been taken from the workers; that the meeting proposed to be held in the square at Johannesburg had been prohibited; that force had been threatened if a meeting was held, and that then a handbill was issued calling upon the workers to come armed, if necessary, to maintain the rights of public meeting. That all took place after the action by the authorities. Then the right hon. Gentle-
    man made long statements about the supposed action of the white workers in the Randt district. I spent a very few days in South Africa, and therefore cannot speak with any authority on the point, but I think experience will bear me out when I say that the very last thing the white worker would dream of doing would be to stir-up a native rising in any circumstances whatever. The relations between him and the coloured people are not so favourable as to make that possible; but apparently the Colonial Secretary—this is rather serious—has adopted General Smuts' view of trade unionists in South

    387
    Africa. In his speech to the Union Parliament, and in his reference to the men who were deported, General Smuts used the expression that there were "plenty of other consummate scoundrels left behind." I ask the Colonial Secretary whether that is his point of view concerning the men who have been deported. Are they consummate scoundrels? They have been treated as though they were. I knew some of these men before they went to South Africa. I have had a more or less constant correspondence with some of them, and a description more insulting could not be employed than that which was applied to them, namely, that they are "consummate scoundrels.' I ask the House to remember the facts of the case. There had been no rioting.
    The so-called rioting in July was butchery by the Government, of course; there never was a riot. There was plenty of shooting down on behalf of the Government, but nothing then occurred in the nature of a riot. On this occasion what took place was a strike, and what happened is not in dispute. General Smuts, in the speech to which I have referred, made it quite clear that the whole trouble was the strike of the workers. He put forward no other definite justification for what was done, and he pointed out that if there was a general strike certain consequences must inevitably follow. That means that the South African Government, with the consent of the Governor-General, and apparently with the approval of the Cabinet, have now declared the right to strike, which the workers won with such effort and sacrifice, can only be exercised by the good will and pleasure of a capitalist Government. It is a serious matter for us, I can assure you, and also for the working classes generally. We have seen that the same thing took place— on a minor scale, I will admit, compared with what has happened in South Africa— in connection with the strike of miners in British Columbia. We saw something similar during the railway strike in 1911, when some 80,000 British troops were turned out to assist the railway companies in defeating the workers. It is true that on that occasion no martial law was proclaimed, but, despite protest, troops were sent at the request of the railway companies. Our point is, that what happened in connection with the deportation from South Africa of working-class leaders, against whom no crime was
    388
    alleged, except that they had been successful working-class leaders, presents circumstances of such gravity that, if it is allowed to pass unchallenged, that kind of thing will spread and grow until the rights won by the workers have been taken from them again in an insidious manner and by side issues.
    Then there is the question about the right of South Africa to deport undesirable aliens. The Colonial Secretary has asserted that the Transvaal possessed, or possesses, that right. But, assuming that the right is possessed, deportation can only follow from a decision of the Law Courts. The gravamen of the present charge is that the Government in South Africa constituted itself superior to the Law Courts, and put themselves in the position of over-riding the law. Now they come to us, through the Governor-General, and ask us to sanction a revolutionary and illegal act on their part. I hope the House will allow me to substantiate my statements by citing the opinion of Mr. Justice Wessels and of General Smuts himself. When the case was brought before Mr. Justice Wessels by the Government for the deportation of these men the evidence was not sufficient, and the case was adjourned until the following day, by which time the deportation had taken place Mr. Justice Wessels, in reply to a statement made to him on behalf of the men, said:—
    "He regretted that he had not hart the information which he now possessed before him on the previous day, as if he had, lie would certainly have granted the order restraining the Government from deporting the men concerned."
    There we have the Justice of the High Court in Pretoria stating that what the Government had done was illegal, and that had the case come before him he would have prohibited them from carrying out the deportation. He also made some other remarks, to the effect that if the Government wanted to do an illegal act no Court had the power to stop them from doing it. General Smuts in his speech raised that very question of the power to deport these men. He said:—
    "The South African Criminal Law did not provide for cases such as this of the deportees. If they had been indicted in the ordinary Courts, he believed the Government would never have secured a conviction, either on the charge of high treason or on a minor charge."
    That is General Smuts' own statement: that there was no law of treason, high or low, which these men had broken, and therefore to have brought them before the Courts would have been to ensure their immediate acquittal. General Smuts

    389
    goes on to deal with the other suggestion that had been made, that before expelling these men, the sanction of Parliament ought to have been asked. He said:—
    ''It. might be asked why bad the Government not waited for Parliament to give its sanction. The reply was that these men could not be kept in gaol until.sanction was obtained. They would have had to be released on comparatively small bail, and Parliament would have been asked in cold blood to pass legislation for their deportation. Did members for one moment think that, Parliament would have passed this legislation.''
    The Courts would not have convicted, and the Parliament would not have, sanctioned the deportation of these men. The Governor-General assents to it, and now we are asked to give it our endorsement. Surely, such a claim as that, which pledges the constitutional powers of the Governor-General to so great an extent, was never put before the House of Commons. That is the point which the Colonial Secretary has evaded in his speech, his apology, rather, for what has happened in South Africa. It is because the working classes of South Africa are fighting for their freedom that this thing has been sanctioned and is now being endorsed by the Government. I put it to the House, and I believe lion. Gentlemen opposite will admit that what I am going to say is true, that if this had taken place before 1899, and had been done by the Transvaal Government, the then Boer Republic, that of itself would have been held as a justification of the war. Surely, what would have been an illegal and unconstitutional crime justifying war when done by the Boer Republic cannot become a virtue to be sanctioned by this House when done by the Cabinet, without the sanction of its Parliament, without the authority of it people, and in a way and manner which it cannot attempt to justify to its Parliament nor in the Law Courts. That then is the reason why my hon. Friend has moved his Amendment. We want to find out the opinion of the House of Commons in regard to a matter of such importance and such gravity.
    Have we any responsibility for Lord Gladstone; if not, we want to know what he is doing there. What purpose does he serve? Whatever else he is, we know that he is not merely ornamental, and if this House has any control over him, and if it has any responsibility for what he is doing, then let us know what is he doing there. We claim that Lord Gladstone is there to represent the British Constitution, the freeest Constitution in the world. We are bringing no charge against that, and, because
    390
    of that, we ask the House of Commons to say that when the Parliament of South Africa goes out of its way to outrage and violate every principle of the Constitution, the representative of His Majesty the King shall not sanction such action and find endorsement in this House for it. The only other point which I desire to make is that we on these benches, at least, enter our emphatic protest against the theory that this House has no responsibility for what has happened. If Lord Gladstone did not agree with what was being done, the honourable course open to him was to have resigned. That course was open to a former Governor of South Africa, the late Sir William Butler. When he was asked to do what he regarded as dishonourable things towards the Boer Republic, he resigned his position rather than be a party to them. In defence of the British Constitution, Lord Gladstone surely could have taken a, similar course. As he has not seen fit to do so, and as the House is now being asked to condone one of the greatest violations of British liberty which modern times have known, I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a Division, and that a majority of the House will express its detestation of what has been done under the auspices of our Governor-General.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made an interesting speech—as, indeed, I think he always does. I observed that at the beginning of it he made the complaint about the Colonial Secretary that he had read to the House an essay rather than made a speech in answer to the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). It is only fair to the Colonial Secretary to point out to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) that he really did no more than all Ministers do at the present day. Very seldom we have, the honour of hearing a speech from the Treasury Bench, though we often have the honour of listening to an essay. In the course of that utterance the Colonial Secretary said that it would be wrong for us to disapprove of the action of Lord Gladstone, who only did what he was constitutionally bound to do. I think that is a plea which even hon. Members opposite and on the platform ought to admit. I do not think it is really reasonable to say that a Colonial Governor in the position of Lord Gladstone is able to refuse his assent to measures proposed to him by his Ministers. In the same way there was a

    391
    good deal in what the Colonial Secretary said disapproving of criticism of the criticism of the Government of South Africa with which I personally find myself in hearty agreement. I quite agree that it is impossible for us here, once you have given self-government, whether to South Africa, or to Ireland, to interfere in that self-government, and to reverse in this House decisions to which the Parliament of that Government has arrived.
    I can quite understand the view that it is improper that this Amendment should have been moved, but at the same time I think we all understand why it has been moved. The hon. Members on the Labour benches have been making very violent speeches in the country on this subject. They have to justify their existence. They have to convince their supporters in the country that they really are something more than a wing of the Radical party. I do not think that they will convince any body in this House of that, but they have to do their best, and so they are in the habit of selecting, generally on the Address, one particular Amendment which they usually draft in such a way as to make it unlikely that anyone else but themselves will support it. They move it to the Speech from the Throne, and make a great parade of their independence, and say very solemnly that they are entering an emphatic protest, and are going to a Division, and all the rest of it, knowing perfectly well that their operations are absolutely as futile as the movements of troops on parade. It does not take any body in, nobody at all. We all know that hon. Members opposite there would rather do anything than risk doing anything seriously disagreeable to their friends and leaders on the Treasury Bench. Therefore, I cannot say that I have any great sympathy with the Mover of this Amendment if it is to be treated as a serious attack upon the Government policy, and I am bound to say that I thought the Colonial Secretary displayed a very proper contempt for the proceedings of the Labour party in that regard. He did not make any attempt, it is perfectly true, to answer criticisms made by the hon. Member for Leicester, and the Prime Minister did not even think it necessary to wait out the speech of the hon. Member, but left the Bench as he usually does when there is—
    Mr. HARCOURT: He was receiving a deputation from the Labour party.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: What a humbug the whole thing is, moving a solemn Amendment about which they have been speaking in the most violent way on every platform, saying that their liberties are attacked and the Constitution in danger, while at the same time they send a deputation to the Prime Minister which secures that the greater part of the Labour party and the Prime Minister would be absent when the matter was tinder consideration. I am very glad of the interruption, because it emphasises more thoroughly than I should be able to do the thorough hypocrisy of the whole proceeding. Apart from that, let me deal with the question, the substantial question, that is raised. I quite agree with the Colonial Secretary that it is very improper to express any opinion, either favourable or unfavourable, to the action of the Government of South. Africa, but there are some aspects of it about which questions of general importance arise, and about which something may be said, without expressing approval or disapproval, which we certainly are not in a position to express at the present time, if ever we shall be. In the first place, from the published accounts it is difficult to understand how this dispute over the railways really arose. I am not sure whether any Member of the Labour party quite followed it. It certainly does seem rather an astonishing thing that there should have been an attempt at a general strike, because a few men were dismissed from their employment on the railways, if that was done merely with the view to reduce expenses. On the other hand, it may have been a very much more serious matter behind that; but what I want to point out to the Labour party is, that this is done on the Government railways. It was not the action of a private capitalist, it was the action of the democratic elected Government of South Africa.
    If they succeeded, as some of them pretend to wish, in putting the whole of the industries of this country into the hands of the State they would have exactly the same conditions of affairs existing in every industry that exists in South Africa with respect to the railways. I believe that it is quite true that under such circumstances any attempt at protest by the workers would be very harshly dealt with indeed by the employing body. The Government if they are the employers are not in the position of private individuals at all, because they are also those who have in their

    393
    hand the whole forces of the State, so that if there is a serious dispute between workers and the employer it is certainly possible and almost inevitable that the employing Government should use the whole forces of the State to put down any resistance to their will, though that may arise in a perfectly ordinary dispute as to working conditions. I think that a very valuable matter for the whole working classes of this country to consider. Are they really, those of them who are Socialists, or inclined to Socialism, of opinion that they would get any addition to their liberties whatever if they transferred the industries of this country from private individuals to municipal or State employers? The hon. Member who has just spoken said that the Government of South Africa went so far in this case—and I am mot saying whether he is right or not—as to destroy the right of strike. That must inevitably happen where you have the Government as the employer. They never will submit to the right of their employés to strike against the Government of the whole country.
    That seems to me to be one aspect of the case which raises general consideration, and which is well worthy of attention, and there is another. The Colonial Secretary said that it would be very improper to say anything about Home Rule in this Debate on the ground that this was a great Imperial question. Home Rule is quite as great an Imperial question as even this, and I make no apology whatever for pointing out to the House what seems to me to be entirely missed by the hon. Member for Leicester in his speech, namely, the importance of this question on the Home Rule controversy. He said we are prepared to grant self-government, though we know it must cause a certain amount of difficulty and inconvenience. That is not the point at all. It is not a question of this being a difficulty or an inconvenience, but the proof that this incident affords that no limitation on the power of a self-governing Government can be of the slightest avail. That is the real import. What can a paper safeguard do? All it can do is to make tyranny illegal. That it can do. You can say, "Such and such a thing shall not be done which a minority fear." You cannot do more than make it illegal. You have no other power. Now, in this matter, no one doubts, and the South African Government does not doubt, that what they did was profoundly illegal, and that there was
    394
    not the slightest justification in law for their action. What the hon. Member has just said on this point is perfectly true. There was no justification; it was an extralegal act. It was an arbitrary exercise of power by the Government which they thought necessary—and they may have been right or wrong—in the higher interests of the State. Under those circumstances nothing could have been more illegal, but we, as the Government say, as most of us say, and as hon. Members opposite, I have no doubt, will say in the Lobby, are absolutely powerless to deal with it, for the very sufficient reason which was given by the Colonial Secretary. He said if you do that, and I think I took his words, and if you interfered with General Botha, he would have resigned, and no other Government could have been found to take his place, and, therefore, we should be absolutely left without any power of governing South Africa at all. That must be always so in every attempt to limit the authority of a responsible Government, because a responsible Government, if you try and interfere with them, however clearly you have a right to do so, will take the action he mentioned. Nothing could be clearer than our right to interfere.
    The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was perfectly right when he read Section 64 and pointed out that that actually provided that Bills might be reserved, and that they should not be passed into law without our assent in this House, and that the Government had a perfect right, representing the majority of this House, to refuse the Royal Assent to any measure it liked. I thought there was a great deal in what he said, assuming his facts are right, and that this very strong Act, which undoubtedly infringes the ordinary rights of ordinary British citizens in this country, seems a very strong case in which that power might be invoked. If it ever could be invoked profitably in reference to a self-governing country, what stronger case could you have than this, if the hon. Member is right in his facts? I am sorry the hon. Member for Leicester is called away, because I should have liked to have had his corrections of a very imperfect note I took of the passage he read from a memorandum from a gentleman in South Africa, which said that this is a pure political movement, and an attempt by the Government there to crush its political opponents and overwhelm certain persons. I know that that is not a correct transcript of what he said, but it is the substance.

    395
    How well that might be applied in the case of Home Rule. Assume such action for a moment by a Home Rule Government, not necessaily this; assume an attempt by the Government to crush its political opponents in Ulster and to overwhelm the O'Brienites. The parallel is absolutely complete. You cannot have anything closer. Yet in that case, as in this, this House would be absolutely powerless to enforce any paper safeguards that you might put in the Bill. Nothing could be more germane or more closely relevant to the Home Rule controversy than the whole of this incident. The Labour party, if they were capable of surprising me at all, would have surprised me by the attitude which they have taken in this matter. They see how bitter this matter is when it affects their friends in South Africa, but they have no sympathy for Ulster, not an atom. They are not prepared to give them the slightest protection. They have never said a word to protect that minority. They care only about themselves, and they do not care even about themselves sufficiently to vote against the Government in any effective Division. I venture to think that this is quite as important a consideration as any that has been raised in this Debate.
    When I come to the substance of the complaint raised from the Labour Benches, I wish to observe as closely as I can the caution given to us by the responsible Minister for the Crown. Even so, I feel bound to express profound misgivings with reference to the measure, and perhaps even greater misgivings in reference to that portion of the Indemnity Bill which proposes to inflict a retrospective penalty upon those who have been deported. It may have been justified; I do not wish to attack the South African Government; but I must say that the thing in itself is certainly very repugnant to the British view of liberty. I cannot regard this Act from the point of view of precedent, apart from the special circumstances which may or may not exist in South Africa, as anything but an attack on liberty. I think also—and here, perhaps, I shall not carry so much assent from the benches opposite—that the dangers to liberty are very considerable even in this country. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches and elsewhere constantly vote for measures in this House which seem to me likely to undermine the British sense of independence and liberty.
    396
    The most obvious and best known instance is the Insurance Act. I myself believe that to be a grave attack on liberty in this country. I said so the moment I was elected to this House. It may not have been so clear when the Bill was going through, but it is perfectly evident now. I am referring not only to compulsion, but to the whole system of the insurance card, which I believe to be a very serious attack on liberty, and on that very right to strike about which the hon. Member opposite was so solicitous. There is much, too, in the administration of the Education Acts which seem to me a very dangerous attack on the liberty of the people of this country.
    These things are very serious, not only because they are in themselves attacks on liberty, but because they are accustoming the people of this country to the loss of their liberty. Hon. Members opposite constantly accuse us of being the enemies of trade unions. That is utterly untrue. I quite agree that I have on some occasions criticised the action of trade unions, not at all because I disliked trade unions, but because I thought their action on the facts given to me was tyrannical, or an interference with liberty, and I will criticise that whether it comes from a trade union or from anybody else. All these are serious matters, and they tend to a general decay of the sense of liberty. I believe that the course of legislation is to exalt the power of the machine, whether in trade unionism or in Government. It is the triumph of bureaucracy. You see it in. its most extreme form in some of the Fabian publications, which are always clamouring for some new limitation of the rights of the people of this country. For my part, I believe that liberty is by far the most valuable possession of the people of this country, and political liberty is the most valuable of all. I believe profoundly that if this action in South Africa calls the attention of the working classes to the danger that lurks in all forms of Government, of the infringement of personal liberty, it will not have occurred in vain.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Several years ago I had the privilege of administrating justice in South Africa. I know and like the people; I know and like the country. In spite of that I want to support the Amendment to the Address which has been moved to-day. I quite agree with the criticism made by the Noble Lord opposite. I have seen the difficulty all along. How are we to justify interference in South Africa

    397
    when we will not justify interference in Ireland? How are we to justify interference with the right of any self-governing Dominion to do wrong? It is quite simple. I base my justification entirely on the presence in South Africa of the British Army. It is the British Army that has provided the steel at the bottom of the heel of General Smuts, and as long as the British Army is there, paid for by the British elector, the British elector will be perfectly justified in doing all that he can to prevent injustice being perpetrated by a Government so supported. It seems to me also, that the argument used by the Colonial Secretary was sound. He said quite rightly that, supposing we disallowed this measure in South Africa, the Government there would resign; we should be powerless to enforce our disallowance of the Act, and we should have to climb down, as happened in the Natal case some six years ago. That we all know. The real safeguard against injustice throughout the British Empire, whether in Ireland or in South Africa, is not clauses in an Act of Parliament, but public opinion expressed fearlessly by people who are capable of giving expression to those British traditions which have made our Empire. This seems to be the raison d'être of this Amendment. If we had said, "What is done in South Africa is no affair of ours; we are powerless, even if we carry an Amendment, to put it into force," and the Labour party had declined to move an Amendment, then there would have been no criticism of what all of us on these benches consider to be a monstrous act of un-British injustice in South Africa.
    The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ram say Macdonald) dwelt in his very moderate speech, as I thought unduly, on the justification of the strike in South Africa. I am not here to consider whether the men are justified in fighting for freedom, or whether they are justified in striking against a reduction in the number of men employed on the railway. It does not seem to me to be necessary, in order to make a case against martial law or against the South African Government, to show that the strike of the railway men was justified by the actual facts of the case. We surely base ourselves on something far more primal than the justification of a particular strike. We base ourselves simply on the fact that no Government, whether it be backed by law, or acting under martial law, has a right to make a man work against his will. The final
    398
    basis of individual freedom is a man's right to fold his arms. Whether the Government takes away that right by Act of Parliament, as in Australia of in Canada, or whether they take it away by act of brute force, as in South Africa, in either case I deny that they are acting in accordance with the principles of British justice. We should never tolerate it in this country, perhaps because we have a better educated democracy than they have elsewhere, perhaps because we know our traditions better than they do in some of these new Dominions. But whether it be done in South Africa or here, it is unjust, and every man amongst us knows that it is unjust. You cannot force a free man by Act of Parliament or by violence to work against his will.
    Anybody who reads the accounts coming from South Africa realises that the whole force of martial law has been directed towards farcing these men to work against their will. People have been sent to prison merely for telling the men to stand solid and to stick together at all costs. There is one case where they actually went round to the houses of the strikers and tried to make them go to work. That use of the forces of the State, I do not care where it is, or under whose management, is a monstrous contravention of the rights of man. There is this to be said, that, whereas such action in the Broken Hill district of Australia or in Canada might be justified by law; in South Africa it is justified by no law at all. They are not only acting on laws made by Parliament which are in contravention of the ideas of liberty, but they are actually creating laws without any sort of justification from any democracy. They are creating laws merely to satisfy the whim of the moment. I know that hon. Members opposite and many on this side think that you are justified in forcing people to work or in breaking a, strike by extra-legal means, if it is dangerous to the State or a positive injury to the community, as at Leeds the other day; that there are certain cases where you are justified in doing something that is illegal or contrary to our sense of justice, in order to save the State or for the benefit of the community as a whole. I differ from them entirely; I believe that all those who are really founded on liberal principles must differ from them. You cannot expect any permanent benefit to the State by acting unjustly. In the long run that which is unjust can never be expedient

    399
    Although statesmen in South Africa came to the conclusion that it would be desirable to act in this way, although they came to the conclusion that it was expedient under the circumstances to break all the laws of individual liberty, we know well enough that by drawing the sword in this way, by starting a class war, by objecting to the passive resistance of a strike, we can count on the fact that the sword will be drawn on the other side, too; and instead of a peaceful method of striking, we may very well see the far more dangerous weapon of the armed class war. That is what comes when you act, with the best intentions, actuated by ideas of expediency, but forgetting those more elementary laws which base themselves on justice. You have no right to put a man in prison who has committed no crime. You have no right to deport a man who has committed no crime, either in India or in South Africa.
    Sir J. D. REES: In India our laws are different.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: The fact that the laws are different in India does not make them just.
    Sir J. D. REES: It makes it legal in India.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Well, perhaps things are a little better in that respect than in South Africa, though it does not make it in accordance with our ideas of justice, for all Englishmen have much the same sort of impression of justice.
    The Colonial Secretary laid down a very dangerous principle when he said that it was impossible to accept this Amendment, and that it was impossible to veto this Act of illegality in South Africa because it was unprecedented. The situation itself is unprecedented. That is our difficulty. But, after all, if you make an Act of Parliament reserving certain legislation for the consent of the Home Government, I think that on this occasion you have the greatest possible justification for acting upon it. It has been said over and over again that we cannot successfully interfere. Let me put before the House this case. Suppose Indians or Kaffirs in South Africa were treated in a way that we conceived to be unjust, so monstrously unjust that we can hardly conceive South Africa to be guilty of it, we would then be jutified in saying, "Unless you refuse to pass this Act, or unless you consent to our vetoing this Act, we will
    400
    withdraw the British troops from the country and not allow the British flag to fly over it." One can conceive a state of affairs in which such a position would be taken up by many men in this country. We should, in that case, certainly be justified in taking the unprecedented step which at present we refuse to do. The position of the ordinary worker, the ordinary trade unionist on the Rand is, to a certain extent, comparable with the position of the Indian or the Kaffir in South Africa. It is more comparable to the position of those two subject nationalities than it is comparable to the position of the trade unionist in this country. Therefore we are justified in taking this unprecedented step in order to protect trade unionism in South Africa for this reason: that in this country every constituency contains trade unionists; every Member of this House depends to some extent upon the Labour vote. He cannot act with injustice against a particular class, because in every constituency some of that class is represented. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not universities."]
    Everyone knows that a very different state of affairs prevails in South Africa, and this applies to what was said by the hon. Member for Gravesend. On the Rand you have, no doubt, the trade unionist strong. There you have the proletariat, both Dutch and English; in Krugersdorp, the Dutch; in Germiston, the English. All along the Rand you have the landless proletariat, comparable with the proletariat of this country. Outside this area there is an area in which the people who represent it, these country districts, in the Parliament House of Pretoria are as independent of the unskilled labour vote as we were in this country before the days of the great Reform Bill. They are in a medæval position as compared with ourselves. A Parliament composed in that way is very different to this House of Commons. We must not compare the deference we show to all classes of the community to the attitude of the South African House of Commons in relation to the labour vote. How much different it would have been if the Indians and the Kaffirs in South Africa had had votes! Then we know what respect would have been paid to unskilled labour everywhere. As it is you have a small group of members representing the Rand dependent on the labour vote, and outside a limited aristocracy such as was in this country before 1832. With a government

    401
    such as that it behoves us to keep a very strict eye upon legislation directed against trade unionism and the labouring classes of South Africa, as strict as we should in the case of Indians or Kaffirs. You are making that country impossible for British workmen. They are leaving the country rapidly. The places of the unskilled labourer will be taken by the scourings of Europe, by Kaffirs, by Indians, and the labouring men will be similar to those to be found in tropical countries further north in Africa.
    Note what South Africa is storing up for itself. In course of time they will get into their country two classes, free and unfree, and the upper classes represented in Parliament will be able to carry out their will in entire disregard of the submerged classes. We are divesting ourselves of the power to interfere to protect these classes. I do not like it. I do not like it for this country, because I think it will soil our honour. I do not think it even expedient for the upper class, because although they may set up a tyranny over the period of years, yet as years go on the Dutch will increase in population, the Dutch will get divorced from the soil, and the Dutch slaves will drift into Johannesburg; and you will get there an overwhelming proletariat which will be a great deal more ready to do violence than the British workman. Any Government that keeps down the lower orders may look forward to the day when the lower orders, even the Dutch lower orders in South Africa, will sufficiently increase in numbers that they may overwhelm them. May it be soon. The Government have acted very illegally. They have acted not only illegally, but they have acted contrary to what every Englishman knows from the bottom of his soul is justice. They have gone contrary to English justice, and they ask us to sanction their acts. They have acted in a manner which to my mind insures for South Africa in years to come a period of stress, turmoil, slavery, risings and revolutions. I think we have a duty to South Africa. We have a duty to criticise it. We have been told that it is dangerous to criticise. We have been told that if we criticise the South Africans we may injure that thin thread which binds the Empire together. We may damage that Empire of which some around us are so proud, but, Mr. Speaker, that Empire of ours is mot built up by men who merely fly the Union Jack; our Empire is cemented
    402
    together, not by treaties, not by conquest, not even by self-government; it is cemented together by the Britisher's love of justice.
    Mr. POLLOCK: The House has been in a very grave difficulty throughout the whole course of this Debate, because of our very imperfect knowledge of the facts which led the Government of South Africa to take the steps which they did. A good illustration of that imperfect knowledge has been contributed to the Debate by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wedgwood). If I understood aright his remarks he attributed a very considerable amount of responsibility of the Government of South Africa to the fact that they had at their backs British soldiers; that the use of British soldiers, the use of force against the forces of labour in the Colonies, was responsible for some of the difficulties that occurred. I have consulted some of my friends to see whether or not my view is right, and so far I have been able to learn, and I think the Colonial Secretary supported that view, there was no use snade of British troops at all throughout the recent events which led up to and was anterior to the proclamation of martial law. I think the Colonial Secretary confirmed that view.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I only brought that in as our justification for criticism.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I do not wish to do the hon. Member any injustice. I only wish to point out to the House the grave difficulty in which we are placed, because we are invited to form an opinion before we have really got the true facts before us. We shall certainly not be acting in accordance with our duty or our dignity if we do pass judgment without waiting ho hear all sides, and with the accumulated facts before us. We start our proceedings every Session by claiming to discuss an Outlawry Bill, a Bill, the contents of which are known only to the clerks at the Table. It seems to me that we are now very much endeavouring to discuss an Outlawry Bill, because we are purporting to pass judgment when we have not got the full facts. I admire the restraint which the hon. Member for Leicester exhibited in moving the Amendment. He obviously was desirous of doing justice to those who are responsible, and he felt the difficulty of being without a full knowledge of what had occurred. But while I sympathise with a good many of

    403
    the observations that he made, and, indeed, with a certain portion of the Amendment that he has proposed, I should like to point out again to the House that if we were to ask that this Bill should be reserved until a judicial inquiry was instituted the only effect of that would be to make martial law the law of the country for a very considerable time. Instead of doing what we ought to be desirous of doing—that is, good to the Colonies— we should be doing a distinct wrong, because martial law will not be abandoned, revoked, or recalled, until the Indemnity Bill has been passed. If hon. Members will take the trouble to look at the Indemnity Bill they will find that provision is made in it, as in all Indemnity Bills which are passed after the declaration of martial law, that martial law shall be revoked by proclamation as soon as the Indemnity Bill is passed. On all sides and in all quarters of the House we should hope that this Indemnity Bill will be passed as rapidly as possible, and that martial law shall be withdrawn from South Africa as rapidly as may be. Now there is one portion of the Amendment which asks that a judicial inquiry shall be instituted into the circumstances of proclaiming martial law, and with that aspiration I sympathise. If it was the duty of this House to make any reflection or to pass any criticism of any sort or kind that might be fairly said to have precedent to justify it, it is that, as a rule, when there has been a proclamation of martial law there has also been an inquiry into the circumstances in which it came to be made. That really would be in the interests of all persons, because the more the facts are known the better will it be for persons, whether they are those who suffered under martial law or not, or the Government who proclaimed martial law. I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester in that view that the very fact that martial law has been proclaimed does in itself justify the claim that there should be a judicial inquiry instituted into it, because the step is one so serious and far-reaching that it is one in which those who are responsible ought to be able and ought perhaps to be called upon to justify their conduct before a judicial tribunal. But what I venture to express might be a better course is this. Surely we ought to assume that that will be done by the South African Government themselves, and while we have but imperfect knowledge we ought not to assume
    404
    that the South African Government will not be prepared to have a judicial inquiry and to take a course similar to what has been taken in previous cases, particularly the case of Ceylon in 1849 and Jamaica in 1866. Therefore, whilst, as I say that I sympathise with the suggestion of an inquiry, this Amendment does ask us to intervene and calls upon the Colonial Secretary to intervene in a manner which could only have the effect of prolonging the existence of martial law in the Colony, whereas we are really anxious that martial law should be recalled as soon as possible and the ordinary tribunal reestablished.
    May I also remind the House that this question of martial law is always a difficult one. There is a responsibility upon governors and administrators in our Dominions which at times may impose upon them the duty of proclaiming martial law. I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Leicester that a state of war-only justifies martial law. I think if he will look into the cases where martial law has been proclaimed before he will not find support for that view. The true view is rather this—That if there is going to be, or there is likely to be, such widespread disaffection that the ordinary law of the land will be set aside, and unable to cope with the disorder, then it may be the duty of those in authority to proclaim martial' law. Now, was that the case here or not? We do not know. But I should like, in justification of what I said, that there is this responsibility, upon those responsible, to proclaim martial law to remind the House that when these matters were very much discussed in 1866, after the proclamation of martial law in Jamaica, and after the Debates had taken place in this House, there was a despatch sent round from the Colonial Office to the governors of the Crown Colonies in reference to cases in which there might be proclamation of martial law; and no doubt it was pointed out that it was an extremely serious step, and ought not to be taken without cogent and, perhaps, absolute necessity. That despatch also contained these very remarkable words:—
    "The justification, however, for such a step, must rest on the pressure of the moment, and a governor cannot by any instructions be relieved from, the obligation of deciding for himself under that pressure, whether the responsibility of proclaiming martial law is or is not greater than that of refraining from doing so."
    I should like to ask the Colonial Secretary whether these instructions to Colonial Governors still obtain, or whether they were recalled or modified. I should

    405
    like to point out that we ought to give the Government of any of our self-governing Dominions credit for having taken into account the possibility of the spread of this rebellion or sedition, or disorder, or whatever you call it, that happened to call for the proclamation of martial law, which had to be decided by the immediate facts of the moment. You have to consider whether there is a likelihood of the disorder spreading to such an extent that it will become unmanageable, and therefore that it is safer to proclaim martial law than to take the risk of the sedition outrunning the law; and we ought to give credit to the South African Government for having considered that very carefully.
    The Colonial Secretary used a somewhat remarkable phrase in reference to the constant situation in South Africa. He spoke of South Africa with its unstable equilibrium as a volcano. He gave the figures of one million and a quarter whites and five million of blacks, and in his care-fully-worded speech he used the word "volcano." I do not know whether that is a happy expression or not, but if that be so it clearly behoves this House to give credit to the far-seeing character of the South African Government and to suppose they have taken into account not only the immediate, but also the imminent possibilities of what might happen if they had not proclaimed martial law. Let me also recall the circumstances of what took place in Ceylon in 1849, which led to an extremely interesting Debate in this House. There, of course, the proclamation of martial law was bitterly complained of, and representations were made as to the conduct of the Governor and so on. The late Lord John Russell, who will always be respected in this House as a lover of liberty, and a person, by no means desirous of coercing in any direction any fellow subject, used these words in 1851:—
    "That rising which at first is weak and may lie easily crushed may become formidable. The Governor must consider that the whole order of the Colony may be destroyed, that the obedience due to the Crown may be withheld; that property of an indefinite existence may be spoiled and ruined, and, above all. humanity, for the sake of which martial law is withheld, that that humanity itself may be such that a good many more lives may lie lost in the struggle that might ensue than would have been lost in the struggle if martial law had been for a few weeks continued."
    These are considerations the Government has to keep in mind when deciding, yea or nay, whether they will suspend the ordinary law. I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Leicester in another matter. I have looked up the terms of the Indemnity Bill, and I agree
    406
    with him that the Preamble is by no means a forcible document. If we are to take this Preamble as stating what the facts were that necessitated the proclaiming of martial law, they do not in their terms indicate any such necessity. The Preamble says:—
    "Whereas it is necessary to take such precautions for the suppression of internal disorder, and the maintenance of good order for the public safety"—
    I agree these words are wholly inadequate in themselves to justify the proclamation of martial law. Therefore I beg the House, before it comes to any decision, to wait for further facts, because it cannot be that these words adequately describe what was the situation when martial law was proclaimed. Perhaps I might point out to the hon. Member that if lie reads a good deal further on in the recital he will find a description which indicates facts more like what ought to be the facts before martial law is proclaimed, and which prove, perhaps, that the Bill was hurriedly drafted, and that these words may betaken to be really an indication of what the situation was, and that there might be a greater justification than appears in the descriptions we have got, and which I agree are quite inadequate for the course that was taken. Then there is the wider question of policy as to whether this House can take any special steps. It has already been pointed out by the Colonial Secretary and other speakers that it is a very serious step indeed to interfere at all with those Colonies to which we have granted free and absolute self-government, certainly in matters of internal order. They might accept any criticism on our part as an affront. What would we think of foreign countries who criticised the way in which we maintain our order at home? Naturally the South African Government would resent it, and our interference, instead of getting rid of martial law, would give a blow to our system of Colonial government, and a blow that would travel far throughout the length and breadth of' our Empire. A good many speakers have indicated their views that this House has absolute authority to deal with the matter. I can find no such authority, either in the South Africa Act, or in any other Act, or in the practice of this House. I think this House ought to hold its hand, and not to express any opinion, at any rate until the facts are known, even if the facts are facts which do not lead us to conclude that there was necessity for martial law. We ought to be patient. The Colonies know their

    407
    duty in these matters, and we ought to uphold their better judgment of what was necessarily their duty on this occasion.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I rise, in a few words, to make an appeal to the Labour party. The appeal I desire to make is that this Amendment should be withdrawn, I ask every Member of the Labour party, and indeed every hon. Member of this House, to reflect as to how the result of this Division will be interpreted in South Africa. I suggest that my hon. Friends have overlooked the fact that the great majority of the Members of this House will undoubtedly, for the cogent reasons given by the Colonial Secretary, be compelled in the interests of self-government, and because we know and believe that South Africa cannot be governed from Whitehall, to vote against the Amendment although they do not condone in any way the action of the South African Government, and are entirely opposed to many of the things done in the name of that Government. I think it is a great misfortune that it should be made to appear that there is a general approval of what has been done because there is no such approval. The Noble Lord opposite expressed the feeling of the great majority of Members when he said that the actions of the South African Government were repugnant to the British conception of liberty, and the hon. Members who have just sat down repeated that sentiment in other words. The hon. Member for New castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) also expressed the same idea, and from every part of this House there has been the expression of sonic measure or other of disapproval. I think it would be well if this Debate, with those expressions of opinion, went to South Africa instead of pressing the Amendment to a Division, which would only misinterpret the feelings of this House. I am sure hon. Members do not undervalue self-government, and they have no idea of suggesting any interference with that principle. I earnestly appeal to the Members of the Labour party to withdraw this Amendment.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: The hon. Member just stated that it would be an impossibility for us to interfere with a self-governing Dominion in regard to questions of law and order, but I see in this matter something more than the mere maintenance of law and order. There is a, policy behind this question, and I believe that it
    408
    is in the interests of the Empire and of democracy in this country, that we should interfere with a law which exists simply for the maintenance of that policy. I am not troubled by the fears of the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he suggests that action here might disrupt the Empire. If we do not interfere with the policy which the Indemnity Bill is to establish we shall lose South Africa, and it will become merely in name a British Dominion. Behind this Indemnity Bill, and the policy which it establishes, there lies the influences which have been exploiting the wealth of the Transvaal. I want us to get a little below all these troubles, and to do so you have to go back to the time following the war when the mines were first reopened. A policy was laid down then by the men who controlled the gold mines of the Transvaal, and that policy was exposed by Mr. Cresswell, who was then the manager of the Main Reef Gold Mining Company, in the evidence he gave before the Commission inquiring into the question of native labour. I want to remind this House that Mr. Cresswell exposed the policy of the mine owners in a letter written to the Board of the directorate of his company, and when I read this letter the House will see the relevance of it. He says:—
    "With reference to your trial of white labour. I have consulted the Consolidated Gold Fields Group and a friend of mine haft consulted Messrs. Beit and Company, and the feeling seems to be one of fear that having a large number of white men employed on the Hand in the position of labourers, the same troubles will arise as are now prevalent in the Australian Colonies, and the combination of the labouring classes will be so strong as to more or less dictate, not only on questions of wages but also on political questions when representative government is established."
    That has been the underlying policy of the mine owners. The then Colonial Secretary went to South Africa, and the engineers of the various mine owners presented him with a memorial in which this phrase occurs:—
    "There is no place in South Africa fur the trail f the serpent trades unionism."
    Later on, when they decided to introduce Chinese labour, the engineer of the East Hand Company said:—
    "Chinese labour will cut up trade unionism by the roots."
    The whole policy of the mine owners has been directed to the destruction of trade unions by the exclusion of white labour from the Transvaal, so that would not have a large labour-voting population which might establish a labour party on the Rand. We now find the Government taking up the policy of the mine owners. In the past, whenever the Government

    409
    desired to improve the conditions of the workers, the mine owners always said, "You do this and interfere with our vested interests, and we will close the mines and bankrupt the Transvaal. The gold will remain there to wait our pleasure. We will bankrupt the Government and exhibit you as an anti-British Government." I speak with some slight knowledge of the position of the Government in this matter. I was one of those who asked that responsible Government should be granted to the Transvaal. I claim both General Botha and General Smuts as intimate friends, and I know they have always the threat being used against them that it they ameliorate the conditions of the workers so as to interfere with profits and dividends, the great monopoly would close down the mines. Consequently the intolerable conditions remain* and I will give one fact to show this. In 1907, I was a correspondent in South Africa when the miners were on strike, and they asked me to speak at one of their meetings, and having spoken at a strike meeting it was actually suggested that I should be deported from the country. There was a strike committee of some fifteen men in 1907, but there are now only two of them left now. The workers have revolted against these conditions, and have caused trouble through strikes, and the Government have found it more easy to use coercive measures of a violent nature against the workers than to attack this monopoly and see that justice is done. This is a matter in which we are intimately concerned; in fact, the whole Empire is concerned. So far as my view goes, if the British worker is to be driven out of the country the Transvaal becomes an alien country so far as the Rand is concerned, and it becomes British in nothing else but in name. If those conditions are to be maintained I have no fear whatever in voting, and would be glad to see the whole House vote for this Amendment, even if the effect caused feeling in South Africa which might lead to disruption, for I would sooner see South Africa go out of the Empire than remain in it under such conditions.
    It appears to me that there will be no British conditions maintained in South Africa, and we shall eventually become responsible for the maintenance virtually of a slave State, and trouble will arise in consequence. The Colonial Secretary says we must remember our terrible responsibility in regard to this volcano of a
    410
    quarter of a million of coloured men. Why does this responsibility exist? It is because those men are kept there in a condition of servitude. They are sent to the Hand from Portuguese territory. They are confined in the compounds, and for them to strike is an offence and a crime, and they are kept in subjection. Above them are a few skilled overlords, who are well paid, but the whole system is virtually a slave system, and it is intolerable that such a system should be maintained within the Empire. If the introduction and proclamation of martial law and the over-riding of all laws is essential to the maintenance of these conditions, I hope we shall not consent to this Indemnity Bill, in order that we may do something to break down this intolerable, vicious, and immoral labour system.
    Sir J. D. REES: It is a singular circumstance that right through this difficulty no hon. Member has referred to the effect of these circumstances upon labour. I can well understand the attitude of the hon. Member for Leicester, because he studies the interests of British labour in British India, but the hon. Member from Merthyr Tydvil has given up India as one of his subjects. It is rather remakable that no reference whatsoever has been made to the effect of what has happened in South Africa upon British labour. How is British labour affected by the events which have taken place? Only, I submit, in one way. The African Government by taking this action have preserved a great industry from danger and probably from destruction. The hon. Member spoke of these mines as being the property of certain monopolists, but he knows as well as I do that this property belongs to the British public, and not to any capitalist or monopolist. The whole of this property is spread in the smallest parcels all over the United Kingdom. The labouring people who hold this property and are interested in it were affected by this conspiracy, this Syndicalism, or strike, or whatever you like to call it, and had the Government not intervened there would have been such disorder in South Africa that this property would have been destroyed. The hon. Member does not contradict what I say. He must be aware that it is the property of the British public, including the poor, and it is not the property of any capitalist or group of mine-owners, and to say so is to entirely misrepresent the whole circumstances.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I certainly do contradict that statement.
    Sir J. D. REES:If the hon. Member contradicts me he must have studied to very small purpose the list of shareholders of this property. He will find that it is no longer, whatever it may have been once, the property of any few great holders, but is spread in small parcels all over the British public. If he can contradict me, let him do so in the Press after inquiry. The speech of the Colonial Secretary, whether it was an essay or a speech, was a sound, statesmanlike production, suitable for Colonial or Imperial consumption. It is to my mind an inconsistency that in other matters the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are not imbued with that spirit which I was glad to see that he displayed to-day. I would like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). He took exception to General Smuts' statement that he had put in a memorial praying for the deportation of Mr. Galbraith Cole. When the hon. Member denies that, I, of course, immediately accept his denial, but if he had been here I should have asked him whether he spoke the whole truth, and whether he did not heartily approve of the deportation of Mr. Galbraith Cole, which was a perfectly legal act, because in British East Africa, as in British India, there are laws which allow the Executive to resort to such measures. Nobody declares that deportation is legal in South Africa, and time has been wasted by those hon. Gentlemen who have described it as illegal. That which is done under martial law is a fortiori illegal. The hon. Member wanted the Government in Africa to reserve the Indemnity Bill to be dealt with by the King in this country. It is not a very democratic proceeding to desire that the passage of a Bill shall be taken away from a democratic Parliament and submitted to the Monarchy in this country, so that the action of the democratic Parliament in Africa, may be overridden by the action of a nominally democratic Parliament at home.
    Then he complained that the African Government had confiscated the papers of certain trade unions. Why not? The circumstances being as they were, a dangerous and difficult state of things occurring, surely it was a very small measure to seize the papers connected with a trade union. In such circumstances as that private letters, even of persons who are under no suspicion at all, may properly
    412
    and fairly be opened and investigated by the Government. I know it is very painful for hon. Gentlemen there, whom I have heard so often in this House extolling the experiment made in South Africa, saying how perfectly it worked, and how admirable it was that the Boer and the Briton should lie down together and that are responsible Parliament should be immediately given after a disastrous war, and how great was the courage of those who made such an experiment. I sympathise with them in the result of the experiment, whilst I do not regret the action of the Government in Africa. The experiment in their eyes, not mine, must have failed, and I hope less will be heard of the smug satisfaction which has always been expended upon that premature grant of responsible Government in South Africa. The hon. Member, as it seemed to me, gave away his whole case when he was arguing that there was no sufficiently serious state of affairs to justify the proclamation, and had to admit that there was only one line of railway to Johannesburg by which the food was to be brought there in order to keep the inhabitants alive. If it is not a sufficient reason for the issue of a proclamation when a single line of railway is held by syndicalism or strikers, so that the inhabitants at the end of it cannot have food—
    Mr. BARNES: The hon. Member expressly denied that syndicalism held the line.
    Sir J. D. REES: But there was only one line of railway.
    Mr. BARNES: I understood the hon. Member to allege that the hon. Member for Leicester had said that there was only one line of railway, and that it was held by syndicalism.
    Sir J. D. REES: I said that it was held by syndicalism; he said that there was a single line of railway. Then he proceeded to refer to High Wycombe. If he has been there he must know that there ave two lines of railway to Wycombe. Could there be any greater justification than the fact that one of the greatest cities in Africa at the end of one narrow line was unable to supply itself with food for its inhabitants. Several hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), objected to the inherent injustice of this proceeding. The hon. Member for Newcastle had the hardihood to complain that there

    413
    must necessarily be a connection between law and justice, he supporting a Government which passed the Trades Disputes Act, which admittedly allows injustice to be done in certain cases as a privilege granted to those who are able to compel a powerful and pusillanimous Government to pass a measure in the form they desire. An hon. Member behind me instanced the Insurance Act—and I agree with him heartily—as a proof that in this country liberty is invaded right and left by the Government. He did not mention picketing and the Trades Disputes Act. It seems to me most absurd to talk about the loss of liberty in Africa when all the Socialist legislation leads to the loss of liberty at home. The hon. Member for Leicester was exceedingly indignant about any British subject being dealt with by legislation instead of by the Courts. I wonder whether he would have objected to Lord Stafford being dealt with by a Bill of Attainder.
    There is no proof that the Government in South Africa acted with tyranny, or that it has gone beyond the requirements of the case. For my part, I hope that hon. Gentlemen who follow will respond to the appeal of one on their own side and withdraw the Amendment which has led to a discussion which I think should never have taken place in the British House of Commons. The Colonial Secretary, I think, did a public service in dissipating the idea so frequently put about, that any subject of the British Empire has equal rights in every part of the British Empire. The acceptance of that theory would bring the whole Empire down like a pack of cards. It is a fortunate thing, I think, that the only good circumstance that has resulted from this Debate is, that we have had it from the responsible Minister that British subjects in one part of the British Empire have not necessarily the same rights as British subjects in another part of the British Empire, though they may be quite as good and, indeed, better. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie), with whom I never can agree, said that the labour members in Africa, the gentlemen who had been deported, were not stirring up any uprising or doing any act which would be likely to lead to disorder in South Africa. All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman is an extremely bad judge of what acts are likely to lead to disorder, and what are likely to stir up strife. He himself, I am bound to believe unwittingly, was the cause of stirring up strife during the tour he made in India
    414
    some time ago. The hon. Gentleman is a very bad witness upon this point, and we had much better believe the responsible Government out there, which found that these gentlemen who have been deported were a danger to the community. The hon. Member for Merthyr quoted Mr. Merriman. He quoted what really is the "Times" comment on the speech of Mr. Merriman, who said that General Smuts had produced remarkable slender evidence of a conspiracy. That is a matter of opinion. It is a pity that he did not go on to quote another portion of Mr. Merriman's speech in which he said:—
    "Those who are objecting to the action of the Government have made heroes of the sorriest lot of fellows that could have been seen, of men who were thoroughly discredited.''
    Why shed any crocodile tears about the removal of men discredited by their supporters in Parliament in those terms? Why make heroes of them here? Why not leave them in that oblivion which I am sure they are so well suited to adorn, and which in an ill-advised moment they left in order to make the trouble to which we are now referring. The Noble Lord behind me referred to what might happen if the railways in England were under the State, and he pointed out that these troubles happened in a country in which the railways are managed by the State. I should like to reinforce this argument, with which I most heartily agree, by saying that the great strike in France, which was put down with so much courage and capacity, occurred equally on railways managed by the State and those owned by private companies. France is a country which affords a useful opportunity of seeing the two systems working side by side, and it is noteworthy there was greater difficulty in dealing with the labour unrest on the State railways than on the. lines which were the property of private companies. I think it is a serious thing that this matter should be debated here at all. I hope there will be no Vote taken upon the Motion. I believe the Government in South Africa acted with wisdom and discretion and that they knew far better what was required in the interests of justice and of all, and not merely of any particular section, than does any section in this House or, indeed, than the House collectively can know.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I view this Amendment with mingled feelings, and the whole of the speeches delivered from both sides of the House show that those mingled

    415
    feelings are shared by Members in all parts of it. I welcome this opportunity for the expression of individual opinion, but I hope the Mover of the Resolution will not press it to a Division. The opportunity is welcome for an expression of individual opinion as to the serious nature of the departure by the South African Government from fundamental traditions with regard to liberty and constitutional practice in its action in suppressing the recent strikes in South Africa, We all recognise that the conditions which prevail there are seriously different from those which obtain here. The existence of a large native population of an uncivilised character, a population outnumbering the whites largely, a population which might easily be stirred to violence and riot, and which might be guilty, if so stirred, of excesses that would stagger opinion in this country even more than the present action of the South African Government has done—the existence of that danger and that possibility does make a very great difference in South Africa. It is quite possible that it may constitute a danger which, in the opinion of the South African Government, would justify special legislation, legislation prohibiting certain kinds of agitation, legislation prohibiting strikes, and legislation vesting the Executive Government with extraordinary power, powers which we do not consider it right to vest in the Government of this country. It may be so; we do not live under these conditions or dangers, and are not entitled to express an opinion. But it can be said that the South African Government has not thought it necessary—neither this nor past Governments which have existed in the different States have thought it necessary to pass such legislation. There has been no legislation in South Africa prohibiting strikes or agitation, or vesting extraordinary power in the Government. It is the Government itself which has been, in this matter, the chief exponent of anarchy, which has torn up the law, destroyed the ordinary guarantees for liberty and freedom, and its action, especially in regard to the imprisonment of Mr. Cress-well, who was not even accused of any incitement to violence or riot—its action in kidnapping and deporting the labour leaders—has from all sides of this House elicited grave expressions of alarm and distress.
    There is also the allegation which is made by spokesmen of the South African
    416
    Government that there existed on the part of these men who have been victims of this special action a criminal conspiracy tooverthrow the Government—a conspiracy on the part of syndicalists and revolutionists to hold the community up to ransom, and to extort, by violence and terrorism, terms and conditions which they could not extort by constitutional, legal action. With regard to that allegation, all we can say is that there is absolutely no evidence at the present time of the existence of any such conspiracy; there is no evidence of it in the very able speech which was made by General Smuts, there is no evidence in any of the cables which have come to this country, in fact there is absolutely no evidence of it whatever. Even if it were true, even if there did exist such a criminal conspiracy, I do not think anyone can deny that, after martial law had been proclaimed, the South African Government had the situation absolutely in hand, that it was in no danger from these conspirators, that it had destroyed their power, anticipated them, and drawn their fangs, and that martial law having been effective in that way, it could then, if it had evidence of a criminal conspiracy, have put these men upon their trial and punished them, and punished them severely, by the ordinary law of the land. For this reason, and in view of the gravity of the departure from British traditions which are regarded as fundamental, I think it is welcome there should be an early opportunity for the expression of individual opinion on this matter. This House offers a platform from which the opinions expressed will undoubtedly reach South Africa, and which can perhaps influence public opinion and even Members of the Government more than any other platform in this country.
    Having said so much, while I welcome the opportunity of expressing individual opinion, I do deprecate most strongly the attempt to take action by this House or to exercise any interference in the action of the South African Government on this matter. Parliament has in its own discretion granted self-government to South Africa. Colonial self-government has no meaning at all unless it includes also the right to do wrong. It is a mere mockery to suggest that a self-governing colony has only the right to pass legislation or commit acts so long as that legislation and those acts are in accordance with our ideas of what is right and proper. That would be a mere mockery, a mere travesty of self-government. It would not be self-govern-

    417
    ment at all. South Africa, enjoying self-government, has to learn by hard and bitter experience what is the true and the wisest policy to pursue in these matters. The South African Government by its action has fomented the forces of disorder; it has shown an example of anarchy; it has by precept and practice set an example that may be followed brother forces in a country which embraces many elements of disorder in its population. We ourselves in this country did not devise our present ideas of liberty and constitutional freedom all at once. They did not spring complete and fully-fledged from the brain of some individual legislator. We also had to work them out by hard and bitter experience.
    8.0 P.M.
    Every action on the part of the South African Government at the present time can be paralleled by similar action on the part of British Governments with regard to industrial disputes during the past century. Labour has had its martyrs in this country. I am not suggesting it has been the action of one particular party or one Government rather than another, but there have been acts in the past history of labour disputes of this country for which men of all parties would blush, and which they would repudiate if they were attempted to be perpetrated at the present time—acts not so far beyond the memory of living persons—the treatment of labourers in the South of England, their death, their imprisonment, their deportation, their transportation for actions which we regard at the present time as the mere ordinary constitutional liberties of every individual in this country. We learnt the evil and the mischief of such policy by experience. It is not likely we would have learnt it more quickly if we had been subject to interference and subject to dictation by some outside Power; that would rather have stiffened our necks. In the same way it is not likely South Africa will learn the lesson which she has to learn, and which all self-governing countries must learn which have to face the problem of organised labour—it is not likely South Africa will learn that lesson more easily if we attempt to interfere as outside dictators. I was impressed by the reference of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil to the situation which existed while the Transvaal was still a separate state, and before it came under British domination. He asked whether Members on the opposite side of the House would have tolerated this action which is now being
    418
    perpetrated by the South African Government if it had been perpetrated by the Boer Government. I agree with him that if these acts had been perpetrated by the Boer Government they would probably have been made a cause of war by those who were looking for a cause for war, and they would have been just as good a cause for war as the denial of the franchise to the Uitlanders, which was made the cause of war. It is within my recollection that the hon. Member for Merthyr was one of those who strongly protested against our interference with the Transvaal when it denied the franchise to so many British subjects who were living there, and I cannot understand why he should suggest that he would change his view when the action in question was done by a British Colony. Indeed, I should have thought that the British Colony would have been allowed the same opportunity to learn its lesson from experience as he was willing to accord to the Transvaal at a former time.
    The objection which I made just now to proceeding with this Amendment is an objection in principle, but there are some objections not in principle, but in detail which I think are worth considering. Surely it is unprecedented that it should be proposed with regard to a Bill which has not yet been passed by the South African Legislature, a Bill which is stilt under consideration, whose final form we do not know, which may yet be changed fundamentally, that we should veto it in advance, that we should issue a mandamus to the South African Government, or rather to the South African Parliament—because we are dealing with the Parliament and not the Government, and with the elected representatives of the whole of the South African people—and that we should issue this notice of veto in advance. The Colonial Secretary has already told us that in one important detail in the first Clause substantial alterations will be made during the Committee stage. Is it not possible that opinion in South Africa and opinion in the South African Parliament may require further changes to be made in the Bill, and that the Bill as finally passed by the South African Legislature may be quite different from what it is at the present time? We do not know and cannot say, and in these circumstances I suggest it is rash to anticipate matters and veto it in advance.

    419
    The other objection in detail is that, confessedly on the part of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and others who have supported it, our information at the present time is not full. Practically the only information we have before us is not a complete narrative of the circumstances in a volume of the evidence and not a full report, but a single speech made by General Smuts in the South African Legislature. In a matter of this kind, which so gravely affects the Constitution of the Empire and the future relations between the different parts of the Empire, it is advisable that we should wait until we have the fullest information before we take any action. This action of the South African Government raises problems of the greatest importance with regard to the Empire and the Constitution of the Empire. Our Imperial Constitution is very vague, indefinite, loose, and fluid. There are many problems which crop up from time to time to solve which the Empire has no constitutional machinery. We live from hand to mouth, and we are opportunists in that matter. Gradually and slowly, by practice and by experience, we develop our machinery in this and that direction. This is not the only serious problem that is coming up for solution at the present time. There is the other problem, very grave and ominous, raised by the treatment of Indians in Natal, a problem to which the Colonial Secretary has referred. There is also the problem with regard to the Colonies sharing in the onerous burden of defence—a problem brought before us very urgently by the declaration of Mr. Borden that if Canada contributed to the defence of the Empire, she would demand some share in the control of public policy which our present constitutional machinery gives us no means of affording her.
    All these things point to the conclusion that in regard to these grave matters of Imperial importance we shall never be able to interfere with the individual liberty of the Colonies until we have some central assembly in which the Colonies themselves are represented. We are elected by the electors of Great Britain, but have here no representatives of the South African people, and we lack the knowledge, the authority and respect to sanction that interference in those matters which, while they are of Imperial importance, are still of the gravest importance, locally and domestically, in the various Colonies. This
    420
    leads me, finally, to the reference made to Ireland by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Cecil). I think he has ignored the complete and fundamental difference between the position Ireland would occupy under the Home Rule Bill, if it becomes an Act, and the position which is occupied by all the self-governing Colonies. There is one fact which makes all the difference in the world—it is that Ireland would still be represented in the Imperial Parliament and that the Imperial Parliament, if it interfered in any Irish matter would have the authority of a body which represented Irish constituencies. If we seek for a parallel to the position of Ireland we should find it nearer home, in the position of the London County Council, rather than in the position of a self-governing Colony entirely unrepresented in the Imperial Parliament. For these reasons, I think, that the parallel drawn and the lessons it was sought to draw from that parallel as to the possibility of the Imperial Government interfering in Ireland, as it is not interfering in South Africa, are completely false and misleading. I think they only serve not to have any influence on the proceedings with regard to Ireland, but to make matters more difficult for those who have to deal with grave Imperial questions.
    Mr. BARNES: In the first place, I should like to make reference to a suggestion which has come from the hon. Member for East Northants (Mr. Chiozza Money), and also, with his customary good feeling, from my hon. Friend who has just sat down, that we should withdraw this Amendment. I have consulted some of my colleagues, so far as I could reach them, and I find, as I expected to find, that that course is not one that commends itself to them. We have brought this Amendment forward in good faith. It has been admitted by both hon. Members who have suggested its withdrawal, that it has been a good thing, because it has enabled many expressions of individual opinion and expressions of sympathy with the terms of the Amendment to be made. That being so, to withdraw now would place us in a very invidious position, and inasmuch as we believe in what is expressed in the Amendment, we think it best that we should follow up our declaration by putting it to the vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) must be congratulated upon having inaugurated, in his usual able way, a very fair and temperate Debate. I am sure that neither

    421
    he or any of us on these Benches have siny cause to complain of what has been said, except, perhaps, of what fell from the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) and the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil). From the hon. Member for East Nottingham we had a variant upon the "poor widow" argument. We are always told when we are advocating some measure of reform, especially if it is some economic reform, that widows and orphans are interested in the maintenance of some hoary old abuse. We have been told to-night that the widow, and orphans, or in this case the poor labourers in this country, hold blocks of South African shares, and are interested in the maintenance of the interests of the South African millionaires.
    Sir J. REES: I said the industry, not the millionaires.
    Mr. BARNES: I can assure the hon. Member that that argument does not weigh very much with us, and if there are any workmen in this country holding blocks of shares in South African mines they are so infinitesimal in number that they should not figure, even in his mind, in this matter. The hon. Member rather misrepresented my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, because my hon. Friend did not admit that there was any danger in South Africa. On the contrary, he expressly denied the existence, so far as he has been able to ascertain the facts, of any sinister plot in South Africa. For instance, with regard to Johannesburg, he said there was nothing to indicate that a single line was in the possession of the syndicalists or the trade unionists. With reference to the speech of the Noble Lord, I should like to make mention of one or two facts, otherwise there might be on record a statement which appeared to pass unchallenged. He made merry at our expense, and said that we had brought forward this Amendment in a hypocritical spirit, which was proved by the. fact that while this Debate was proceeding a deputation from the Labour party had waited on the Prime Minister. As a matter of fact, nothing of the sort has taken place. It so happens that a deputation from a labour body outside this House altogether, with which we are more or less in harmonious relationship—I am not saying a word against them—a deputation arranged for a considerable time ago, was waiting upon the Prime Minister at this particular time this afternoon. We did
    422
    not arrange for it, and did not have anything at all to do with it. It has no relation to this subject, and the Noble Lord need not have dragged it in at all. Then the Noble Lord proceeded to make merry and pass some scathing observation on what he was pleased to call the contemptible character of the proceedings to-day, and he said that we went about making violent speeches outside, and therefore we now had to do something in this House and bring forward some Amendment of this sort in order to make those speeches good. The hon. Member (Mr. Eamsay Macdonald) said outside that the proper battle ground for fighting this thing out by the working people of South Africa was in their own Parliament, and therefore I think that did not lie against him, at all events, neither did it lie against any of us.
    Then the Noble Lord said that Lord Gladstone had only done what he was compelled to do, and that he had no option but to sign the declaration of martial law and the deportation of the, nine or ten men. That may be so. I do not think anybody on this side of the House, on these benches at all events, has said anything to the contrary. I can see no option which could present itself to Lord Gladstone's mind but to sign the declaration of martial law when presented to him by the responsible Ministers of South Africa. But he might have foreseen the trouble that subsequently led to the declaration of martial law, and might have constitutionally exercised his authority and advice in such a way as to prevent those troubles. After all, they did not start this year; they started last July by a strike, and on that occasion the military were brought in, and General Smuts, a week or two ago, paid a tribute to what he called the enormous assistance which the South African Government received last July from the British military. Is it not evident to anyone that that must have caused keen resentment on the part of men in South Africa, who felt, rightly or wrongly, that they, whilst struggling to be free, had been smashed by the. British military, paid for by the people of this country. Therefore there was that resentment, and I think something might have been done by Lord Gladstone or the Colonial Secretary, exercising their constitutional right of advice, to have given the trade unionists in South Africa an opportunity of so stating their case as to prevent the recurrence of the scenes that we have heard of

    423
    this year. On 24th July the hon. Member (Mr. Outhwaite) put some questions to the Colonial Secretary. He asked him if, through Lord Gladstone, he could not see his way to give a proper chance to the trade unionists of stating their case on a Commission which was then about to be set up. The Colonial Secretary refused. He was pressed over and over again subsequent to that by the hon. Member (Mr. Outhwaite), the hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), and the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie), and he turned a deaf ear to all their appeals. Therefore, while I admit that when it came to the point of signing, or otherwise, the declaration of martial law, there was no alternative, yet I think before that, either he or the Colonial Secretary, or both in combination, should have taken some steps by which the declaration of martial law could have been avoided.
    Then the Noble Lord had some philosophical observation to make to us of the Labour party on strikes—and I think he was supported by the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Rees)—on railways and other Government works, just the same as on works of a private character; and he indicated that in his opinion strikes ought to be made illegal, and would be made illegal in the event of the railways being nationalised, and therefore he was good enough to warn us against nationalisation. For our part we have no fear of that. We believe that, on the whole, when railways are nationalised they will result, not only in a more efficient service to the community, but better labour conditions for those who work the railways; and we believe that will be more so in this country when the working people have sense enough to send more of their own Members along here. Then he could not refrain from bringing in King Charles's head in the form of Home Rule and the position of Ulster, find he charged us with having no regard for the people of Ulster, and, as a matter of fact, if martial law were declared there, would we take the same stops that we are taking here? There is absolutely no parallel between Ireland and South Africa. You would still, in the event of Home Rule being passed, as it will pass, have Irish Members here, and you would still therefore have Irish public opinion represented here; and, moreover, it ought to be pointed out still further that when Home Rule for Ireland is passed, the Irish Parliament will have no power, as the
    424
    South African Parliament has, to set up a citizen army of their own, and therefore the parallel does not hold at all.
    Then he had a lot more philosophical remarks about liberty and the danger of bureaucracy which almost prompt me to exclaim, in the hackneyed quotation:—
    "Oh. Liberty! Liberty! how many crimes are committed in thy name!"
    It is all very well to declaim against bureaucracy, but, as a matter of fact, the Government is now taking more and more concern in industrial matters and all sorts of things connected with the people's lives, and that, it seems to me, is being forced upon the Government by economic conditions over which Governments have no control, and therefore it is idle to declaim against bureaucracy altogether. I associate myself to the full with the words of detestation which have been already uttered by my colleagues in regard to this matter. Apart altogether from the legal aspect of it, and from the question whether we have or have not the power to intervene, we surely: have the right, and ought to exercise it, of expressing ourselves strongly in regard to a matter which cuts so deeply, as I think, into human rights, and especially should we so express ourselves when those happenings have been within the British Empire and within an area governed under the terms of a Constitution granted to it only some five or six years ago. When one reads of what has been done during the last few weeks one's mind is almost turned to the attention of some semi-civilised country or some autocratic country like Russia. We have heard of men being held up and liable to be shot at sight simply for being in the vicinity of certain buildings. We have heard of men being told they must be indoors by eight o'clock at night under danger of being shot. We have heard of men being deprived of the ordinary right of meeting together and discussing things of common interest to them. We have heard of men, even being liable to be shot by any uniformed jackanapes who came along. We have heard, further, of people being denied the right to strike, which simply means reducing them to terms of slavery. I think we are justified in expressing ourselves strongly at things of that sort going on under the British flag, under the sanction, and with the connivance, of Lord Gladstone, our own representative in South Africa, the son of an illustrious sire

    425
    who did so much to uphold liberty in all parts of the world, and not only in the British Dominions. Martial law, and the deportation of these nine men, it seems to me, constitute a denial of the civil rights of men in South Africa, and constitute a danger to the civil rights of men here. In fact, I think it indicates, along with a lot more things which are taking place, that we are face to face with one of the greatest dangers that have yet confronted industrial democracy. We are face to face with this, that Governments everywhere are more disposed than ever they were before to apply force against their critics or, at all events, to apply force in order to stamp out those, movements which are troublesome to them.
    They will not stop with labour. There will be other people concerned in these things besides labour and, therefore, there is a volume of indignation in this country arising at the present time, and which I venture to say will grow within the next few weeks or so into a volume unparalleled my time. It is being met in advance by two replies: First of all, it is said by some people, "Serve them right. We want a Botha here." If that is not said in words, it is said in deeds by some people. In the second place, it is sometimes said, "It has nothing to do with us." In regard to the first answer, there is no good arguing with people who talk in that way, for to their mind and conscience freedom has no meaning and human rights have no value at all. There always have been folks in this country who have been against all measures of civil, religious, or political freedom, and I suppose there always will be. There have always been folks in this country who have been against any measure tending to the uplifting of the common people, and who indeed regard the common people as persons providentially provided to do the fetching and carrying. With these I have nothing to do, I simply give them up. But there are others who think it has nothing at all to do with us, and who plead Home Rule. I admit, quite frankly, that Home Rule has its implications, but surely the British Empire also has its implications. I would ask these people: Do local rights in any part of the British Empire override the implication that there is in the Empire some minimum of civilised government, and some minimum of civil right, for the people who live in the British Empire? I have never endorsed the principle that folks in distant climes over
    426
    the sea whom we protect with an immense army and navy for which we pay can do absolutely as they like. When this particular Constitution was set up, some five or six years ago, under which these deeds have been done, I moved an Amendment in regard to the franchise in which I expressed that opinion. We went to war with the Boers thirteen years ago, because of some alleged, and as I believe fanciful, grievances on the part of so-called Uitlanders, and I am not going to fold my arms and say nothing about the crimes committed by the self-same Boers.
    I have read the speech made by General Smuts in the Parliament of South Africa, and I cannot see anything in it, except generalities. He says that there are among those who have been deported men who have been convicted of offences. It seems to me that that is the strong condemnation of what has been done. General Smuts denounced one of these men as the most desperate character he had ever met. One would think that if that is so, that is just the sort of man any common-sense intelligent jury would have clapped in gaol. Therefore, to say that those men are such desperate men and such well-known bad characters is to admit that if there was a case against them they could have been taken into the Courts in South Africa where the offences were committed. It is easy to make general charges. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is thought to be a desperate character by some landlords who are opposed to him, and I am perfectly sure that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) is considered by some people not only a desperate character but a man who ought to be shot at sight. The real trouble does not arise in the character of the deported leaders, but in the conditions of labour in South Africa. I absolutely agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite), that if it meant those conditions of labour on the one hand, or letting South Africa be cut off from the British Empire altogether, I should choose the latter as the lesser of the two evils. If half of what has been said about the conditions of labour in South Africa is true, if half of what is alleged by the hon. Member for Hanley is true, then the agitation was not only justifiable, but a strike in South Africa was a manifest duty on the part of the men there.
    I read the other day that on the railways there 3s., 4s., and 5s. a day were

    427
    the wages of hundreds and thousands of men, while the cost of living there is nearly double what it is here. I read also that there were some 300 or 400 men being discharged from the mines, that blacks were being substituted, and that at a time when we are told that the small number of whites constitute a danger to the community there. These are the causes which have led up to the events in South Africa. They will not be cured by force, by turning the Army against the men, or by deporting the leaders who are endeavouring as best they can to voice the grievances of the South African workers. I am not going to say anything to lead to the belief that I support what has been said of the deported leaders. Neither shall I stand up for anything in the nature of revolt against the State. At all events, so far as I am concerned, I am not going to support anyone leading an insurrectionary movement against the State as the State. But we do protest against the State being manipulated by international financiers without the slightest regard for human freedom or liberty. I am going to vote for this Amendment, because by it we declare that, at all events, there should be time given, and that this Indemnity Bill should be held up until such time as we get full information about it, and until such time as we can deal with the whole facts of the matter with knowledge, with statesmanship, and, as I should hope, with sympathy.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: I wish to state the reasons why I cannot support the Amendment. I believe that, from the point of view of South Africa, the adoption of the Amendment might do a great deal of harm between us and South Africa.
    If it were possible to carry this Amendment it would surely mean that the Indemnity Bill would be held up, and. martial law would not be withdrawn from. South Africa for some time, possibly for months. The Amendment itself stultifies the position of the hon. Member and shows that the position in South Africa is entirely misunderstood. At the time of the deportations, when the hon. Member and other Members with him were referring to this matter, I happened to meet a gentleman, from South Africa, and he asked me was it possible that any of these hon. Members had been in South Africa and knew its conditions? It is impossible to argue this matter from the English point of view. The Government there has not got behind it that reserve which the Government here has got, and, if they had allowed that particular trouble to grow, perhaps in another twenty-four hours it would have got beyond their control. This Debate has-been carried on in a manner at which South Africa could not feel umbrage, and in that respect it is quite different from some of the speeches delivered by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and others at Glasgow. But a Division, I believe, would have a bad effect, and I hope that even now the Labour party will see fit not to divide the House. They are judging solely on the telegrams that have been received. They do not even yet know what has happened. This Debate merely means a pin-prick to the people of South Africa. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will see fit not to divide the House.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The House divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 214.

    Division No. 2.]

    AYES.

    [8.40 p.m.

    Adamson, William

    Goldstone, Frank

    Snowden, Philips

    Alden, Percy

    Hancock, John George

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Barnes, George N.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Barton, William

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

    Thomas, James Henry

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hudson, Walter

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Wardle, George J.

    Brace, William

    Johnson, W.

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Clynes, John R.

    Macdonald. J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Crooks, William

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Raffan, peter Wilson

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Gill, A. H.

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

    George Roberts and Mr. Pointer.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Doherty, Philip

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

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen)

    O'Dowd, John

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Henry, Sir Charles

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

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

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

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Malley, William

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Hinds, John

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

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Shee, James John

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Boland, John Pius

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Joyce, Michael

    Pringle. William M. R.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Keating, Matthew

    Radford, George Heynes

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Kelly, Edward

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Clough, Willam

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

    Reddy, Michael

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Cullinan, John

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Russell. Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

    Mocnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Delany, William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Steehy, David

    Dillon, John

    M'Kean, John

    Shortt, Edward

    Donelan, Captain A.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Doris, William

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Duffy, William J.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Taylor. Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Tennant, Harold John

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Falconer, James

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Millar, James Duncan

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Molloy, Michael

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Field, William

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Waring, Walter

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Mooney, John J.

    Webb, H.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Morgan, George Hay

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morison, Hector

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

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    White. Patrick (Meath, North)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Munro, Robert

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

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

    Nannetti, Joseph

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Gulland, John William

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Hackett, John

    Nolan, Joseph

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nuttail, Harry

    Illingworth and Mr. W. Jones.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Main Question again proposed.

    MINE AND RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
    Another Amendment proposed—at the end of the Question to add the words,
    430
    "But humbly regrets that no mention is made in Your Majesty's Gracious Speech of the serious and increasing number of accidents in mines and on railways, and that no action for dealing therewith is promised."
    Mr. BRACE: In rising to move this Amendment I would have the House to believe that our expression of regret that no mention is made in the Gracious Speech from the Throne of the terrible increase in mining accidents, and the increase of railway accidents in this country, must not be taken as mere empty language. In view of the accident at Senghenydd, a tragedy that swept nearly 440 men and boys into eternity, in addition to the terrible and tragic record of the number of men and boys killed in the mines of the United Kingdom in 1913, it would be an unpardonable dereliction on the part of the Labour party in general, and miners' Members in particular, if they allowed this House to meet without raising, at the earliest opportunity, the great case which stands for reform in the Regulations under the Mines Act. When I look round the House I notice from the attendance on the opposite benches—[Mr. BOOTH: "Where are they with their rights of property?"]— that there cannot be that real interest in their consideration of the welfare of the people which they sometimes would lead this House and country to suppose. The record for 1913 shows a death-rate far and above any death-rate in the United Kingdom since Britain has been a coal producing country. To say the least, that is not creditable to civilisation. It is not creditable to this scientific age, an age of science that has brought the Far East to be near neighbours to the West, that it should presumably be helpless to devise ways and means for making mining life less dangerous to men and boys than it is.
    I would like to found my ease upon the records, and for that purpose I would beg leave to quote from a Return just issued from the Home Office by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. According to this Return, under the heading of "Explosions of firedamp or coal dust," 461 men and boys were killed in the mines of the United Kingdom in 1913. Out of that number, in the particular coalfield which I represent, South Wales and Monmouthshire, 450 were killed. Under the heading of "Falls of ground," which means falls of roof and sides, 614 were killed. I regret that South Wales is at the head of that Return, with 157 men and boys killed. Under the heading of "Miscellaneous accidents," 400 were killed, and I regret again to say that South Wales presents a record there of 122, heading the list far in advance of Scotland, which had 73 men and boys whose lives were taken away. When I turn even to the number
    432
    of men and boys killed on the surface of the collieries, I find that the highest number killed in any coalfield had only one more killed than had the surface of the collieries in South Wales and Monmouthshire. I stand aghast at that record, and I am affrighted at the appalling wastage of human life in 1913 in the mines of the United Kingdom. We killed no less than 1,742 men and boys in and about the collieries. It is a state of affairs disgraceful to our civilisation.
    This House of Commons numbers 670 Members. If every man in this House of Commons lost his life, and a new House of Commons were elected, and all the men in the new House of Commons lost their lives, the total would still fall short of the number of men and boys who were killed in the mines of the Kingdom in 1913. This ought to cease. It must cease, and if this House cannot find a way of putting an end to the devastation of miners' homes, we must try some other method, because we have made up our minds not to tolerate a condition of affairs such as this, which is compelling the loss of breadwinners of the homes, not only by hundreds but by thousands. Senghenydd is in the peculiar position of having had an inquest, and is now being subjected to a Home Office inquiry. Not only do I make no complaint of that, but I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary upon giving it to us, on appeal being made to him by the Executive Council of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. But I feel myself somewhat handicapped for dealing with Senghenydd in its full sense, because of the Home Office inquiry not having given its report. But sufficient transpired at the inquest to entitle me to say that the Coal Mines Regulation Act is not being carried out. It is very fashionable to say that the miners do not carry out the rules and regulations, but for a surely the managing people do not carry them out, and, what is even more staggering to me, the Home Office representatives do not carry them out. I submit the proposition to this House, that the Home Office is under solemn obligation not to ask this House to pass safety regulations unless it sees itself in the position through its own staff of carrying out those safety regulations. I turn to the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and I find that Section 29 provides:—
    "An adequate amount of ventilation shall be constantly produced in every mine to dilute and render harmless inflammable and noxious gases to such an

    433
    extent that all shafts, roads, levels, stables, and workings of the mine shall be in a fit state for working and passing therein, and in particular, that the intake airways up to within one hundred yards of the first working place at the working face where the air enters shall be normally kept free from inflammable gas."
    And Sub-section (3) of the same Section provides:—
    "For the purposes of this Section a place shall not be deemed to be in a fit state for working or passing therein if the air contains either less than nineteen per cent, of oxygen or more than one and a quarter per cent, of carbon dioxide, and an intake airway shall not be deemed to be normally kept free from inflammable gas if the average percentage of inflammable gas found in six samples of air taken by an inspector in the air current in that airway at intervals of not less than a fortnight exceeds one quarter."
    The House will observe that the only authority created by this House for carrying out that Section is the Mines Inspector. At the coroner's inquest the Mines Inspector was compelled to say, in reply to a question, that he had not carried out Section 29. May I be permitted to say that I make no charge of incapacity against the staff of the inspectors in the Home Office. To my knowledge they are men of very great capacity and high scientific knowledge, and, I thoroughly believe, with the desire to do their duty. But they have been unable to do their duty, because the staff is wholly inadequate for the great responsibilities that are placed on their shoulders. It will be observed that under Section 29, which provides for determining whether a mine is safe or not, unless the inspector has made that examination, and no one can do it for him, then it is impossible for him to say whether the mine, is safe or not. The question was put direct to the inspector as to whether he had made that examination in Senghenydd Colliery, and he said no. I am, therefore, compelled to call attention to this fact, that it is impossible for anybody to declare that a colliery like Senghenydd, which had an explosion killing eighty-one out of eighty-two men in 1901, I think, and an explosion killing 439 men last year, was unsafe, because the test had not been taken. I, therefore, submit the very serious proposition that if the staff was not sufficiently numerous for the
    434
    carrying out of this solemn safety obligation, then my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should have come to this House so as to have a staff created for the purpose of carrying out these particular regulations on which the men were relying for the safety of their lives and of their limbs. Section 32 provides that
    "No lamp or light other than a locked safety lamp shall be allowed or used.

    (a) in any seam where the air current in the return air-way from any ventilating district in the seam is found normally to contain more than one-half per cent, of inflammable gas;

    Sub-section (4) of the same Section 32 says:
    "The average percentage of inflammable gas found in six samples of air taken by an inspector in the air current in the return airway in the ventilating district at intervals of not less than a fortnight, shall for the purposes of this Section be deemed to be the percentage normally contained in the air."
    9. 0 P. M.
    It will, therefore, be observed that Section 32 is vitally important and in direct and close relationship with Section 29, and that it is only if samples are taken under Section 29 that the inspector can know whether a colliery is a fit colliery to have a naked lamp. The sample was not taken, and consequently no one can say whether the Senghenydd Colliery, which killed 439 men, was a colliery that ought to have a naked light. According to the theory advanced by mining experts, that explosion was caused by gas reaching a naked light in a lamp station or locking station underground. I may therefore submit this proposition, that in addition to this Section the Home Office ought to have asked for a, staff sufficiently adequate to have carried out those solemn obligations.under Sections 29 and 32, which were to determine whether a mine was safe or not. In Section 62 it is provided:
    "In every mine, unless the floor, roof, and sides of the roads are naturally wet throughout,
    (2) The tubs shall be so constructed and maintained as to prevent as far as practicable coal - dust escaping through the sides, ends, or floor of the tubs, but any tub which was in use in any mine at the date of the

    435
    passing of this Act may, notwithstanding that it is not so constructed, continue to be used in that mine for a period of five years from the said date."
    Why five years? Everybody knows that the two main elements in explosions are gas and coal-dust. Everybody who is acquainted with the science of mining knows that the greatest creative agency of coal-dust is from the trams, that is, from our system of raising the coal above the tram a foot or two feet, which allows an enormous volume of air to blow upon that coal, and, despite the fact that coal may be watered before it leaves the inner working, very fine particles of coal-dust are driven from off the coal and lodge upon the sides and roof, thereby creating a terrible danger to life and limb. I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ask this House to agree to delete that Section, and not to wait for five years, but to have the question of the trams dealt with, and to see that the trams or tubs shall be dust proof, if necessary, with a top on the tram closing in the coal, so that even when it meets an air velocity of a 150,000 or 200,000 cubic feet per minute, that it shall be in a condition not to have any dust scattered from the coal that is in the tram, thus creating this terrible danger of which I am speaking. Gas may be the first cause of an explosion, but the most devastating agency in a mine is coal-dust, because, it may be from a naked light, it may be from the sparking of electric signalling wires, it may be from the flashes of stones striking together as they fall from the roof, that the gas is ignited; but it is the gas lighting up the coal-dust and finding an agency to feed upon that has made these latter-day explosions of so terrible a character. Therefore. I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel that he ought to ask the House of Commons to delete that Section. The coalowners ought not to have five years to alter their system of trains or tubs, and to substitute for the present system tubs which will prevent coal-dust accumulating on the roof and sides. Sub-section (3) says:—
    "The floor, roof, and sides of the roads shall be systematically cleared so as to prevent, as far as practicable, coal-dust accumulating."
    That is a direct Section calling for the floors and sides t be cleaned- The House will be startled to know that at Seng-
    436
    henydd they did not clear the roof and sides. I am not disposed to controvert the statement that the use of water upon certain kinds of strata may have an effect. I think it does. But this Section says that the floor and sides of the roads shall be systematically cleared so as to prevent coal-dust accumulating. The words "so far as practicable" have been taken in these circumstances to mean that if water cannot be used, the owners are under no obligation to do that. Why did not the Mines Inspector point out that the words "so far as practicable" meant that if they did not remove the whole of the dust, they ought to make an attempt to remove some of it, so as to reduce, if not destroy altogether, the terrible danger of coal-dust in mines? I come now to a much more serious charge. Sub-section (4)' says:—
    "Such systematic steps, either by way of watering or otherwise, as may belaid down by the regulations in the mine, shall be taken to prevent explosions of coal-dust occurring or being carried along the roads."
    This Act of Parliament was passed in 1911; it came into operation in July, 1912. We are now in January, 1914, but the Home Office have not yet issued Regulations to make possible the putting into operation of that Sub-section. I am not unmindful of the fact that there have been Home Office Committees dealing with the question of stone-dust as a nullifying influence upon the explosive character of coal-dust; but surely something ought to have been done between July, 1912, and January, 1914, to have made possible the putting into operation of this Sub-section! It is because we feel that this awful wastage in human life not only ought to, but must, cease, that we are using this first opportunity of calling the attention of Parliament to the tragedy in miners' lives in the hope that something drastic will be done. My right hon. Friend will doubtless carry out his promise of last Session to introduce a Bill. The House will remember that practically the last question affecting miners last Session dealt with the terrible calamity at the Cadeby Colliery, and my right hon. Friend promised to introduce a Bill this Session. I beg him not to content himself with simply correcting what was found to be wrong in the Cadeby disaster, but to draft on to his proposed Bill a series of drastic Amendments which will give our men a fighting chance for their lives when

    437
    they go into the pit to win what, after all, is the great source of this nation's wealth. We propose that all trains shall be dustproof, and not filled higher than the top level, so as to admit of a cover. We propose that the firemen shall be paid by the State, but that the workmen shall have the right of the appointment and control of colliery firemen, and that they be prohibited from performing any other duties than attending to the safety of the mine. Everybody knows that firemen are the safety agents of the mine. They are the men who look after the gas; they are the men who have to search the roof and sides for dangers; they are the men who have to instruct and guide the workmen in the timbering. We feel that men holding so important a position from the point of view of safety ought not to be in the control of the employer. We feel that they ought to be paid by the State, so that they may have an independent status. We feel that we ought to have the right to elect them, because we have more at stake than anybody else. The employer or owner suffers a serious and tremendous loss by an explosion, but his loss pales into insignificance when compared with the loss of a man whose life is taken. Therefore we feel that the men who risk their lives and limbs ought to be the people to elect the men who will be their safety agents.
    On behalf of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain I make the proposition that the State should pay the firemen, and that they should be elected by the workmen. We propose that it be made compulsory to completely fill up or stow all gob waste, overhead vacancies, and disused working places. In some collieries of a fiery character you must have gas, but if you have no holes or vacancies where the gas can lodge you can reduce that danger very substantially. When you have vacancies either over the timber or in the wastes, you simply have gasometers holding large bodies of gas, waiting for an explosion to come along and to go to the furthermost ends of the mines, killing everybody in the area. We further propose that overhead rollers or sheaves be prohibited. By overhead sheaves we mean sheaves attached to the timber. The gas will accumulate near the roof. Underground haulage works at a very great speed, and it is by no means uncommon for the rope working over these sheaves to find itself on the flange of the sheaves, and the sheaves not turning, they come in
    438
    contact with the rope and create friction which will cause a flash of fire. We say that it is inviting a disaster to have these sheaves up under the collars, for if any gas is near that area at all, it is just there. We therefore say that no sheaves ought to be permitted to be attached to the roof in. the sense that they are at the present time. We propose the total abolition of the use of any inflammable or combustible material in the construction of intake airways. This should be very carefully looked after.
    When I went down Senghenydd after the explosion I was convinced without further-argument not only of the practicability, but of the absolute necessity of such a provision as I have read to the House, because the explosion was enabled to spread and to feed upon itself there in a very terrible manner. We also propose there should be a general use of electric lamps in mines where lamps are to be used, but that gas-testing lamps should be available for use in other places. The great drawback to the miner is his lack of a light to defend himself. The oil lamp at best is but a very small light. When I turn to this record I find that, despite the terrible explosion at Senghenydd, more men were killed by falls of the roofs and sides than by the terrible explosion. Therefore, while we are addressing our minds to the gas and coal-dust problem, we must not forget the even greater problem of the miner's failure to protect himself from these falls of the roofs and sides. We believe a better light will be of enormous value to him for this purpose, but the electric lamp, has this drawback: while it does give a better light—I have been using it quite recently—but it fails to discover the gas. I was with my colleagues in an exploring party down Senghenydd. I had an electric light myself, though I was very careful to see that in the party I was with there was an oil lamp by which we might discover the gas, if any. The weakness of the electric lamp is it will not discover gas. A man may be working in the gas with the? electric lamp and not discover it till it is too late. We want to equip the miner with the electric lamp the better to protect himself from falls of the roofs and sides, while on the other hand we must give him an oil lamp so as to keep hint from working in a dangerous gassy place. We think there ought to be no trouble under this head.
    We say, too, that the number of His Majesty's inspectors of mines should be-

    439
    increased. I think I have shown to the House that there is substantial ground for.asking for this increase, so that at least a monthly inspection, of all collieries may take place. We also ask that the reports of the inspectors' examinations of the collieries should be posted at the pit-head. The inspectors, we advocate, should be elected by the workmen, and paid by the State. Why do I say that at least one inspection per month should take place? Mines are peculiar to themselves. You may have in one place 99 per cent, of the area in a perfect condition, but there may be a bad pitch which covers the remaining 1 per cent. That 1 per cent, is sufficient? to destroy a mine, to devastate a village, and to wipe out whole families. If inspection is the right thing, then it must be a proper inspection. There is no proper inspection now. The inspectors are unable to do their work. They go to a colliery and they inspect by sample. I do not know what principle they work on. I have tried to find out and cannot. All I know is that they do not inspect the whole colliery at a given inspection. They may take the East district—if they find the East district in a good condition, then the colliery is in a good condition. It is suicidal to discuss questions of safety, and to adopt the principle of safety in mines upon any such basis. It is only by the most careful examination of every part of the mine, and of the working part, and of the whole of the workings that any inspector can come to a conclusion as to what is the condition of that mine. At present I say it is asking the workmen to live in a fool's paradise.
    Speaking for myself, I would infinitely prefer to have no inspection than one of that character, because then we would rely more upon ourselves. We say that the United Kingdom should be divided up, so far as the coalfields are concerned, so as to ensure inspections of not less than one per month per colliery. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will say that the inspectors have been working on inspection so many days, and that collieries have been visited so many times. It is no use talking about inspection in days; you must talk inspection in hours. By the time the inspector leaves his residence and gets to the collieries a long way up the valley —and I hope the House will remember that they do not travel at express speed up these mining valleys—having examined
    440
    the plans, and read the firemen's reports, a substantial portion of i he working day of the inspector is gone, and therefore it is only three or four hours that he will have underground. The inspectors should be placed in such a geographical position that they will give practically the whole of their time to the real work for which they have been appointed. We suggest that there should be one inspector employed by the State for every 5,000 workmen. For the whole of the United Kingdom that would cost £40,000, giving each man £200. We heard to-day at Question-time that £35,000 can be spent—or rather can be wasted—in training the British Navy to shoot. If the nation can afford to spend £35,000 upon teaching the Navy to shoot, it surely can afford to pay £40,000 to keep men alive! I am making the proposition in all seriousness, because I think it is a practical proposition. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way clear to worry the Chancellor of the Exchequer until he gets permission to increase the inspectorate on the lines I have ventured to submit to the House. We say no small coal should be stored or kept in the mine, but, that all coal produced should be sent out at once. Everybody knows, who has explored after an explosion, that when the fire comes up it feeds upon the small coal stored in the mines. If that small coal was not there, it would not have feeding material; therefore, from the safety standpoint, all the small coal ought to be brought out, and from the national economic point, it ought to be brought out, because of the great wastage of national resources which it is to leave it there. I will not argue that point now.
    I submit that it should be a statutory obligation upon the employer that he should bring out the small coal, leaving nothing for the fire to feed upon in case of an explosion. I am afraid mining must always be treated as a dangerous industry, therefore, we must make provision against disaster, and upon that basis I make the proposition that emergency safety doors should be erected in the main intake ways, as near the working face as practicable. Everybody knows that when the fire is gone, and the explosion has burst, the ventilating doors are swept out. The first thing the men have to do who have to explore after an explosion is to replace those doors. We say those doors ought to be built back of a material that would resist fire and force, so that all

    441
    the explorers would then have to do? would be to use those emergency doors, thereby making a short cut to the inner works to secure life in a disaster; and what is equally important, or perhaps more important, it would give the entombed men a chance of using those doors for their own defence. The cost is infinitesimal, but if the cost was of substantial dimensions, founding myself upon the records I read in this House, I would be entitled to ask my right hon. Friend to make it a statutory obligation on the coal owners that these emergency doors should be in the in-take, as near the working face as possible.
    We say that no haulage of coal ought to be permitted in the return airway. If there is gas at all, it is in the return airway. If there is a charge current it is in the return airway. At Senghenydd there was haulage in the return airway with an electric signalling apparatus. Later on I will deal with this when we have the Home Office reports; it is enough now for me to say that I am stating facts which are not controverted. We say it is too dangerous a system of haulage to have haulage in the return airway, working with ropes. We therefore propose that there should be a statutory obligation upon the coal owners that there should be no haulage system in the return airway. We further propose that the workmen should be given the right to institute prosecutions against the colliery management for any breach of rules in the same manner as the management have the right to prosecute the workman. I was looking at the returns for last year—they state that 1,000 workmen had been prosecuted, while there were only about 44 prosecutions against the management. Let us have the opportunity of bringing prosecutions against the management when we see that they are not carrying out their obligations. If the manager personally breaks these rules we may take action, but we cannot take action for violation of the rules unless we can bring a personal charge home to the manager. We say we ought to have the same right to prosecute the company where the rules and regulations are not carried out, and that the workmen should have the full opportunity of going to the Courts and of bringing charges without consulting the inspector. Under the provisions of this Act, if we believe that the management of a particular colliery has been guilty of a violation of the rules and regulations, we must report it to the inspector, and the
    442
    inspector is created under this Act of. Parliament the authority to determine whether the case shall go forward or not. Whether we get a conviction or not we believe that the right to prosecute would have-a very substantial check upon violation of the rules and regulations, such as we have not got at the present time. We ask the-same opportunity as workmen against the employer as they enjoy against the workmen at the present time, and that in all cases where practicable the endless rope-haulage system should be enforced in. place of the main and tail rope system. We propose that because the main and tail rope system sets up a volume of dust which the endless system does not. In addition to that, men get a chance of. getting out of the way; this haulage system is continuous but slow. I find under the Miscellaneous Underground Section that in South Wales we had killed last year no less than eighty-one. We therefore think that the system of haulage by the endless system is a safer method than the main and tail, and if it is we are entitled to ask this House to give us such protection as we do not enjoy to-day under the rules and regulations. We believe that it ought to be made compulsory to provide water zones—complete portions of roadway saturated with water —in all the in-take returns of the working district. The great thing is to localise the explosion. We cannot stop the lighting of gas, perhaps, or the lighting of coal, dust, but we can localise the explosion by the creation of water zones of sufficient dimensions which will prevent the fire getting over the gap that would be created. Water zones made of arch and roof and' sides which will allow water to be contained without any danger to the structure. I submit these proposals on behalf of the Federation, because we believe that something practical ought to be done to meet this case. The fact that 1,742 men and boys were killed demands special treatment. We ask this House to forget altogether the cost, and to think only of safety. If they will forget, altogether about the cost and think only of safety we shall have rules and regulations which will give us in 1914 an entirely different record to what we have got here.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: May I ask my hon. Friend to give the House one further figure, namely, the number of men killed last year in the mines of this country owing to the use of naked lights, which he and his friends uphold.
    Mr. BRACE: I am a safety-light man myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Adamson) will speak upon that subject, and I think he will be able to answer the hon. Baronet. May I be allowed to say to my hon. Friend if naked lights are a danger they must go. I am standing here for safety. When I saw the mangled remains of my fellow workmen in that pit I entered into a solemn vow.and covenant with myself not to rest until we have entirely different conditions from what we have to-day, and it is because we believe that this terrible and tragic record demands drastic treatment that we have moved this Amendment to the Address. When we read the King's Speech and found no mention of proposals for amending the Coal Mines Regulation Act and the regulations to check this appalling destruction in human life, we were grieved to our very hearts. It is with a view of giving the Government and the Home Secretary an opportunity of putting right what was left out of the King's Speech that I have moved this Amendment.
    Mr. WARDLE: I beg to second the Amendment, and I associate myself with all that my hon. Friend has said about the mines of this country. No one who has listened to him, or has any knowledge of the facts, can deny that it is an appalling record, which demands the immediate attention of the House. If it be true, as it is, that probably in regard to the dramatic suddenness with which sometimes people are hurled into eternity in mines, that public attention is most strikingly drawn to mines, it is nevertheless a fact that with regard to the railways of the country there is going on slowly but surely perhaps not an equal but certainly an appalling death rate, so far as fatalities are concerned, and the injuries are still more appalling. Therefore, while we associate ourselves with our colleagues who are putting forward the case of the underground worker, we on our part today desire to draw the attention of the House to the case of the men who work upon the railways of this country.
    A year or two ago, particularly during the year 1912–13, the question of the railways and public safety was brought prominently to the attention of the public, because of certain appalling accidents, terrible in their nature, which affected the general public. Now we quite recognise that anything of that nature which affects the public of the country is certain to produce an effect upon the public mind, far
    444
    more intensely than the constant but certain death and injury which occurs to employes upon our railways. I do not deny for a single moment that many of those accidents which occurred, and which will probably be alluded to in greater detail later on, afford some ground for public alarm with regard to the safety of the public on the railways. I do not deny that that seems to imply that there was something going on upon the railways of this country perhaps difficult to explain, but certainly having an effect upon public safety, as well as upon the safety of the men. As in this matter the public are equally interested with regard to safety as well as the men, I hope it will not be difficult to convince this House that the time has come for a drastic inquiry into the question of safety upon the railways of the country. I recognise that at the present moment it is somewhat difficult to bring an indictment against the Board of Trade without seeming to imply that there may be some difference between the old regime and the new. May I say we have no desire to make any such charge.
    We welcome the new President of the Board of Trade, because we believe he has the opportunity of his life, which we hope he will rise to. He himself in days gone by has written and spoken eloquently upon the subject of safety on the railways, and we hope he will now redeem some of the propositions which he himself put forward, and, if he does, we shall be more than grateful. The public has undoubtedly become alarmed with regard to the question of safety, so far as it affects this problem. They were more alarmed a year or two ago than they are to-day, because the public soon forgets. We cannot afford to forget that all the time there is going on this loss of human life which has been referred to. I understand that some of the inquiries into these accidents made by the Board of Trade inspectors seem to indicate that the new spirit of hustle upon our railways is having some effect upon the minds of the men, and it may be that that bustle and the conditions under which the men are working under the control system of many of our railways is producing an effect upon the men which is acting as a deterrent and helps to take them away from their work. If it be true that the conditions under which the men are constantly working has that effect, then we say that we have got to get behind those working conditions and

    445
    see that they are altered, so that the minds of the men are clear and their working conditions are such that they shall be comfortable in their work and fully able to? discharge the duties which they have to perform.
    Like my hon. Friend who has just spoken, our case is that the Board of Trade, first of all, have certain powers under various Acts of Parliament which they are not exercising to the full; and, secondly, that those powers are not nearly sufficient for the growing complexity and for the position as it exists to-day. With regard to their powers, the Board of Trade, it is true, have inspectors appointed under the Act of 1871 to inquire into an accident after it has happened, but we hold that they have the power to inquire into accidents before they happen, and they have never put that power into operation. We think that many of the dangers which occurred upon our railways, if they were properly inquired into before accidents did happen, would be rendered impossible. Further, they have the power to bring in the presence of a trade union official. The carrying out of the rules and regulations on the railways is exactly in like case with the carrying out of the rules and regulations in mines. The rules and regulations on the railways are mainly made by the railway companies themselves. The Board of Trade has no power, or very little power, over the making of those rules and regulations. Many of them are entirely the product of the railway companies, and they seem to ignore them when they like, to break them when they like, and in some instances to instruct some of their officials to break them when they like—or, at least, if it does not go to the point of destruction, it certainly goes to the point of ignoring the rules and regulations which they themselves have made. I do not want again at this time of day to raise the question of Guard Richardson in all its significance, but anyone who remembers that case will remember that Guard Richardson was a man actually discharged For refusing to break the rules and regulations which the company itself had laid down for safety, and it was not until there was a great public agitation that he was reinstated in his position.
    I want to say frankly that, so far as the number of fatal accidents is concerned, it is not nearly so great now as it was some years ago, and for that we are extremely grateful, but it is still sufficiently serious
    446
    to warrant us in drawing attention to it and in asking that it should be still further brought down. It will be remembered that an Act was passed in 1900 for the prevention of accidents to railwaymen. In 1900 the fatal accidents to railwaymen numbered 631, and the number injured was 15,698. After the adoption of that Act there was for some time a fairly steady diminution in the number of fatal accidents, until in the year 1909 it had been reduced to 372. But whilst there was n. diminution in the number of fatal accidents, the number of non-fatal accidents had risen from 15,698 in 1900 to 25,137 in 1910. Further, if we take the year 1912, the number of non-fatal accidents on our railways had risen to the enormous total of 27,947. It may be said that many of these non-fatal accidents are merely minor injuries, and that a number of them do not occasion absence from work for any great length of time; but, as a matter of fact, more than two-thirds of these accidents cause men to be off work for more than three weeks, and the amount of maiming of men upon the railways is something terrific and terrible. In some cases these men had almost far better lose their lives than have to live in the mangled and crippled condition in which they are left after these accidents. It is really an appalling state of things to which we have to draw attention, and we think that it is a great mistake to attempt, to minimise the seriousness of a large number of these non-fatal accidents.
    The railways have probably done more to maim, to injure, and to cripple men in this country, than any other agency whatsoever, and we venture to draw attention to this matter therefore as one which demands the serious attention of the Board of Trade, and one which demands that an inquiry into these accidents should take place. Under the Act of 1900 certain rules had to be laid down by the Board of Trade, and one of the points which was covered was the question of an either-side brake. Will it be believed that although this Act was passed in 1900, there is no either-side brake in full operation upon our railways to-day? It took several years before the rule could be brought into operation at all. It was fought before the Railway and Canal Commission time after time, and even now, I believe, there are several kinds of either-side brakes instead of one uniform kind upon all the railways in the country. It will be seen that the necessity for an either-side brake arises from the fact that when men are

    447
    coupling and uncoupling waggons in the shunting yards of our country, they have often, because there is no brake on one side, to go over to the other side in order to put on the brake, and in so doing they run an exceedingly grave risk either to their lives or to their limbs. If the full story of the bringing into operation of an either-side brake were to be told to this House it would be seen that when we ask that the Board of Trade should have much more drastic powers of making and enforcing rules and regulations, we are not putting forward any case which is unreasonable or extravagant. We ask to-night that the Board of Trade should do something, and that they should first of all have an inquiry into the working of the Act of 1900, specially with regard to the question of non-fatal accidents, that that inquiry shall be put into operation as early as possible and that the Commissioners shall report at the earliest possible moment. We want an amending Act. We want the Board of Trade to have the power that it does not now possess of making inquiry, so as to prevent accidents happening; we want it to have the power to make rules and regulations which will prevent accidents happening. Further than that, we think the number of inspectors should be increased, and that the inspectors should have more drastic powers than they now possess. I therefore, on behalf of my colleagues, beg to second this Amendment.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Amendment which has been so forcibly moved and seconded affects two of the greatest industries in the country. It so happens that the responsibility for the execution of the Acts dealing with safety in mines rests with one department of the State, while the responsibility for dealing with the railways is with a different department, and, therefore, it will be necessary for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to reply to this Motion so far as it affects railways, while I will endeavour to reply to the specific case of the mines raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Glamorgan. My hon. Friend made a very powerful speech on a subject in which he is bound to receive the full sympathy of the House. I find myself in great difficulty, in fact, in replying to him. When he recalls to our memory the terrible disaster at Sengenhydd, and bases on that
    448
    disaster a demand for further security for miners, he is bound to receive instantly the sympathy of everyone who listens to him. It is difficult for me to reply to a Motion of this kind without seeming to belittle the danger, hardship, and disaster of accidents of this kind, and I hope my hon. Friend will understand that when I reply to him as I do now, I am only defending the action of the Government for what the Government is responsible, and that I am not for one moment belittling the duty which is thrown on the Government or the necessity that such a duty should be thrown on the Government, to take every possible means of avoiding accidents in mines. My hon. Friend had only to remind the House of the total number of fatal accidents during last year above ground and underground —in all no less than 1,742–and instantly we agreed with him no steps should be left untrod if by any means we can secure a reduction of this gigantic and formidable total.
    10.0 P.M.
    But I am bound to remind the House that there is another side to this question. We have had several great Coal Mines Acts passed by this House for the purpose of securing safety in mines. The first I will refer to was in 1872–there were others before, of course—the second was in 1877, and the third in 1911. I want the House for a moment to bear in mind the figures as to fatal accidents in decennial periods since the first of those Acts was passed. We must not take the number for any individual year, because the statistics of a year may be hopelessly misleading, owing to some grave and unusual calamity. We must, therefore, take the statistics for a period of years, and I will ask the House to listen to the figures regarding fatal accidents in mines in four periods of ten years—from 1872 down to 1912. I do not give the total numbers, because during that period of forty years there has been a very great increase in the number of persons employed in mines, and, consequently, in order to get a true view of the growth or decline of the danger of fatal accidents in mines, we ought to look at those figures from the point of view of the number per thousand employed. In the decennial period from 1873 to 1882, after the first Coal Mines Act was passed, the death-rate from accidents per thousand persons employed under and above ground was 2.24. In the next period of ten years it had fallen to 1.81; in the third period of

    449
    ten years it had fallen to 1.39; and in the last decennial period ending 1912, it had fallen to 1.33 so that in the last period the danger of fatal accidents in mines was reduced to almost one-half of what it stood at forty years before. These figures show us that the endeavours to secure safety in mines by legislation administered under the Home Office has not been fruitless. The number of fatal accidents is still very high—1,724 last year and 1,276 the year before.
    In 1911 by far the most drastic Act was passed with the express object—and with no other object—of extending the provisions for safety in mines. My hon. Friend bases himself on the Act of 1911, and makes a two-fold case. He says, in the first place, that that Act has not been properly administered by the Home Office, partly because the Home Office has not the means for sufficient inspection. His second point is that the Act itself is defective. I may remind the House of the history of that Act. A Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the whole question of safety in mines. The Commission reported in 1909; its recommendations were embodied in a Bill which was introduced into this House in 1911, and after a most strenuous, exhaustive, and, I think I am not immodest in saying, a most enlightening debate, the Bill was carried through this House as an agreed Bill. It was founded, as I have said, upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and it met with the unanimous approval of this House as recently as 1911. So much for the first part of the case as to the responsibility of the Government for the defectiveness of the Bill. Then my lion. Friend says that we are responsible for not administering the provisions of the Bill properly. He says we are responsible because our inspectorate is not large enough. The Royal Commission made certain recommendations as to the inspectorate. We have carried out those recommendations to the full. My hon. Friend spoke of the Treasury objection to increases of staff. But the Treasury have raised no objection. The Home Office have pressed upon them the full demand put forward by the Royal Commission, and that full demand is to-day the inspectorate at the Home Office. My hon. Friend had perhaps forgotten that when the Royal Commission reported the total number of inspectors for the administration of the Coal Mines Act and the Metalliferous Mines Act also was forty-
    450
    two. The whole country was divided into twelve districts. To-day we have ninety inspectors, so that in four years the staff has been more than doubled. We have appointed as well six additional clerks, in order to take away the clerical duties from the divisional inspectors, leaving them greater freedom to carry out their work of inspection. So that in all we have ninety-six, of which fifty-four are new appointments added to the old staff of forty-two. I submit to the House that is no small effort to have made in so short. a time.
    I really think that my hon. Friend misconceives the responsibility of the inspectors. If the inspectors really had placed upon them the responsibility which he has put to the House, not ninety inspectors, nor, as he suggests, 200 inspectors, but 5,000 inspectors would be required. He rightly says that mines in the same district differ, that the same mine varies in every part of it, that a mine inspected in the morning and found free of gas may have dangerous quantities of gas in it in the afternoon. Quite true, and if the responsibility for detecting that dangerous gas rests upon the inspector, there must be an inspector every day in every mine. My hon. Friend made out too big a case. He really did not mean that. He really docs not mean to press his case to the extent he pushed it. Doubling the inspectorate would not assist. The responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the Coal Mines Act rests not on the inspectors primarily, but on the coal owners. It is their duty to see that their mines are safe, and I would be very unwilling that it should go out to the coalfields, on the authority of my hon. Friend, that the responsibility is not upon the owners, but upon the inspectors. The duty of the inspectors is to see from time to time whether the coal owners are executing their duties. It is not the duty of the inspector to be every day in every mine, but it is his duty, when he pays his visit to a mine, to see by inspection whether coal owners have done their duty, and, if they have failed in their duty, it then becomes his duty to consider whether prosecution is necessary.
    Having said so much, I do not wish it to be supposed that either my technical advisers in this matter or I myself consider that we have necessarily reached the maximum inspectorate staff at the Home Office. Far from it. I have stated to the House what we have done in four years.

    451
    It takes some time to assimilate so large an increase of the staff, but as the Coal Mines Act of 1911 comes more and more into operation, in spite of the criticism that has been directed from time to time against the Government for appointing new inspectors, I cannot help thinking we shall have to make a request to the Treasury for a further increase in our staff. Whether that staff should be increased upon the principle put forward by my hon. Friend is a much more debatable matter, and I hope he will not press me upon that point now. If he were to do so, on first consideration, I am bound to say I should have to bear in mind a very good old rule that those who pay the piper should call the tune. If the State is to pay, the State might reasonably be expected to appoint. It would be very doubtful satisfaction to the State to have to pay inspectors who were elected, not upon any principle laid down by the State of selection and examination for special fitness for the job, but elected by the ballot of the workmen. I do not say that that is not a matter to be thoroughly discussed and debated hereafter, but at first sight it does not appeal to me very strongly, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press the point at this stage.
    Quite apart from the question of the number of inspectors and the large duties which he outlined, let me remind him that in the examples which he quoted to the. House of the inevitable failure of the inspectorate under the Act, I do think he was reading the Act quite fairly. As I understood him, when be quoted Section 29 with regard to the duty of an inspector to make an examination, and Section 32 with regard to a fortnightly inspection in connection with safety-lamps, I do not think he meant to tell the House that those Sections imposed on the inspector the duty to inspect every fortnight.
    Mr. BRACE: In a large number of mines it has not been done at all.
    Mr. MCKENNA: I will deal with that point in a moment. I think my hon. Friend did not mean to convey to the House, though his language seemed to bear that meaning, that these Sections impose a duty upon the inspectors to test every mine once a fortnight.
    Mr. BRACE: No.
    Mr. MCKENNA: I rather gathered from the way he presented his case that there
    452
    was an a priori impossibility for us to execute that with our existing staff. Not at all. These Sections are laying down the conditions under which testing for-gases should be carried on. That is to say, when you test for gas and have an inspector for that purpose, you shall repeat the experiment at the end of a fortnight. It does not mean that every mine is to be tested every fortnight.
    Mr. BRACE: The governing principle is that it is to be tested.
    Mr. MCKENNA: I quite agree that every mine in due course has to be examined, and when my hon. Friend tells me that it was proved at the inquest that no examination had taken place, I regard, it as most deplorable neglect. I will ask my hon. Friend not to enter into any controverted matter with regard to the Senghenydd disaster.
    Mr. BRACE: I distinctly refrained, from it.
    Mr. MCKENNA: My hon. Friend did except on that point. I can only say with regard to it that I believe this very day a committee is sitting to inquire into the whole circumstances connected with, it, and it would be most undesirable and improper for me to enter into any detail on that matter. My hon. Friend going through the various proposals which he had to make raised first of all the question of firemen. That is a subject which was dealt with in the Act of 1911. In the course of the Debates in Committee on that Bill, the original Clause confined the duties of a fireman to dealing with safety, so far as was practicable. Those words were objected to by my hon Friend among others, and on his objection a new Clause was introduced by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman). That Clause was ultimately accepted by the Committee, and in that Clause it is provided that the fireman may, in addition to his duties of safety, be employed in measuring the work done by persons in his district. It is quite true that to-day my hon. Friend objects to that provision, but is it a ground for censuring the Government? We introduced that provision into the Act in 1911, and my horn Friend then said, in support of the very Clause to which he now objects:—
    "I think the hon. Gentleman will see that we are as anxious as he is to have this work efficiently carried out. I am hoping this Clause will do what we have

    453
    been asking for all these years, and it is because I believe it will that I join with my colleagues in accepting the Clause."
    It was an amended form. It was not as the Government originally introduced the Clause. I do not complain of my hon. Friend for saying to-day that he is not satisfied. We agree in 1914 that there are many points in the Act of 1911 with which we are not satisfied, but the want of satisfaction is not a ground for censuring the Government. We have got to remember that knowledge with respect to matters dealing with safety in mines is progressive, and that it is increasing day by day. What we thought good in 1911 we may see wants amendment in 1914. It is not a ground for censuring the Government that the Act was not amended in 1913. The Act of 1911 is in many respects not more than a skeleton or a finger-post. Much of it deals in detail with the subjects which are mentioned, but in many respects it points to fields of work which have been dealt with in the new Rules and Orders issued by the Home Office. I hold in my hand one volume of Rules and Orders issued by the Home Office last year under this Act. Anybody can perceive the amount of work which these innumerable Rules and Regulations involve and that our staff is limited; that work of this kind must necessarily be placed ultimately in the hands of two or three persons at the most, and that there is a limit to the day and the powers of work even of the most competent and willing public servants. I am sure the House will agree that more than we have done in the time could hardly have been done. I do not want to quarrel as to any point my hon. Friend has put forward. I agree with him that there are many of his points we shall have to consider. More than that, all of them we shall have to consider. Many of them, after consideration, we shall find ought to be acted upon. Some, equally and at first sight, we ought to reject, but I would appeal to him that the details mentioned of the provisions of the Coal Mines Act are hardly matters for discussion at the present time. It is a matter for a Committee. I promised last year, it is true, to introduce a small Amendment of the Coal Mines Act, dealing with specific points which arose out of an earlier disaster in that year. I have now the draft of the Bill. The Bill is ready, and I shall introduce it immediately. But in that Bill I have limited myself to the particular points that were raised. Why? Not because I do not think that
    454
    there are other matters that we ought to deal with, but because I want to get this Bill through at once. There is a limit to the time of Parliament. There is a limit to the willingness of Parliament to devote itself to one topic and one topic only. But I shall be only too ready to consider the various proposals put forward by my hon. Friend. While I cannot say that the present outlook of the Session would be such as to justify me in giving any hope that a long Bill, carrying out any material number of the suggestions which he has made this evening, would have any chance of getting through Parliament, I can certainly assure him that the pledge which I gave last Session will be carried out this Session, and that the proposals which he has made will receive the most earnest and sympathetic consideration of the Home Office.
    Mr. ADAMSON: In supporting the Amendment under discussion, I have no intention of going into the general question of accidents in mines. That already has been fully covered by my hon. Friend the Member for South Glamorgan. All I desire to do in that respect is to associate myself with him in the regret which he has expressed at the large increase in the number of fatal accidents which have occurred in the mines of the country during the year 1913, and I regret also that that also applies to the particular part of the country that I represent. I would also like to associate myself with him in his appeal to the Home Secretary to see that every possible step should be taken with a view to reducing the serious roll of accidents in the mines of the country. Last Session, during the discussion on the Appropriation Bill, I drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to a disaster that had occurred only a few days previously in one of the mines in Scotland, and had resulted in the deaths of twenty-two people. I drew his attention to the fact that as far as one could ascertain from the newspaper reports the particular company to which this colliery belonged—the Cadder Company—had failed to give effect to the Mines Accident, Rescue and Aid Act of 1910, and I asked the right hon. Gentleman to arrange an inquiry into the failure of the company to carry out the conditions of this Act. In reply, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "As a matter of fact they have not provided the apparatus which the Home Office thought necessary, nor the smoke helmets which, according to their view."—

    455
    Meaning the colliery owners,
    "they thought were sufficient, neither were provided. That undoubtedly was a breach of the Act of l910. But we are in course of taking action on that point, and although the matter has been brought to a head in consequence of this accident, it must not be supposed that the Home Office are not using every effort in their power in order to induce, and if necessary, ultimately compel owners to comply with the Order."
    The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary gave effect to my request, and appointed a Commissioner to go down and inquire into the circumstances. That Commissioner, among other things, reported to the Home Office as follows:—
    "As I have said the Cadder Company were in default in the provision of rescue apparatus as required by the regulations in force at the time of the accident. They had not even provided smoke helmets and bellows, nor had they acquired the privilege of calling for them from a rescue station within ten miles distance."
    He entirely agrees with the view of the Home Secretary himself that this particular company had been in breach of the Act of 1910, and that they had gone on from the time that the Order was issued in connection with the Act of 1910, in the early part of 1912 until August of 1913, without making any effort to carry out the provisions of that Act and the Order. The Commissioners further say:—
    "If a similar case were to arise to-morrow, and lives were lost for want of self-contained apparatus, what would be the position of owners who, in spite of every remonstrance, and in spite of the warning afforded by this case, failed to provide it."
    I want to ask the Home Secretary why the management of this particular colliery were not compelled to carry out the order. In the course of this inquiry it was stated by the manager that he intended to carry it out. As a matter of fact, he did enrol a number of men for the purpose of training them in the use of these safety appliances, but the only reason it was not done was because the Lanarkshire Coal-owners' Association had made up their minds that they were going to fight the law on the ground that the kind of apparatus suggested by the Home Office was not according to their ideas. They set their superior judgment against the Home Office officials and the mineowners of England and Wales and the other parts of Scotland. The owners at Ladder Colliery took their advice. The manager admitted that he was waiting for orders to carry out the provisions of the law. From whom? Certainly not from the Home Office, because they had already issued their order, and certainly not from the Home Secretary or any of his inspectors, the? only authorities empowered to issue
    456
    orders. They were orders from the Lanarkshire Coalowners' Association. I believe that if that apparatus had been provided, and skilled brigades had been taught, lives would have been saved that were lost in consequence of that. The coal owners themselves believe that. If they did not, why did they send a message to their nearest neighbours, the Fife and Clackmannan Coalowners' Association, who had provided a rescue station, with appliances and brigade? They evidently thought, when the pinch came, that they were of use. I want to ask the Home Secretary why this particular company was not compelled to carry out the Order? The Coal Mines' Act of 1911, Clause 101, Sub-Section (3), provides:—
    "Every person who is guilty of an offence against this Act for which a penalty is not expressly provided, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding, if he is an owner, agent, or manager, or under-manager, twenty pounds for each offence, and if he is any other person five pounds for each offence; and, if an inspector has given written notice of any such offence, to a further fine not exceeding one pound for every day after such notice that such offence continues to be committed."
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Glamorgan (Mr. Brace) stated that during the course of last year something like a thousand miners had been prosecuted under the provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and, I think, very few colliery companies. Here is a striking case in which I think strong action ought to have been taken by the Home Office to see that the provisions of the law were carried out, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some reason why it was not carried out in the manner anticipated by the framers of the law. I desire to associate myself very strongly with the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for South Glamorgan, to have the, miners placed exactly in the same position as coal owners, and to have the power to institute proceedings against the coal owner in the event of his failing to carry out the law, just as the owner to-day has the power to prosecute the miner in the event of his failing to carry out the law.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: We have had no reply as yet to one half of the Resolution, and it is a very striking fact, to which the right hon. Gentleman has already referred, that we think it business-

    457
    like to split up our mines and railways between two different Government Department. Some hon. Members in this House doubt whether the Irish are able to govern themselves, but I shall be interested to see if and when our Irish friends get their Parliament in Dublin they? will perform a similar Hibernian operation. At any rate, it is a very great misfortune for this House, and indeed for the country, that these two very important parts of our economic life cannot be controlled by one Government Department. I am not myself a representative of a mining constituency—at least not of an actual mining constituency. But there is, of course, no constituency in this country that is not most vitally interested in mines and in railways. I very well remember, when first I visited a mining district in one of the mining valleys of Wales, I was struck with the fact—which I am afraid is still a fact at this moment—that the mines of that valley, like the railways of that valley, were disgracefully inefficient.
    That is somewhat strong language, but I venture to say that anybody who is acquainted with those valleys, whether or not he constantly works in them, cannot be surprised when he hears of any accident, large or small, occurring in them. One of my hon. Friends who submitted this Amendment to the House, and, if I may say so, they did so in speeches of striking ability, incurred the accusation of an Irishism in speaking of an accident being prevented before it occurred. All I have got to say is that when one gets into the atmosphere of some of the mining districts one positively feels that accidents are in the air. I remember only two years ago I was performing one of my amateur inspections of mines. I visited not the underground workings in that place, but the upper works. As I have always been interested in engineering, I went into the engine-house. The engine-house was a ramshackle building and contained two winding engines, each of which was considerably older than myself. Certainly both of them were far too old for any respectable engine in a country like ours in the year 1912. One of those engines was so old and inefficient that when at work it positively leaked steam at every pore. As the piston-rod left the cylinder there was a gasp of steam emitted at each stroke of the piston. I examined also the other parts of the winding apparatus, and I noticed that the drum upon which the rope was wound—the rope
    458
    upon which depends life at every hour of the day—had a slight lilt as it turned. These things seem almost incredible.
    After witnessing things like that, one is never surprised to hear of an accident, large or small, in one of these districts. I remember that shortly after that visit, when I read of one of those common cage accidents, which destroy four, six, eight or ten lives at a stroke, I at once connected it with what I had only recently seen. My hon. friend the Member for Glamorgan spoke of coal-dust being the most devastating agency. I would rather put it that these obsolete methods are the most devastating agency. If any proof of that is wanted, I would ask any hon. Member who has not himself visited and been down a coal mine—a thing which everybody ought to do—to turn to the Report of the Royal Commission, not on Mining Accidents, but on Coal Mines. He will find that the Royal Commission condemn colliery companies for what? Wasting life? No; that is not the connection in which they were reporting. They condemn them for wasting a large quantity of the coal of this country. These colliery managers who waste coal also waste life, and they do so by reason of the fact that their methods are so extraordinarily obsolete. My right hon. Friend in a speech, which, I admit, was sympathetic, helpful, and hopeful, produced certain statistics, which I gladly admit have very great force; but, while they show very happily what legislation can do to save life in mines, my right hon. Friend, if he compares them with the statistics of Germany or Belgium, will find that we have not reached the limit of what can be done in this direction. Take the mines of Belgium: in what particular are they distinguished from ours? In the fact that they are much more fiery on the average than ours. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not in South Wales."] My right hon. Friend's figure referred to the whole of the United Kingdom. The Belgian mines, on the whole, are more fiery than ours, but the loss of life in the Belgian mines is less than the loss of life in ours, showing that we have certainly not reached the limit of what can be done.
    It is a continuous warfare that is going on in our mines and on our railways. Is the loss of life realised? I ask this question because I have the greatest difficulty in realising it myself. The number of miners wounded and injured in this country in such a manner as to disable them for

    459
    over seven days is, in the year, about 300,000. I put it to this House, What would we say if we were carrying on, in any region of the world, a war which cost this country 1,500 or 1,600 lives per annum, and between 250,000 and 300,000 wounded per annum? You talk about peace armaments! If we talked less about the Navy and a little more about such things as we are talking about to-night, it would be better. When I see the Labour party wasting its energies upon getting three ships instead of four—at great expense—I sometimes wonder that they do not more often devote themselves to such things as those to which they are happily devoting themselves on this occasion.
    Inspection has been mentioned. Inspection as it is carried on at present in our mines—and, I might add, in our factories —is rather a delusion and a danger, and it. must be extended further if it is to be useful. As one of my hon. Friends observed, often when an inspector goes down a mine, in the three or four hours he spends there, precious little can be done. It only needs a very little arithmetical calculation to discover under those conditions how little the inspectors can do in the course of a year. My right hon. Friend has said that the safety in mines rests primarily upon the coal owners and the colliery managers. I think he will agree with me that a great deal can be done by further inspection. Certainly we have got to find a better way than at present. If it is shown that in the course of years, after we have increased the inspectorate, and after we have done all we possibly can to bring pressure to bear upon the coal owners, that still we have an enormous wastage of life, then other methods will need to be resorted to. The real truth
    460
    about our collieries surely is this: that we need the application of more capital to them to improve their working. Undoubtedly a large amount of their plant is obsolete: it needs renewing. No one can challenge the proposition that this country is well able to afford to put these matters right. We are dealing here with what is really the basis of the wealth of the country, and no possible argument can be found against the conclusion that the country is not doing its duty by its coal. I need hardly point out that there is an historical and engineering connection between the development of the mines and the railways of this country. A great responsibility, therefore, rests upon both of my right hon. Friends who have charge of these matters. We have had one speech from the Home Office which shows that that responsibility is realised and respected. I have no doubt that we shall find that the same is true of the other Government Department that is responsible for our railways. At any rate, I am sure of this, that my two hon. Friends have done a very great service, not only to those whom, they immediately represent, but to the whole country and to the cause of humanity by putting this Amendment before us.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Friday).
    Adjournment Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Illing-worth.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes before Eleven of the clock.

  Bank Balances.
  Bank Balances.
  Land Value Duties.
  Land Value Duties.
  Imperial and Local Taxation (Depart mental Committee).
  Imperial and Local Taxation (Depart mental Committee).
  Land Purchase (Offers to Government).
  Land Purchase (Offers to Government).
  Action for Trespass (Gore Division, Middlesex).
  Action for Trespass (Gore Division, Middlesex).
  Naval Lieutenants (Resignations).
  Naval Lieutenants (Resignations).
  Persian Gulf Medals.
  Persian Gulf Medals.
  Military Forces.
  Military Forces.
  Viscount Crichton, Horse Guards.
  Viscount Crichton, Horse Guards.
  South Africa (British Troops).
  South Africa (British Troops).
  Army Officers' Pay.
  Army Officers' Pay.
  Victoria and Albert Museum (Old Ceramic Gallery).
  Victoria and Albert Museum (Old Ceramic Gallery).
  Women Prisoners.
  Women Prisoners.
  Street Accidents (Metropolitan Area).
  Street Accidents (Metropolitan Area).
  Mr. Lansbury.
  Mr. Lansbury.
  Crown Colonies (Indian Population).
  Crown Colonies (Indian Population).
  Maltese Rules of Evidence.
  Maltese Rules of Evidence.
  Army Officers (Leave).
  Army Officers (Leave).
  Indian Labour (Crown Colonies).
  Indian Labour (Crown Colonies).
  Indian Army Officers (Promotion).
  Indian Army Officers (Promotion).
  Peasant Proprietors (Punjab).
  Peasant Proprietors (Punjab).
  Exported Horses.
  Exported Horses.
  Tuberculosis Order (Compensation).
  Tuberculosis Order (Compensation).
  Swine Fever.
  Swine Fever.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Irish Cattle.
  Irish Cattle.
  Scottish Fisheries (Report of Depart mental Committee).
  Scottish Fisheries (Report of Depart mental Committee).
  Declaration of London.
  Declaration of London.
  Sea Fisheries Convention.
  Sea Fisheries Convention.
  Safety of Life at Sea (International Convention).
  Safety of Life at Sea (International Convention).
  Payments to Sub-Postmasters.
  Payments to Sub-Postmasters.
BARONY OF ST. JOHN.
Petition of Francis William Forester for leave to lodge his printed case; read, and ordered as prayed.
BARONY OF FITZWARYN.
Petition of Reginald Joseph Weld by Edward Talbot Wolseley and Agnes Frances Weld, the Committees of his estate, for leave to lodge his printed case; read, and ordered as prayed.
BARONIES OF DYNAUNT, FITZWARYN AND MARTIN.
Petition of the Right Honourable Leila Georgina, Viscountess Gage, as his next friend for and on behalf of her son, Sir Henry Rainald, Viscount Gage, of Castle Island, County Kerry; Baron Gage, of Castlebar, County Mayo, both in the Peerage of Ireland; Baron Gage, of High Meadow, County Gloucester, in the Peerage of Great Britain, and a Baronet; for leave to refer to the previous case lodged by Henry Charles, Viscount Gage and Sir Robert Bourchier Sherrard Wrey, and for leave to lodge one supplemented case applicable to the claims to the Baronies of Dynaunt, Fitzwaryn and Martin; read, and ordered as prayed.
BARON GRAVES.
Petition of Clarence Percy Rivers, Lord Graves, Baron of Gravesend, in the County of Londonderry, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
LORD READING.
The Right Honourable Sir Rufus Daniel Isaacs, K.C.V.O., Lord Chief Justice of England, having been created Baron Reading of Erlegh, in the County of Buckingham —Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
  BEIRA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL, [H.L.]

    BENGAL AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    BRENTFORD GAS BILL, [H.L.]
    BRISTOL WATER BILL, [H.L.]
    BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY (HULL STATION) BILL, [H.L.]
    CHELMSFORD GAS BILL, [H.L.]
    DIDCOT, NEWBURY, AND SOUTHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL, [H.L.]
    EDENBRIDGE AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
    GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL, [H.L.]
    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL, [H.L.]
    HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    LEIGHTON BUZZARD GAS BILL, [H.L.]
    LIVERPOOL UNITED GASLIGHT COMPANY BILL, [H.L.]
    LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL, [H.L.]
    LONGWOOD AND SLAITHWAITE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    MANSFIELD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    MEXBOROUGH WATER BILL [H.L.]
    MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
    NOTTINGHAM MECHANICS INSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
    POOLE, SANDBANKS, AND WESTBOURNE RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
    RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION FUND CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    SKEGNESS GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    SOUTH BANK AND NORMANBY GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
    SOUTH METROPOLITAN CEMETERY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
    SOUTH WESTERN AND ISLE OF WIGHT JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL. [H.L]
    STONE GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
    WESLEYAN AND GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
    WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    WHITWELL AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
    Presented, read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

ABERTILLERY AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]

    BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    BRISTOL CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL. [H.L.]
    BRISTOL CORPORATION (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
    CLECKHEATON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    COLONIAL AND FOREIGN BANKS GUARANTEE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    DEE CONSERVANCY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
    ELLESMERE PORT AND WHITBY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    HIGHTOWN GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
    LLANFAELOG WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    MABLETHORPE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    MEXBOROUGH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    MOTHERWELL BURGH EXTENSION AND SEWAGE PURIFICATION BILL. [H.L.]
    NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    POOLE HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
    PORTHCAWL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    READING CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    ST. GEORGE'S HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
    ST. JUST RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    SKEGNESS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    SWINDON CORPORATION (WILTS AND BERKS CANAL ABANDONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
    WESTON-SUPER-MARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    WIMBLEDON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Presented, and read 1a.

COLLEGE CHARTER ACT, 1871.
Application received from the Most Honourable the Marquess of Crewe, K.G., for the establishment of an institution to be known as "The School of Oriental Studies, London Institution," referred by His Majesty in Council for the consideration and report of a Committee of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council; together with a copy of the Draft of the Charter applied for:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 4.)

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS, 1911–1913.
1. Provisional Special Order made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, specifying as respects certain classes of outworkers employed in Ireland, the persons who are to be deemed to be the employers of such outworkers;
2. Provisional Regulations, dated 18th August 1913, made by the Treasury under the Acts:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 5.)

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS, 1911–1913.
Order of yesterday that the following paper be laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and be printed, viz.: Order as to preliminary expenses of Approved Societies, dated 6th February 1914 (Scotland) discharged, and same presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
TERRITORIAL FORCES (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to authorise the raising and maintenance of a Force to be called His Majesty's Imperial Force, and to amend the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907—Was presented by the Lord Willoughby de Broke; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday the 9th of March next. (No. 6.)

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
Debate on the Amendment moved by Viscount Midleton to the humble Address resumed (according to Order).
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, during the years that I have had the privilege of being a member of this House I have frequently addressed your Lordships on the various topics that have occupied your attention at the moment. I have also frequently addressed your Lordships on matters connected with Ireland, and when the question of Home Rule has been the important topic in the minds of the people of England, of Scotland, and of Ireland, I have always to the best of my ability devoted my attention to it. But I have never risen to address your Lordships with a greater sense of responsibility or realisation of the importance of

149
the situation with which I propose to deal than I do at this moment, and I ask your Lordships' indulgence.
I do not propose to follow the speech of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, who so clearly propounded the views of the whole Unionist Party with regard to this most important question. I intend to-day to devote myself to that part of the question with which I myself am so closely connected— that is, the maintenance of the Union between England and Ireland, and more especially the important part which at the present moment Ulster is playing in this great and historical drama. May I for one moment venture to be a little egotistical? If there is one member of your Lordships' House who is justified in dealing with this question, it is the humble individual who now addresses you. I am hereditarily connected with the Union between England and Ireland. I am proud to think, and so are those of my family associated with me, that I am a collateral descendant of that great man who carried the Union between England and Ireland. As the years pass, and as we are growing older, no one who looks back to the history of that Act of Union can deny that the present prosperity and welfare of Ireland is due entirely to the Union and the advantages that have accrued to Ireland owing to her connection with England.
My earliest political career commenced as Unionist Member for the County Down, now some thirty-six years ago, and when I was returned to the House of Commons as Member for the County Down the one and only pledge that I gave to my constituents was that to my dying day I would stand by and maintain the Union between England and Ireland. To that pledge I adhere now; from that pledge I will never recede; and I will do my utmost to oppose any measure which may in any way sever the connection between England and Ireland. But, in addition to that, I feel that I address you to-day under feelings of even greater responsibility, for I am privileged to occupy a very prominent position in the Ulster Unionist Council, second only, if I may say so without presumption, to that of my right hon. and brilliant friend Sir Edward Carson. It is because I have just returned from the Province of Ulster; it is because I have seen for myself all that is going on,
150
and the inner working of all the arrangements there, that I think it my duty to-day to bring before your notice the crisis that may arise unless it is checked at the proper moment.
It is impossible to overrate the seriousness of the question in the Province of Ulster. It is impossible, unless you have been there, to realise the determination of people of all classes to oppose the Bill that is now before Parliament. The people of Ulster have not entered into this question without careful and very thoughtful consideration; but, having considered the question from every point of view, having regarded it from every aspect they could possibly imagine, they have come to the conclusion that it is better for them to face the crisis, with its awful and far-reaching consequences, rather than submit to be governed by a Parliament sitting under Mr. Redmond on College Green. My Lords, the determination of Ulster at the present moment cannot be denied. Ever since the great betrayal, so truly described by Mr. Balfour as the "felon's blow," the heart of Protestant Ulster has been stirred to its bottom. They recognised that there was no Second Chamber to stand between them and the opinions of the people of Great Britain; they recognised that it was necessary for them to prepare for the conflict which they thought they might have to face, and which they are prepared to face; and all classes of the community joined together in facing the crisis that might arise. Sooner than, as I have said, be placed under the heel of a Parliament sitting on College Green dominated by Mr. Redmond, the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and the friendly relations of Mr. Patrick Ford, the dynamitard, they would take any risk and incur any responsibility.
I know that of recent dates it has been the custom of Mr. Redmond to speak in smooth terms of the people of Ulster. The people of Ulster know Mr. Redmond and the Ancient Order of Hibernians too well. They know well that in years past the Nationalist Party never hesitated to conceal their feelings of hostility to the people of Ulster, and never concealed their hostility to all of you, the English people, when it suited their purpose to do so. But because it does not now suit them to do that they offer the most specious words and promises

151
to the people of Ulster. The people of Ulster, as I say, know them too well. They may beguile the English people; they may beguile, perhaps, even His Majesty's Ministers; but they will not beguile the people of Ulster. They remember the specious promises made when local government was passed. They were told that there was to be Protestant and Unionist representation in all parts of Ireland. Where is that representation now outside Ulster? The Ulster people have profited by that lesson, a lesson they will never forget; and they will never submit to place themselves in a similar position.
Now, this Bill, we are told, is a Bill that is to bring order and good government to Ireland. Will any man in his sane senses tell me, with the prospect before us, that this Bill is going to bring peace to Ireland? Will he tell me that it will bring good order? I shall be glad to hear an answer to that from whoever replies to me. And will this measure add to the prosperity of Ireland? Instead of bringing peace you are going to bring civil war. Instead of bringing order, in all probability you will have riots, to say the least. And instead of bringing prosperity, we know full well that the fact of a Home Rule Parliament sitting on College Green, even with the assistance of Ulster—which it will never have—must mean absolute ruin financially to Ireland as a whole.
Remember, my Lords, the conditions under which His Majesty's present Government undertook the government of Ireland. Viscount Bryce—who, as Mr. Bryce, was their first Chief Secretary—and, the year after, Mr. Birrell, both declared that Ireland had never been so peaceful, never so prosperous, during the last 600 years. And, if my memory does not fail me, I believe it was only the other day that Mr. Birrell in a speech at Bristol, I think it was, eulogised the present prosperous and happy condition of the whole of Ireland, and Ulster in particular. What, then, is the object of upsetting this prosperous and satisfactory condition of affairs? I have studied—it has been my duty to do it—for many years past the condition of Ireland, and I agree with what those two Chief Secretaries said, that Ireland has never been in a more properous position than at the present moment. There have been—and I have gone through them when I was Lord Lieutenant—dark and dreary
152
days in Ireland. I remember the days when crime and outrage stalked unchecked through Ireland because it could not be punished. But when we had the Crimes Act and had an opportunity of dealing with those miscreants who were guilty of maiming cattle, shooting at houses, and boycotting-—within three years of the passing of that Act we had not a single case of boycotting. I quote this to show that I do know Ireland and her condition in the past.
And now what do we find? We find a totally different aspect of affairs. We find a peaceful and prosperous Ireland, with, I venture to say, prospects brighter than they have ever been in the past Those dark days of outrage, of intimidation, of boycotting, are rapidly disappearing. Owing to the land legislation, which has been of so beneficial a character in enabling the occupiers to become the owners of their holdings in the greater part of Ireland, the difficulties of the land problem are steadily disappearing. We see the farmers all through Ireland at the present moment absolutely contented with their lot, developing their farms. We see the labourers working on those farms no longer living in poor cabins but in proper cottages. In fact, we see spreading over Ireland a ray of contentment and peace which Ireland has never seen in years past. Then I ask why, when you have a satisfactory and prosperous condition of affairs do you propose to alter it? Why do you bring forward a measure such as this which, as I have said before, you know must plunge Ireland into civil war and into the depth of misery and ruin? You are bringing forward a measure which is going to split Ireland into two parties. The two parties at the present moment, although not agreed, are not actively hostile. You are going to bring about a civil war between those parties?
Then, I ask, what is the reason you propose to bring about this utter revolution from the present peaceful condition of Ireland? I say with all due solemnity that it can be due only to one of two things—either to the wilful, culpable ignorance of the Government, or else to their greedy desire to stick to office. But I tell you this, Ulster realises fully the danger; and it is impossible to over-estimate the earnestness of the Protestant people in Ireland who are determined not to be

153
handed over to this Parliament on College Green. I only trust that this determination of Ulster will not be disregarded by His Majesty's Government at this most critical moment. All classes of Protestants in Ulster are joined together in the determination to oppose this Home Rule Bill. Let me tell you the different classes of people who are opposing it.
I take, first, the Church. The Covenant was signed by Archbishops, by clergy, by the Northern General Assembly, the clergy of all denominations, all working together for what they considered the best means to oppose a Bill which they knew must be absolutely injurious to Ireland. It was only last Sunday week that I attended a service in the great cathedral in Belfast. A service was being held there for one of the important regiments of Belfast. But by whom was the service attended, and who were the ministers who ministered at it? First and foremost was the Bishop of Durham; the Dean of Belfast was also there. The two lessons were read, one by a Presbyterian minister, and the other by a Methodist, showing beyond all doubt how all classes of the Protestant religion have sunk any differences on other subjects which they might hold, and are bound together by one firm determination to do what they can to oppose this measure.
Then I come to another very important section of the population of Ulster. I read a speech made by a gentleman—I wish to say nothing against him, but I do not know that he is renowned for his accuracy, and that is Mr. Alexander Ure—who, speaking at Birkenhead on September 29 said that when it came to setting up a Provisional Government he preferred the views of a business man, and he had noted that there was no great captain of industry, no great shipbuilder, trader, or banker, who had ever talked of setting up a Provisional Government. Well, I am not going to contradict Mr. Ure myself—I believe we should have our time taken up if we contradicted all his statements—but I think this is sufficient contradiction when I read out what appeared in the Belfast News Letter of November 5, 1913. There was a meeting of some 5,500 Ulster business men—they had to take the two biggest halls in Belfast to hold them—and those 5,500 were delegates representing capital to the extent of £145,000,000 in Belfast. This meeting was held on November 4 last
154
year, and the following resolution was passed—
"We business men of Ulster, representative of every branch of the industries and commerce of the Province, hereby declare that we do not deem it to be our duty to supply funds to be used for coercing us into submission to such legislation, and we therefore solemnly resolve to hold back payment of all taxes which we can control so long as any attempt to put into operation the provisions of the Home Rule Bill for Ireland is persevered in; and we express our cordial approval of the various measures taken for the defence of our liberties, including the organisation of the Ulster Volunteer Force."
I think that is sufficient answer to Mr. Ure and any Nationalists who may say that the business men of Ulster are not heart and soul with us in our opposition to Home Rule. If you want another proof, I come to what is called the Indemnity Fund. An Indemnity Fund was started for the purpose of compensating or maintaining the wives and children of those men who might be called upon to fight for Ulster, and doing what could be done for them in the absence of the husbands. Then there was another fund called the Carson Fund, a fund for the purpose of making preparations. Preparations required money, but the money was forthcoming. It came from rich men; it came from poor men; it came from the working men; it came in pence off their weekly pay; all contributed to the Carson Fund in order to show their opposition to the Home Rule Bill.
Then I come to another very important question, the action taken by the women of Ulster. The women of Ulster have formed themselves into a very strong and powerful association; they are organised and in all parts of the Province they are doing all they can to prepare for what may be the awful consequences in the future if war takes place. Let me tell you this. I know for a fact that throughout Ulster there are many country houses—I may say my own amongst them—being placed at the disposal of these Ulster women for the purposes of hospitals if you choose to shoot us down. In the smaller towns and places where there are not these houses, halls have been taken and arrangements made; doctors have been notified; nurses have been warned; arrangements have been made for the purpose of all those appliances wanted in war—lint, couches, sheets—your Lordships know as well as I do all the horrors of war. Everything has

155
been prepared for. And what does it show? That the women of Ulster in their way are as determined as the men are to oppose Home Rule.
It was only two or three weeks ago that Sir Edward Carson made a speech in Belfast, a speech which to my mind touched the hearts of his audience more than any speech I ever heard made in my life; and in that speech he made use of some words which I trust your Lordships will allow me to quote to you as showing the determination of the women of Ulster. Sir Edward Carson said at that luncheon—
"I know the spirit of the women-folk of these people. I know there is an organisation in England, if we are driven by this Government to hostilities, to receive these women on the other side of the Channel. I am grateful for it. But these women will not go; they will stay with their men-folk."
Then he said—
"Only the other day I said to a woman whose husband had been stricken down by the efforts he was making to bring his regiment into a state of efficiency,
'I am sorry that your husband's efforts should have terminated in his illness'; and she said, 'Sir Edward, if it pleases God Almighty to take him I am satisfied, and I shall be happy in the knowledge that he has gone to his Creator having done his best for the cause he believes to be right.'"
I read a speech the other day, delivered by one of the lady speakers of Ulster to an Ulster audience, and I was greatly struck by the concluding remark. Addressing her fellow men and women of Ulster, she said—
"Believe me, I would rather be the widow of an Ulster loyalist than the wife of an Ulster traitor."
Well, my Lords, does not that show, if the women of Ulster in their thousands, in their tens of thousands, are as determined as this, it must be due to the feeling that is permeating through the Province of the horror of being handed over to a Home Rule Parliament?
Now I come to the most important part of the question, which I think is the factor which is making the Government pause in the reckless course they are pursuing. I come to the question of the Ulster Volunteers. There are 100,000 of these men. Recruiting has been stopped; we do not want any more; but day after day, week after week, the young, active, strong men are coming in wishing to be enrolled. Does that show they are tiring? Does
156
that show that the question of Home Rule is not every moment going more and more into their minds, and that they are realising the horror of it? But let me only allude to these 100,000 men. These men are drilled, disciplined, and determined. My noble friend the Duke of Portland alluded to them the other night in terms so eloquent and convincing that I do not think I need add anything more. But I have had the opportunity of seeing them for some time past drilling. I have seen their big drills. I saw 15,000 men last September march past Sir Edward Carson at Balmoral in Belfast; and I was told by expert military men that those men were as good as any of your Territorials. I have seen small drills of a few hundreds, and of thousands. But these drills of these men—disciplined, efficient, and determined—are taking place in every part of Ulster at the present moment. What is the great characteristic of these men? They are not one of them working for their own individual good; they have put their own individual feelings entirely on one side; their one feeling is patriotism for Ulster; and they are joined hand to hand, brother to brother, in the common cause that they will lay down their lives sooner than submit to the dictations of Mr. Redmond and a Parliament on College Green. These men are giving up their nights; they are giving up their time; they are giving up their recreation. In many of the country districts these men walk from five to six miles to be drilled at night. They have given up their football matches; they have given up their golf matches. And is it possible that His Majesty's Government cannot realise that it is the fixed and firm purpose of these men that they will die for the maintenance of the Union sooner than live to be kicked out of it?
As I said, there is no jealousy whatever. My noble friend the Duke of Portland the other day told you how he had seen them drilled. I endorse every word he said. The one question for the Ulster Volunteers is "efficiency" and "let us have the best men to lead us, and the best men in our ranks." I have myself seen the companies drill; I have seen the curate ordering his vicar about; I have seen the farmer ordering the squire; I have seen the gardener ordering his employer. Why? Because there is no question of prestige, precedence, or anything else, but "let us have the

157
best man to command us no matter who he is, and we will all serve under him." The one cry is efficiency, efficiency, efficiency; and the one statement is, "We ask nothing; we want nothing; we want no ascendancy; all we ask is to be left alone, and, with God's help, we will be left alone."
The other day Mr. Joseph Devlin made this very remarkable statement. He said at Longford on February 8—
"Nothing could save the Union, because nobody, except a handful of dukes and earls, landlords and lawyers, and their hangers-on who had battened and grown rich on the oppression of Ireland, had a good word to say for it."
A more remarkable statement than that could not possibly have been made. As I have shown you, the movement in Ulster is an entirely democratic one. It is coming up from below, and the leaders are selected because they are respected and desired by the masses of the people. What they are proud of is to think that in this democratic movement, coming up, as I have said, from the bottom, the leaders have the entire confidence of their supporters. And what has been the result? The result of that confidence has been the discipline that exists throughout all ranks of these 100,000 men, throughout the ranks of all those associated with the Ulster Unionist Council; and it is owing to that discipline and to that respect and admiration for our great leader, Sir Edward Carson, that the Government at the present moment may thank themselves there have not been riots of a most serious character.
The people of Ulster have been exercising the most enormous restraint. Any one who knows Ulster must know that since the great betrayal Ulster has been writhing under the fear of a Parliament on College Green. Everyone knows that Ulster has kept still. They have been provoked, but, thanks to the discipline which at present exists, they have overlooked and ignored that provocation. There is a very widespread feeling in Ulster—and I share it—that that provocation is countenanced by His Majesty's Government, that they would not be at all sorry to see riots taking place in Belfast, and thus have an opportunity of treating those men as rioters, and not as men who, if the Bill is passed, had taken part in the formation of a Provisional Government.
158
Now, what grounds have the Government for bringing forward this measure? I admit that perhaps some years ago they were absolutely ignorant of the condition of affairs in Ireland, and especially with regard to the condition of affairs in Ulster. They believed in the falsely-given advice of Mr. Redmond, the leader of the Nationalist Party. He assured them, as he has assured audiences, that the opposition, if there were opposition, in Ulster would be nothing but insolent bluff. Mr. Redmond has two tongues. He has one statement for England; he has another statement for Ireland. But even as lately as January 25 Mr. Redmond at Waterford, and also Mr. Devlin somewhere else, more or less insinuated that the opposition of Ulster was still bluff. Now I ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, Does he consider it bluff? Will he support Mr. Redmond and Mr. Devlin in those statements? No, he will not do so now, because he has learned his lesson.
What I want to ask His Majesty's Government—and I trust that whoever follows me will give an answer—is, When did they first begin to realise the determination of Ulster to oppose Home Rule? Another question I should like to be answered is this, When did the Chief Secretary first know that there were going to be disturbances in Ireland if Home Rule were passed? I quite admit that probably the man most ignorant of Ireland is the Chief Secretary himself, for the simple reason that he is never there. In fact, when he transported 5,000 troops from Dublin to Belfast to protect a Cabinet Minister sent over by himself to provoke a riot, he himself was watching a hockey match at Montaner. Well, if the Chief Secretary knew nothing about what was going on, then I say he is guilty of such culpable ignorance that he ought to be instantly dismissed. If, on the other hand, he did know what was going on—the arming of Ulster—we know you know it now because you are protecting the ports against the import of arms—if he did know it, did he tell his colleagues? If he did not tell his colleagues I think he ought to be impeached. If he did tell his colleagues, and, in spite of what was going on, those colleagues continued to throw dust in the eyes of the people of England, believing the action of Ulster was bluff, then I tell you no penalty would be bad enough for His Majesty's Ministers.

159
Now what I want to ask is this, What are you going to do with regard to these 100,000 men if your Bill becomes law? Are you going to shoot them down? I can say this, as I said at the commencement of my speech, that I was told by experts that these men were as good as any Territorials you have in England— loyal to the King, devoted to England, only longing to be allowed to remain with you. Are you going to shoot them down? At the present moment I gather from what I read in the papers that the Territorial Army is very short in this country. I think I saw that Sir Evelyn Wood—I speak subject to correction on this—had resigned the command of the City branch of the Territorial Army because they were so short. Why are you, short in your Territorial Army in this country, going to shoot down men who would help you to-morrow to protect this country against invasion? Why? Simply because you are told to do so by Mr. Redmond and by his followers. What, I ask, must be at the present moment the opinion of foreign countries with regard to us? Here we know that we are short of Territorials; here we know that we should be at our wits end if we were invaded; we know that in Ireland we have these 100,000 men, good as Territorials. They say, what most English people would say, "Instead of making these men Territorials they are going to denude England of soldiers to shoot these men down." There can be only one conclusion in the minds of foreign countries—namely, that England must be governed by a body of men who are either lunatics or criminals.
Then what is going to be the effect upon the Army? I know the courage of the Army, and I know their discipline. I am going to say no word against them. But I say, What would be the effect on the Army if you are going to tell them to shoot down men who are ready to fight with them in the future as they have fought in the past, if you will let them? May I remind you of the letter written by Lord Wolseley in 1893, when the situation was not so serious as it is now? Mr. Long quoted it in the House of Commons the other day, but I think it is worth repeating. Lord Wolseley wrote to the Duke of Cambridge—
"If ever our troops are brought into collision with the loyalists of Ulster and blood is shed, it
160
will shake the whole of the foundations on which our Army rests to such an extent that I feel our Army will never be the same again."
If that were the case then, what will it not be now? Your Lordships have had an experience in India, under the Vice-royalty of Lord Ripon. You remember that under Lord Ripon the Ilbert Bill was passed, a Bill that was repudiated and loathed by the English population. I read an article the other day in one of the leading journals in which what took place then was graphically described, and this is what I read—
"The Ilbert Bill invested natives with powers on matters of life and death. Lord Ripon refused to modify it, and the English in India banded themselves together and armed themselves for a struggle."
Now I come to the point which bears very much on the situation of to-day—
"Lord Ripon sent for the General in command of the Calcutta District and ordered him to have his troops in readiness on the day of publication of the new Act 'If there is any rioting,' said the Viceroy, 'you will not hesitate to give your men orders to shoot.' 'Your Excellency, my men shall be here, and the order to fire shall be given …' The General paused—"
THE EARL OF CROMER: May I ask the noble Marquess on what authority that statement is made?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I read it in the Daily Telegraph in a letter written by Mr. Perceval Landon.
THE EARL OF CROMER: I was in India at the time, but I never heard anything of the sort.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I can confirm the noble Earl's statement.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have given my authority. The statement proceeds—
"Then he added quietly, 'Do you believe for one moment that one Englishman will fire on another Englishman in India?' The Viceroy stood for a moment and then bowed his head before this unanswerable question."
What will be the position of English soldiers in Ulster? If it was serious then, it will be more serious now; because they have not forgotten the action of the Nationalist Members in the House of

161
Commons. There was that fateful day in December some years ago when my noble friend Lord Midleton went down to the House of Commons and had to announce the sad news of the defeat of the British Army at the hands of the Boers. It was a critical moment. Dead silence reigned throughout the Chamber. Men's minds were going, owing to the losses sustained by the British Army, to the miseries of the women and children left behind here; and while they were considering this, there arose one wild exulting cry of joy at the defeat of the British Army from the very men who now hold the Government in the hollow of their hands. Are you then going to tell me that the English Army will shoot down men—very likely men who fought side by side with them in the Boer War—at the instigation of those who cheered the Boers' victories?
I read the other day an extremely able speech by the Prime Minister—he always makes able speeches—delivered at the British Peace Centenary meeting, which was congratulating England on having had 100 years of peace; and I thought to myself what must be the Prime Minister's feelings after having delivered that speech? He was congratulating us on having had 100 years of peace between English-speaking nations—England and the United States—and I could not but think that when he went home and thought over that speech he must have considered whether, if his present policy is pursued, he will not be the cause of breaking up that long and lengthy peace by plunging one English-speaking country, our kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, into as horrible a civil war as can be imagined. These were the words he used—
"The diplomatists went to Ghent, but the public opinion of the two great countries took the business out of their hands and said with authoritative and irresistible emphasis 'Peace must be made,' and peace was made."
Now, does not the Prime Minister think that at the present moment the one desire in the public mind in this country is that peace should be made? And can peace be made if he insists upon a policy that must drag us into civil war? Does he not think that this important chapter in his career—a most important career; he has been Prime Minister for many years— would be better concluded if he could say the words, "And there was peace"?
162
I will only say, in conclusion, that I feel as strongly on the question of maintaining the Union between England and Ireland as any one of my fellow-countrymen or women in Ulster. I can speak strongly about it; I feel strongly about it; but I do not think, my Lords, on an occasion so important, so critical, as this that strong language is necessary. Vituperation would be out of place. My concluding words to-day are these. I pray to God that He may give the Prime Minister strength to secure peace. If he does so I consider that he will have done great good to the country; but if, on the other hand, he does not, to his dying day he will carry with him the haunting reflection, "Civil war has taken place in Ireland; I was solely responsible for it because I was the Prime Minister of Great Britain at the time, and I refused to take the verdict of the English people on the question."
EARL ROBERTS: My Lords, I have only one word to say. I was in India at the time of the Ilbert Bill, and I know the strong feeling that was roused between the British and natives on that occasion. I certainly never did hear the incident read out by the noble Marquess just now, but no doubt the Bill caused considerable racial animosity. I am glad to have this opportunity of stating that I thoroughly endorse the letter, quoted by the noble Marquess, which Lord Wolseley wrote to the Duke of Cambridge in 1893. It is to me unthinkable that the British Army could be called upon to fight against the Ulster Volunteers. To do so would be, as Lord Wolseley wrote, the ruin of the British Army.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, before I proceed with the main subject of my remarks I wish to say that I was in Calcutta at the time when the Ilbert Bill was passed. I was acquainted with all the stages of that measure, and it ended in being an agreed measure between the representatives of the European population and the Government of India. It was in these circumstances wholly impossible that any such circumstances could occur as the noble Marquess read out.
My Lords, hardly forty-eight hours have passed since in this Chamber we listened to the gracious Speech from the Throne, in which our Sovereign expressed his great anxiety that the good will and the co-operation of men of all parties and creeds might

163
heal dissension and lay the foundations of a lasting peace. I ask any one of your Lordships whether the noble Marquess has contributed to his Sovereign's desire? I ask whether there was one sentence in the noble Marquess's speech which tended to "heal dissension" or to "lay the foundations of a lasting peace"? I have been a very short time a member of your Lordships' House, but never did I hear from the noble Marquess a speech calculated to lay the foundations of peace in Ireland. He speaks, he says, for the people of Ulster— all classes of Ulster. Now, let us understand who are the people of Ulster for whom he speaks. They are people for whom I have the highest respect. I have seen a little of them, and anything I have seen of them has confirmed the respect with which I regarded them when I went to Ulster for the first time. But if you exclude the population of Belfast from Ulster you have Protestants and Catholics almost equal in numbers, differing only by a few hundreds; and if you consider that among the Presbyterian population and the Protestant population in Ulster there is a very considerable element of Home Rulers, you will find that, excluding the population of Belfast, you have a majority of Home Rulers in Ulster at the present day.
The noble Marquess made a remark which leads me to believe that he also is of the opinion of the noble Viscount who proposed this Amendment, that local government in Ireland has been a failure, and that where Nationalists have been placed in power they have either misused their power or denied any participation in it to their Protestant fellow-countrymen. The words of the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, were—I am quoting from The Times report—
"They had nothing to protect them except the promises of Mr. Redmond. Mr. Redmond in 1897 promised generous treatment to the loyalists under the Local Government Bill. What has been the result? After fifteen years, in Leinster 12 Unionists are returned out of 233 for the county councils; in Munster 2 Unionists out of 227; in Connaught 1 Unionist out of 142, and there are between 3,000 and 4,000 Unionist electors in the city of Cork, who had on all the boards only 2 representatives out of 150. And in that very county, where the Unionists have no representation at all, they are at this moment paving half the rates and taxes of the whole county."
Then in regard to the treatment meted out to Protestants by the Catholic controllers of those councils he went on to say this—
"I do not suggest that they are going to be hunted out as the Dutch or the Huguenots were;
164
but I do suggest that under a Nationalist Government all small pressure which can be exerted, and which has been exerted wherever they have had power, will be exerted to drive them out of the country; the sort of pressure which results in every case in the promotion of a Nationalist doctor or clerk to any position which a Unionist doctor or clerk might well have aspired to. Will that be the result on which you will pride yourselves in this Bill?"
When I listened to the noble Viscount I felt that he was labouring under a great misapprehension. I remember that when I was connected with the Government of Ireland certain inquiries [†] were made on this question, and the results were entirely different from what the noble Viscount supposed, when he was making his speech, that they were I have not had the time necessary to make all the inquiries I wanted, but I have procured certain figures which I should like to give to your Lordships with your permission. I have taken three counties from each of the provinces of Catholic Ireland and I have taken three counties from Ulster. In the County of Galway, which has a population of 192,000, the percentage of Protestants in the population is six, and the paid posts which they hold under the local government bodies is nineteen.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Might I ask the noble Lord how many of those Protestants held office before the Local Government of Ireland Act, 1898, was passed?
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: That I cannot say. In Roscommon, with a population of 102,500, the percentage of Protestants is three, and the percentage of paid posts which they hold is sixteen. In Mayo the percentage of Protestants in the population is two, and the percentage of paid posts they hold is eleven. Going to Munster I find that the percentage of Protestants to the population in County Cork is ten, and
[†] Irish official statistics give no indication as to the religion of public servants, whether employed by the State or by local bodies, just as they give no indication of the political creeds of the members composing these bodies. On these points information is only procurable by unofficial agency. The impartiality of the Irish local bodies in the distribution of patronage as between Catholic and Protestant was impugned in 1907, and to meet the imputation an unofficial inquiry was instituted, and the results were published in the Irish newspapers. They were not challenged, so far as I know; and I believe them to be substantially correct for the time to which they apply. It was from this source that I took the figures which are quoted in my speech.—MAC DONNELL.

165
the percentage of paid appointments they hold is twenty-one. In Carlow the percentage of Protestants is eleven, and the percentage of paid appointments they hold is forty. In Tipperary the percentage of Protestants is six, and the percentage of paid appointments they hold is twenty-nine. Coming to Leinster, I find that in Kildare the percentage of Protestants is fifteen, and the percentage of appointments they hold is twenty-three. In Westmeath the percentage of Protestants is nine, and the percentage of appointments they hold is thirty-two. And, finally, in King's County the percentage of Protestants is eleven, and the percentage of appointments they hold is forty-eight. I put it to the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, whether on these figures he can derive any confirmation for his statement that the Catholics of Ireland are given to hunting out of their locality their Protestant neighbours?
Then when I look to the other side of the shield I find in the County of Antrim that the percentage of Catholics is twenty-six, and the percentage of public appointments they hold is eight. I find, in the. County Armagh, that the percentage of Roman Catholics is forty-five, and the percentage of appointments they hold is six. I go to Tyrone and I find the percentage of Roman Catholics in the population is fifty-five, but by some manipulation the percentage of paid posts which they hold is only ten. When a charge of intolerance is brought in your Lordships' House against Roman Catholics in the exercise of their public functions, surely some sort of official information, some sort of statistical information, should be produced in order that we might be able for ourselves to judge of the validity of the charge.
I listened to the speech of the noble Marquess with a growing feeling of humiliation, humiliation, if your Lordships will allow me to say so, because of the attitude of this House in connection with this question. When I compare the tone of the speeches in this House with the tone of the speeches delivered in another place I seem to be in an entirely different atmosphere. In another place there has been a response to the gracious Speech from the Throne; here I find a state produced by two years of constant agitation, of constant incitement; and I am told that if an attempt is made to give effect to the laws
166
passed by the Parliament of this country and assented to by the Crown civil war will be the result. Now, my Lords, I confess I am not frightened by these threats of civil war. I can as fully realise as noble Lords opposite the evils of civil war, but I am inclined to think that a spirit is getting up in this country of England which will not permit that even 100,000 men should dictate to the whole of the electors of this country, and that Constitutional Government should go to the ground because of the opposition of Ulster.
How has this position of Ulster arisen? I cast my mind back a century and a quarter, and I find an entirely different state of things. I find then the growth of another body of Irish Volunteers, patriotic men, volunteers who banded themselves together, not for the oppression of their countrymen, not for the promotion of any selfish interests, but for the assertion of their rights under the Constitution of England. I find that body, when first created, composed entirely of Protestants; but such is the effect of liberty that they, of their own accord, granted toleration to their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, even admitting them to the ranks of the volunteers. It was only in 1795 that on the withdrawal of the Lord Lieutenant, Lord Fitzwilliam, a different state of things occurred. I need not go into the history of this change; but it is interesting to know the reasons which led to this bitterness which has now lasted for over 100 years. I find in the pages of Lecky, your great Unionist historian, the following passage—
"On the accession of Lord Camden, in 1795, to the Viceroyalty a great and most pernicious change took place. The English Cabinet had determined to resist the emancipation of the Catholics, contrary to the dominant sentiment of the Irish Protestants, and it therefore directed its Irish representatives to endeavour to kindle an anti-Catholic feeling in Ireland and exert its enormous influence to organise an Irish party of resistance."
Then, some pages further, comes this most significant remark—
"The year 1795 is very memorable in Irish history as the year of the formation of the Orange Society and the beginning of the most serious disturbances in the County of Armagh."
To-day we find the tables changed. We no longer find an English Government seeking to create bitterness and hostility in Ireland. We find a Government endeavouring to remove the causes of discontent which have so long affected Ireland,

167
to introduce peace and happiness into the country. But, on the other hand, we find their efforts checked by men whose conscientious convictions I do not question, but who exhibit—they will pardon me if on this occasion I say so—a spirit of bitter sectarian animosity. I find coming from them no proposal as to how this difficulty should be settled. They say that up till a few years ago—up till 1907—peace and prosperity prevailed in the land, and that it was all due to Unionist administration. I know better. I know that Unionist administration was on the high road to coercion when, under a great statesman, the late Mr. Wyndham, a turn for better things was taken. Then came the Land Purchase Act, that followed a proposal which would not have been successful. Then came a period of liberal administration—administration of Ireland according to Irish ideas. It was through the continuance of that system, with one small setback —to which I will not now allude—that it was possible for the Chief Secretary of the Liberal Government to say that Ireland was more peaceful than it had been for 600 years. And so it was. But it was not your spirit, my Lords, which introduced peace; it was the Liberal spirit which then pervaded the government of Ireland.
I listened to a speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, yesterday, in which he referred in disparaging terms to a proposal which was made, and which your Lordships have all seen, by Sir Horace Plunkett. I desire to associate myself with Sir Horace Plunkett in that proposal, although there are certain portions of it with which I should not entirely agree. If Irishmen were left alone—I do not exclude the volunteers of Ulster from the Irishmen I have in mind; I claim them as Irishmen— if they were left alone and not hounded on to attack their Catholic fellow-countrymen, and if we were allowed fifteen years of peace, I believe the Irish question would be solved—solved by the good sense and by the kindliness which permeates all grades and classes of Irishmen if they are only left alone. I end as I began. I am sorry that this great Assembly should not have responded in other terms to the gracious message from the Throne.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, my only object in speaking is to express my profound and unalterable conviction that any departure from the principle under-
168
lying the Amendment which we are discussing would in the end be more disastrous to the peace, good order, and good government of this country than civil war in Ireland. The principle is that no grave change in the Constitution should be made without the express consent of the people, and I hold that no politicians or groups of politicians have any right to carry into effect any so-called compromise on the Home Rule question until the nation has declared in favour of such compromise.
Let us not forget that a compromise, whatever it might be, must be something far more than a mere change of details in the Bill; it must be a great alteration in the Constitution. The Radicals, from their own point of view, have undertaken to pass the Home Rule Bill as it stands; they have not asked the people whether they will have any other form of Bill. Unionists, on the other hand, have been pledged for a generation past to maintain the Union, and they cannot without breach of faith agree to anything which would impair the Union, unless and until they have told the people that they have given up the principles of Unionism. Both Nationalists and Unionists in Ireland are similarly pledged. It follows, therefore, that if the leaders of these several parties were to carry out any new arrangement before it had been submitted to the people at a General Election, it would be an outrage against constitutional government, the very negation of democracy, and a dangerous usurpation by politicians of sovereign power. By all means discuss your compromise, if you have one, but let it be discussed openly so that we may all know what it is, and only on the distinct understanding that as soon as you have agreed among yourselves there will be a General Election in order that it may be submitted to the people. And, above all, let it be discussed without delay in order that the grave anxiety of His Majesty and His Majesty's subjects may be speedily allayed. It would be waste of time to discuss the matter at all unless it be first agreed that no arrangement will be carried out until it has been submitted to the nation.
There is not a single member of this House who would deny that in all great affairs the will of the nation must prevail. But there is not a single member of this

169
House who knows, or can possibly know, what is the will of the nation at the present time in regard to the question of unprecedented gravity with which we are confronted. Surely, then, it is the duty of those who are entrusted with the management of national affairs to ascertain at this critical juncture whether or not they are truly acting in accordance with the nation's will. There is only one way of obtaining that assurance, unless recourse is had to a new method in the shape of a referendum, and that is by means of a General Election. For my own part I cannot understand the attitude of mind of Ministers who refuse to take that course, assuming always that they are sincere in their professions of desiring to act in a constitutional manner, and that they are not so lost to all sense of duty and patriotism as to be ready to sacrifice the welfare of the country to their own personal and temporary advantage.
The Government say that they have a mandate to establish Home Rule in Ireland and we utterly deny that claim. But granting, merely for the sake of argument, that there was a mandate, surely there is nobody who will deny that new circumstances have arisen, circumstances which justify a presumption that the people might wish to reconsider the matter. What right have you who sit on those Benches to say that the people of this country may not and shall not change their minds? Who are you but their servants? What right have you to proclaim yourselves their masters? There are no circumstances in life in which those who have received commands or instructions from higher authority which they cannot carry out without unexpected disaster, are not bound by every rule of honour and conscience to ask for fresh instructions. Is the captain of a ship to go full speed ahead when icebergs have drifted across the course assigned to him? Are the agents of a business concern to persist in carrying out instructions which prove unexpectedly to be full of risk and loss? Even if the people did give you a mandate for Home Rule they did not know that you could not carry it out without bringing about civil war, that most hideous of all calamities. Do you suppose that they wish you to persist even at the risk of bloody fratricidal strife? Unlimited, indeed, must be your arrogance and self-confidence if you think that the people of this country would rather have bloodshed than lose your services.
170
If you go to the people and they instruct you to go on, you will have lost nothing. On the contrary, you will have gained the assurance that you are not exceeding your duty. But if, on the other hand, the nation prefers to pause and perhaps try some other method of dealing with Ireland, you will still have gained something which ought to be even more precious to you. You will have been relieved of the most awful responsibility which has ever fallen upon a Government in this country. You are deterred, so you say, from taking the course which seems so obvious to all who have not the minds of Parliamentarians by your promise to Mr. Redmond. The people have a right to know the exact terms of that promise. Was it unconditional, or did it contemplate the possible resistance of the people of Ulster? You have also to explain how at one time you declared repeatedly that there was no bargain with the Nationalist Party, and to prove, if you can, that you were speaking the truth both then and now. But if you have since made a bargain which you can only redeem with the blood of your fellow-countrymen shed in fratricidal war, then you stand condemned as worse than incompetent, as false to your trust, as reckless revolutionists, and as ruthless usurpers of power. No wonder, if that is the case, that you fear the day of reckoning and will do anything to postpone it. Possibly you are merely delaying to obtain a fresh mandate, for this talk about "compromise" without any definite proposal cannot have any other object than that of delay. There is no imaginable compromise which could be carried out without a new mandate from the nation, and that mandate can only be obtained by means of a General Election.
No scheme for the exclusion of Ulster has been before the people, and no scheme of Federation has even be devised. If, therefore, democratic government is to continue, if that which remains of the British Constitution is to be preserved, these schemes for the partition of Ireland or for the institution of six or seven Parliaments in the British Isles must be submitted to the electorate before they are promoted in Parliament. I confess that it baffles the comprehension of any one who is not of the enlightened caste of Front Bench politicians to understand what compromise is possible without the express consent of the nation. My Lords,

171
it is our plain and obvious duty to inform His Majesty that in our opinion the grave and unprecedented situation demands unusual measures, measures for which the Constitution, seriously damaged though it is, still provides. That is our duty, not only towards the King, but also towards the people. It is our duty, because we shall thus be upholding the Prerogatives of the Crown and defending the liberties of the people. The Prerogatives of the Crown, which exist as safeguards for the rights and liberties of the people, have been insidiously assailed by Ministers pledged to serve the King faithfully; and serious encroachments have been made on the rights and liberties of the people by Ministers who profess to be acting in the name of democracy.
Although there are many who, ignorant of the past and reckless of the future, rejoice in the humiliation and impending destruction of this House, there are more who, to whatever Party they belong and whatever they may outwardly declare, still look to us to place some check upon the fevered ambitions of professional politicians. The extreme and revolutionary temper of the House of Commons during the past six years cannot possibly have been a true reflection of the mood of the people. Let us show that we can still respond more truly to the spirit of the nation, and that even though our strength is gone and our days are numbered we are determined to the last to uphold the rights of the King and the rights of the people.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, Home Rule has now reached a stage when we need no longer ask whether the question was or was not before the country at the last General Election. It is certain that the Home Rule Bill was not then before the constituencies, for the best of all reasons—it was not in existence. After the General Election was over, it was produced. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack told us that it was the custom for the Government to announce the principle of a Bill, but that was not the custom for the constituencies to discuss the details of a Bill. It used to be the custom for the representatives of the people in Parliament to discuss and determine the details of the laws by which we are governed. That is so no longer. Five-sixths of the Home Rule Bill have
172
never been discussed by the representatives of the people in Parliament. They have been passed by order of the Government under the "closure." Our Constitution being in suspense, the Government has determined to carry into law grave changes in the existing relations between the component parts of the United Kingdom without first submitting them to the judgment of the constituencies. The result of this new departure in statesmanship is that we are confronted, not by the remote possibility, but by the extreme probability of civil war. It seems incredible that such should be the case in our present state of civilisation, but it is the situation with which we have to deal.
We have often heard of the mandates given by the country to the Government to do this, that, and the other. Now this is certain. The country never gave a mandate to the Government in 1910 to carry on a civil war in Ulster in 1914. The Prime Minister, in the course of his own election, was asked the question—
"Will you use British troops to coerce the minority in Ulster?"
The right hon. gentleman gave this answer—
"That is a contingency of which there is no likelihood."
That was in 1910. In 1913 at Leeds, at the annual meeting of the National Liberal Federation, the Prime Minister told us that—
"He and his supporters were not going to be frightened or arrested or deflected in the pursuit of that which they believed to be right and politic by the menace of civil war."
What we have to do now is to use all means in our power to prevent this menace of civil war becoming, as it may at any moment, a reality.
There is a wide difference between the employment of troops in aid of the civil power, instances of which have frequently occurred in our time, and civil war, which, thank Heaven ! none of us has ever seen. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, in his famous letter on the Irish question which appeared in The Times newspaper last September, wrote—
"No good purpose, however, can be served by ignoring the certainty that the passage of this Bill will be followed by serious rioting in the North of Ireland. It is an extravagance to speak of civil war."

173
And in another passage referring to the anticipated resistance of Ulster, the noble and learned Earl wrote as follows—
"Still, however confident we may feel that the affair would be one of street fighting, quite within the power of the Constabulary with or without troops to quell in a short time, it would none the less be a grave calamity."
That was written nearly six months ago. Is it an extravagance now to talk of civil war? Is the Government still confident that the resistance of Ulster will be limited to street fighting easily quelled by the Constabulary with or without troops?
I am in no way connected with Ireland. I am not and never have been in the confidence of the Ulster leaders. The only facts which I know are matters of common knowledge, and, I believe, are not disputed. We know that half a million of men and women have signed the Ulster Covenant, and we know the meaning of that Covenant. We also know the character of the Ulster people—that they are a God-fearing people, who would not take a solemn oath in vain, and that they are a hard, stubborn, and tenacious race. You cannot bend them as you would the willow. We know, further, that Ulster has guaranteed a fund of a million of money subscribed locally. This is significant, because the Irish Nationalist funds are drawn largely from abroad. I believe it is right to say that their organisation could not maintain itself without money from over the water. If a man will not subscribe eighteenpence or a couple of shillings to a political organisation in his own neighbourhood, which he is assured will give him every possible blessing and make his country a nation once again, he is not likely to run the risk of laying down his life for that cause, as the men of Ulster are ready to do for their cause.
Lastly, we know that Ulster has a force of upwards of 100,000 men, trained, armed, and organised, under a very capable staff of officers. We have had evidence of their capacity. Last April there was a great demonstration in Belfast, and from all the accounts which appeared in the Press the arrangements by which far more than 100,000 men were got on and off the ground would have reflected the greatest credit on the staff of any army. Now is it likely that Ulster in her present temper, with an organised force of 100,000 men and a million of money, is going to content herself with street fighting of a kind which could
174
be easily quelled by the Constabulary with or without the assistance of troops? Of course not; you cannot expect it. When the conflict comes, it will be the collision of large disciplined bodies of men in the field —in short, a campaign, but a campaign of civil war. I presume the Government have carefully considered the nature of the impending collision between their forces and those of Ulster and the probable course which events will take, and the result for all concerned. I recognise the fact that the Government, if only they could bring the full weight of their power into play, could crush the resistance of Ulster like a cocoanut cracked under a steam hammer. But they are in the peculiarly perplexing position of not being able to get up a sufficient head of steam to drive their hammer without at the same time driving themselves out of office. Their instrument of coercion and suppression is the Army.
There is no secret about the numbers of our Regular Army serving at home. All that information is given in the Army Annual Return. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, when Secretary of State for War, initiated the reduction of the Regular Army, and with such success that we shall not have 100,000 men and boys serving at home with the Colours this spring. This number will be mostly boys, because all the older lads will have gone abroad as drafts during the trooping season, which is just now coming to an end. Obviously whatever recruits may have been obtained in place of the drafts sent abroad will be useless for playing any part in the tragedy of Ulster. Ulster has one great advantage over the Government in the disposition of her forces. She has 100,000 men, every one of whom is in Ulster. The Government has 100,000 men and boys, but scattered all over the United Kingdom, and they must remain so dispersed. They cannot concentrate every man in the Army in the North of Ireland. The Government, having provided for home defence and for the necessary garrisons in Great Britain and Ireland in places other than Ulster, and after allowing for the inevitable causes of wastage, will not have a combatant force available for the coercion of Ulster of more than 10,000 men. I am quite ready to prove that in detail from official returns if challenged.
I should like to ask one or two simple questions of the Government, although I

175
do not expect to get any answers. Sir Edward Grey has told us that the Government mean to meet violence with violence. Well, when that happens please remember that you have a garrison, and a very small one, in Belfast—a Brigade of Infantry. What is to happen to that garrison? If you leave it alone and unsupported it must surrender, which will be disastrous. If you withdraw it, it will be a confession of weakness. Besides, you will leave Belfast in possession of the men of Ulster. Are you going to reinforce the garrison by sending a wholly insufficient number of troops to its assistance? I say insufficient, because it is manifest that you have not got a sufficient number to send. You cannot hope to overawe the people of Ulster unless you send at least four Divisions mobilised at war strength. But you dare not mobilise the Army. Again, if you send any troops into Ulster, it is a hostile act; because the only reason for sending them there is to take offensive action against the men of Ulster. If you send troops into Ulster, it is simply throwing the lighted match into the powder barrel, and you will have an explosion which will shake not only Ulster but the whole Empire. The Government must be well aware that they cannot hope to crush Ulster without first proclaiming a state of imminent national danger and calling out the Regular Reserve, which necessitates the embodiment of the Territorial Army. Incidentally that will mean the certain end of the Territorial Army and possibly the end of the Government also.
As an Englishman, I should like to ask the Government whether England, the predominant partner in the Union, is to have no say as to the employment of the Army in Ulster. England finds the biggest part of the money, and provides by far the greatest number of men for both the Army and the Navy. The official returns show that she finds four times the number of serving soldiers for the Army as are found by Ireland, Wales, and Scotland put together. As regards the Navy, last year she found ten times as many recruits as the rest of the United Kingdom. The Army is a national institution, maintained by the nation for national defence and national safety. It does not exist to carry out the particular policy of any political Party. If you take the present representation of England in the House of Commons, you will find that, taken by herself, she has a
176
majority of 33 over all other parties combined against the employment of the Army in a civil war. I do not believe that there is any Party in the country who wish to see the people of Ulster and the officers and men of the Regular Army killed—except, perhaps, the Irish Nationalist Party, who happen for the moment to control English politics. If the Government can loan the British Army to the Irish Nationalist Party to carry out their policy in Ireland irrespective of English opinion, then we in England must stop talking about being the predominant partner and recognise the fact that we are no longer a free people.
I belong to the British League for the Support of Ulster and the Union. The members of that League have promised to stand by Ulster in her resistance at all costs, provided that the Home Rule Bill is passed into law without the opinion of the country having first been taken at a General Election. The Government has no right, in my opinion, to drive the people of Ulster out of the Union, and still less right, having driven them out, to hand them over to the Irish Nationalist Party. If the Government deprive the people of Ulster of their rights as citizens of the United Kingdom, they no longer owe any allegiance to the Government, and are justified in the extreme course which they have been compelled to take for the preservation of their freedom. In these circumstances I feel it my duty to stand by Ulster, come what may, until the constituencies have recorded their opinion at a General Election. Having appealed to the country, I should, of course, abide by their decision, whatever it may be.
LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I should not have attempted to take part in this debate, wishing to leave the consideration of this great question to others more competent to deal with it, had it not-been for the manner in which a solution, founded on the possible exclusion of Ulster, has been alluded to both here and elsewhere. I wish to enter a protest against such a solution. I know it has been coupled with the condition that adequate protection should be given to the handfuls of Unionists in other parts of Ireland, but I should like the House to consider this. If the proposed provisions are adequate for the protection of the Unionists in the West and South of Ireland, they are equally sufficient for the protection of Unionists in the North. Why, then, should a

177
distinction be made? But if, on the other hand, they are insufficient for the protection of the Unionists in the North, much more are they insufficient for the protection of the Unionists in the South and West, who, from their scattered and isolated position, are subjected to greater danger than are their fellow-subjects in the North.
I further object most strongly to the idea of the exclusion of Ulster as that at once gives a sanction to the principle of Home Rule and the establishment of a Parliament in Ireland and presupposes an Executive responsible to it. That, the Unionist Party have pledged themselves to resist to the uttermost, and I cannot conceive how any modification of that can possibly be accepted by them, certainly before a General Election. I am as sensible as any one of the extreme gravity of the circumstances, and of the danger to which my own country, this country, and the whole Empire is at present subjected; but I do trust that it will be remembered that we, the scattered Unionists in the South and West, have ever been loyal to the Crown and faithful to the connection between the two countries, and that we shall not be left exposed to the dangers which threaten us.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, in the very few words which I shall venture, with great diffidence, to address to your Lordships, I shall carefully abstain from anything that can be called a debating point. I wish to deal only with the bed-rock facts of the present dangerous situation as they present themselves to one who has never taken any part in politics, but, who has endeavoured to bring understanding to bear upon all great national problems. What are the fundamental and inexorable facts in the present dangerous situation? The first fact is this, that Ulster will not voluntarily accept the Home Rule Bill as it stands. We must and do all agree and accept that fact. But the second fact is that we cannot use force to coerce Ulster. I do not mean that, physically, it is impossible, though, as the noble Duke has said, it is not physically easy. But the moral law is stronger than the physical law; and we all know in our hearts that we cannot coerce Ulster by military force. As the noble and gallant Earl has said, that is unthinkable; and if Home Rule were established under the auspices of martial law the only result
178
would be a train of evils too appalling for us to contemplate.
But if we accept those two facts, as I hold we must, does it not follow, as the night the day, that the present Bill in its present form is already dead? Yesterday I noted that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack used these most significant words—
"I am inclined to go far from the terms of the present Bill. To secure a settlement I am willing to concede much."
What, my Lords, can those words mean but that, in the view of His Majesty's Ministers, the Bill as it stands in its present shape is already dead? The noble Viscount the Lord President and the Lord Chancellor bade us view Ireland as a whole. That is good advice; but if you look at Ireland as a whole, what do you see? The people of Ireland, like the people of India, by reason of deep cleavages produced by sentiment, by racial characteristics, and, most important of all, by religion, are not at the present time fit for national government in the form which the present Bill proposes. Is it really too much to say that national government in that form is, like coercion by troops of the Ulstermen, unthinkable? It may be possible in years to come, and I hope that it will be possible, that both in India and in Ireland some form of national government may come. But that time, my Lords, is not yet.
To me the initial mistake seems to have been to imagine that by a heterogeneous aggregation of votes you can over-ride the passionate claims of a powerful and determined minority—claims, not to obtain anything you do not want to give them, but simply to be left alone. In the eloquent and persuasive writings of the noble Viscount, who has been my teacher in much, I do not find this dangerous doctrine laid down. And whatever you might call the form of government which this Bill would set up, it would be a government which would be created, in the first place, because of the gross disproportion of the representation of Ireland in the House of Commons; and, secondly, it would be a government which would depend for existence on the money of taxpayers over the Channel who would not be represented upon it in any way. Now, whatever you might call such a government, you could not call it a democracy, because it violates every

179
principle of democracy as democracy has been expounded by the noble Viscount.
What can be done to give peace and hope for the future? For myself I can only see three possible courses. The first is to amend the Bill so as to bring it into a true federal shape, remembering that while you can give powers in such cases as this you can never take them away, and, having amended the Bill to bring it into federal form, such form as might be given to Wales, England, or Scotland at some distant time, then make provision that Ulster should take part if and when she consents. I advocated that some time ago and I see the difficulties to which the noble Marquess has referred, but this course does seem to find some favour on both sides of your Lordships' House. The second course would be to drop the Bill as it stands and proceed to make, with the help of both Parties, administrative changes calculated to give better government of Ireland. In the administration of Ireland there is much to be desired; but in any change redistribution of seats would be the necessary first step, because the present system is palpably and intolerably unjust. That course offers many advantages, but I do not think it is as likely to meet with general acceptance as, perhaps, the first might.
The third course is to revive the Council Bill of 1907, which died a natural death— I do not know why. The principle of that Bill is explained in the Primrose Report of 1912 in these words—
"It contemplated no change in the political relations of Great Britain and Ireland, nor any radical change in their financial relations. It was merely a measure by which, while the political and financial partnership between the two countries would remain unimpaired, administration in Ireland would be to some extent decentralised, and its conduct entrusted in a larger degree than before to local agency."
In other words, it was a real measure of Devolution. That Bill gave to the Council, subject to some supervision by the Lord Lieutenant, control over eight important departments of State; and that Bill, if accepted, might have been gradually and safely extended in scope. That course seems to me to have some great advantages, but I doubt now whether it would find acceptance by either Party in Ireland.
I can see no other course than the three to which I have briefly referred. But I
180
cannot believe there is any real urgency, in the present prosperous and progressive conditions of Ireland, which have been so eloquently described by the Irish Secretary. Nor can I believe that by any single Bill, however carefully drawn, you can finally and for ever settle the Irish question. Time may bring healing on its wings; time may soothe the animosities which too much wild talking on both sides has aroused; time may smooth the way for orderly and accepted self-government in Ireland. But, my Lords, it is only by Devolution, helped and inspired by both Parties in the State, that we can hope to lay broad and deep the foundations of that happy and lasting settlement which is the earnest desire, in the words of His Majesty's gracious Speech, of all Parties and all creeds to bring about.
LORD FARNHAM: My Lords, Lord MacDonnell, when he was speaking just now, made a great point that there was a majority in favour of the Home Rule Bill in Ulster by claiming a large proportion of the Ulster population as Home Rulers. That is a statement which I certainly deny. I challenge him to produce any proofs of his assumption. But although he was so eager to claim all the Protestant Home Rulers in Ulster, he said not one word about all the many Roman Catholics who are violent Unionists, and, not only those, but the many Roman Catholics who are absolutely in sympathy with us in secret. That calls to mind a statement made by a district councillor, I think it was in Mullingar. He said—
"There is not a single Roman Catholic with £100 in his pocket who is not a Unionist at heart."
And then Lord MacDonnell went on to find fault with the contention of the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment, that no Protestant had been able to obtain any post since the passing of the Local Government Act, and he tried to disprove that contention by quoting a long list of figures of officials who had received their posts before the passing of the Local Government Act and had never been appointed by the present Nationalists at all. I would support the contention of the noble Viscount by adding that at Claremorris there appeared a large poster in connection with a vacancy in the gift of the board of guardians, and that poster said that no candidate need apply "unless he was recommended by the parish priest."

181
Now, there is one thing which is quite obvious from the gracious Speech from the Throne, and that is the complete change of tone that has come over the Government since the question of Home Rule was last debated by your Lordships. At that time the Government still believed their master when he told them that there was no opposition to Home Rule outside Ulster, and that the opposition to Home Rule in Ulster was confined to a handful of Orange bigots. I have no doubt that they believed him; at any rate, they affected to believe him, for when our opposition was manifest and we pronounced to the whole world that we would never submit to a Parliament in Dublin our protests were dismissed as of no account, our opposition was ridiculed, and we were told that we were bluffing, and that we had no more religion than billiard balls. There seems now to be a complete change. The Government have found out that, in addition to having to "toe the line," they have been tricked by their master all along when he persuaded them that there was no opposition to Home Rule in Ireland; and they have found out for themselves that there is a very real and determined opposition, not only in Ulster, but throughout the whole of the rest of Ireland. They now know that this "better government for Ireland" Bill, which is to bring "peace and content," is received with armed hostility by one community; it is looked upon with hatred and fear by all Unionists throughout the West and South; it is described as "rotten and putrid" by one section presided over by Mr. O'Brien; it is received with suspicion and doubt by many of the Nationalists themselves; and it is described as "totally insufficient" to satisfy the aspirations of the "Ireland-a-Nation" party.
This Bill, for which there was a mandate from the people and which was so perfect and so imperative that it was absolutely necessary to smash the Constitution in order to get it, is now admitted to be imperfect and to need amendment. Consequently the air is full of compromise, and the Government appear to be ready to grant anything except the one thing that we ask for—namely, the maintenance of our birthright, our free right of citizenship in the United Kingdom and our full share in the councils of a Parliament of a United Kingdom. I see that Mr. Devlin still adheres to his statement that our action
182
is "bluff," but I notice that he describes it as the "most costly bluff ever attempted." Well, as far as the expense is concerned it goes to prove, at all events, that Ulster-men are prepared to pay for their principles. It is very different with the Nationalists, who were rebuked by Mr. Redmond himself in these words—
"I do not think it is a creditable thing to the people of Ireland that they are able to find money for their games, sports, and everything else except for the support of the Nationalist Party."
Mr. Devlin has also made his contribution to the compromise question. It was this—
"Let Sir Edward Carson come forward and accept Home Rule and then formulate his demands in the way of guarantees and safeguards."
When I read that I really could not help thinking that Mr. Devlin was back in the nursery at his mother's knee learning the proverb, "Won't you come into my parlour? said the spider to the fly." At any rate, no sane man can believe that that was ever meant to be a serious contribution to the settlement of the question. Now, why are all these offers being suggested? Are they really meant to be put forward as a settlement of the question? If so, why are they not formulated and put down in black and white? As long as the Government keep them back, so long will I believe that they are nothing more or less than a trick to try and get the Unionist Party to accept the principle of Home Rule by compromising, or to gull and mislead the British electors.
Whatever change there may be in the attitude of the Government, this, at all events, is certain, that there is no change whatever in the opposition of Ulster. We stand to-day exactly where we stood on the 28th of September, 1912, when we bound ourselves together in solemn covenant never to submit to a Home Rule Parliament in Dublin. That decision is unaltered, and it is unalterable. It is a solemn Covenant that no one will dare to break; any man who broke that Covenant would be handed down to posterity as a traitor and his body burnt in effigy on the walls of Derry. But if Mr. Redmond has been able to fool the Government into a belief that they can settle the Irish question, the men who signed that Covenant are not to be so fooled; neither are they to be bought. The Government have had a

183
little experience of their own now as to the value of Mr. Redmond's opinions, so perhaps they will extend to us a little sympathy when we refuse to believe his protestations for the future. We remember that he said, "Don't trust Asquith; trust me." Well, we certainly agree with the first part of the remark. We decline to trust a man who has juggled with the Constitution in order to drive us out of it, and we decline to trust a Party which has one form of justice for one section of its supporters and another for another.
The other day the Daily News and Leader, in an article on the South African Parliament, expressed the view that the proposition that a majority of electors is a sufficient authority for abolishing by a mere act of force any legal right or liberty possessed by the minority, is one of the most dangerous ever put forward in a State. The article proceeded—
"No citizen can be called upon to respect the law when it lies at the mercy, the caprice, the passion or the interest of the momentarily stronger."
That is one view. Now we come to the Daily Chronicle on "Ulster and Home Rule." This newspaper said—
"Lord Esher puts a plain question to us in a letter which appears in our issue to-day. He wants to know, if Ulster were to take up arms to resist Home Rule, would we advise the Government to use force to suppress them Our answer is, if the minority of Ulster resist by force of arms an Act of Parliament then this resistance must be put down. Force must be met by force."
So it appears that when the Labour Party becomes aggressive the Radical view is that minorities must be protected; but when the Ulster Party becomes aggressive their view is that minorities must suffer.
Well, my Lords, we decline to be made to suffer, and we are perfectly prepared to sell our rights in a determined resistance if it is attempted. We deny, although we may be in a minority in Ireland, that we are in a minority in the United Kingdom; and we demand that the majority in the United Kingdom shall be allowed to say whether or not we shall so suffer. If we do not "trust Asquith," we certainly do not trust Redmond, for he has told us that he prefers rags and poverty under "Ireland-a-Nation" to peace and prosperity under the Union. And, after all, my Lords, what has he or his Party done for the material welfare of Ireland? Is it not perfectly obvious that if they had
184
had the material prosperity of Ireland at heart they could have used the enormous power which they have wielded in the present Parliament to wring from the Government any necessary reforms Ireland could possibly want, including the one reform which every one in Ireland admits—the completion of land purchase? Instead of that, what have they done? They have killed land purchase; they have passed a Budget which every one in Ireland hated, and an Insurance Act which every one disliked—and all to satisfy the sentiment of "Ireland-a-Nation."
And now it is desired to place the wealth, prosperity, and industry of Ulster at the mercy of these men. Under the Union the people of Ulster have thrived and prospered, in spite of the fact that they have not had the same natural advantages as the people under whom it is now proposed to place them, such as soil, climate, or natural harbours. Those industries and factories have been built up entirely by the industry and the hard work of the people themselves. What industries have been built up by the hard work of the Nationalists in the South? Cardinal Logue says—
"If our young people would work as hard at home as they are forced to work in America they would earn as much wages and be more comfortable here at home."
But if you really want to get at the business capacity of the North and the business capacity of the South, the best way is to compare the various rates and the way in which they run their corporations. The noble Viscount who moved the Amendment has already told us something of this. But I should like to add to what he has said, that while the rates in Ballymena and Coleraine are only 5s. 8d. and 5s. 5d., in Sligo last year £5,000 of the year's rates were in arrears, and nineteen members of the corporation owed on an average £14 each of the arrears. Also, I should like to direct your attention to Limerick, where, although the inmates of the workhouse have decreased in number by 270, the cost of maintenance has increased by £7,000 a year; and the vice-chairman of the guardians himself stated that, upon inquiry, he found that the increase was due to the increases of salaries. My Lords, that is why Home Rule is wanted. These people think that under Home Rule they are going to get any jobs that are going and that are paid for well.

185
And we are now told that all our industries, our wealth, and our business capacities, which no one denies, are to be handed over to and controlled by men who cannot even run a third-rate town without jobbery and extravagance. We decline to acquiesce in the setting up of a Government which is to be composed of men whose secret political organisations were guilty of the worst forms of cruelty, of crime, of terrorism, and even of murder.
What evidence has been produced to, lead us to suppose that these men will suddenly, when they have the whole power in their own hands, grow meek and mild as milkwater? Do they themselves contemplate any change? I read in an article the other day that a prominent Home Ruler, when he was congratulated on the certainty of obtaining office in the first Irish Ministry, said "Oh, I am in no hurry; I shall wait for the second. You see the whole of the first will be assassinated." I cannot vouch for the veracity of that, but I do not think that it is as unreasonable an assertion as might be thought to any one who has studied the long list of crimes and the remarks of the Judges at the Assizes in Galway and the West of Ireland. If we refuse to submit to this yoke—and we certainly shall—we are to be threatened with the Imperial troops. This Bill for the "better government of Ireland" was going to settle everything. It was going to bring peace. Why, it cannot come into being except at the point of the British bayonet. Those British soldiers with whom many of us in Ulster fought shoulder to shoulder in South Africa are now, at the dictation of those who fought against them and by whom they have always been derided, to be sent over to Ulster to shoot down their own brothers in arms, and for no other reason than this, that we desire to remain loyal to the Crown, to the United Kingdom, and to the British Empire.
Here, as regards this shooting down, is the whole consummation of the aspirations of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. They will say, "At last we have triumphed over our enemies. We have forced the Englishmen, whom we hate, to use their own soldiers, whom we loath, to shoot down their own loyal garrison in Ulster, whom we could neither buy nor overcome." Such, my Lords, is the living ambition of this secret society, the Ancient Order of
186
Hibernians; and it seems that the Government prefer to fulfil that ambition for them rather than have the courage to face the music and allow the people of this country to say whether or not one of the most prosperous and most industrious communities are to be turned out from their midst. Because the Government are afraid of a General Election we are asked, What on earth could a General Election do? There is one thing that I hope it would do. I hope it would decide once and for all that the Imperial Parliament is to rule a United Kingdom, and not, as is now the case, the Imperial Parliament to be ruled by Mr. Redmond and the Nationalist Party. I could not help being amused when the noble Viscount stated his fear that the Government might after a General Election come back and find themselves still faced with the Ulster question. If the Government, with the force of the country at their back, are afraid of facing the Ulster question, I wonder what must be their feelings now.
As far as compromise is concerned, our position in Ulster is perfectly clear. We state now—we have always stated—that we are prepared to resort to arms rather than submit to a Dublin Parliament. That being so, there are only three courses which can possibly be open to the Government—first, to attempt to put us down by force; second, to exclude us out of the Bill; third, to appeal to the people. Which of these three courses they will adopt it is impossible for us in Ulster to foresee. Personally I believe the last is the only one which has any chance whatever of obtaining a permanent settlement of the question; and, my Lords, it can be the only one which can commend itself to the Unionist Party. If the many speeches which I have heard from these Benches during this debate mean anything they prove conclusively this, that if there is no mandate for Home Rule, neither is there any mandate for any tampering whatsoever with the legislative Union. And if there is no mandate to coerce Ulster, neither is there a mandate to hand over 300,000 of our Loyalists in the South and West to the Ancient Order of Hibernians. I do not believe that any one will be led away by the plea that if you do not surrender your principles and compromise you will be guilty of civil war. If civil war breaks out and blood is shed, the responsibility will rest, not upon those

187
who are now demanding an appeal to the country, but upon those who, rather than risk a year of office, are prepared to use the Imperial troops to stifle the appeal of a great industrious and loyal population to the democracy of the United Kingdom to save them from being sold into slavery.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I venture to trespass on your time for but a very few minutes, as this debate is drawing to a close. I must say that some of the speeches to which we have listened, especially the last one, must be most depressing to all who had hoped that the weighty words which the Government advised the King to address to the country would have led to the subject being treated in quite a different way. We all of us, I suppose, feel that we are at a very momentous period in the political situation; and without recrimination, without saying that the willingness of the Government to meet the other side half way must be taken as a plea of guilty and an admission that the original legislation was carelessly or badly drawn—setting aside those recriminations, we ought to try not to inflame but to allay animosity. The speech to which we have just listened did not appear to me to be the impulsive utterances of an excited speaker, because the full notes from which it was made showed that some of the remarks were studied and prepared. I do not know whether the noble Lord thinks that he helps this debate by referring to Mr. Redmond as master of the Government, or to the Government as being prepared to plunge Ulster into civil war for the sake of another year of office. Such remarks, if I may venture to say so, are vulgar and unsuitable to the gravity of the situation.
But I would rather pass away from the unhappy tone that several speakers have introduced into this debate. I know, from private conversation, that many of your Lordships see the gravity of the situation, and that many of you would give much to see the way, without loss of honour, to a lasting settlement of this question. But neither the Amendment before the House nor the speeches made in support of it conduce to that most desirable object. Noble Lords opposite are not asked at this moment—I think he would be a very unreasonable person who would ask them—to sacrifice their own convictions and to say that they think Home Rule a good
188
thing. I have a great deal of sympathy with many noble Lords. I regret very much that we were plunged into this course of disintegrating the United Kingdom. But it is no use talking of what we would have liked the state of political affairs to be if things had remained unchanged. It is useless to ignore what has happened since 1886 and what has taken place during the administration of the various Governments which have followed one another since, and it is useless to ignore the apathy and indifference which has come over a large number of the electorate in reference to the question of the maintenance unimpaired of the Union, which was such a powerful force at the election of 1886.
What we have to do now is not to say what we would like if we had a free hand. We have to show, assuming the legislation of the Government to be mischievous on the whole and not conducive to the welfare of the country, what is the minimum of damage with which we can get out of the question. Noble Lords opposite are not in a position to treat this question as if they were masters of the situation. They know quite well that they are not masters of the situation. If an election took place and Parties were fairly evenly divided, they would not be masters of the situation. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said that the reason this question does not come very prominently forward at elections is that the mass of the electors have made up their minds about it—I do not say with any great enthusiasm. There is a section, no doubt, who are enthusiastic; there is a smaller section in this country who are bitterly hostile; and there is a much larger section who are bored to death with the whole matter and wish to see it settled. We all agree that the situation is very strained and that everything ought to be done that possibly can be done to secure, if possible, the good will of all the people of Ireland—if not the good will, the acquiescence of all the people of Ireland, and, if not the acquiescence, some measure which would enable those who have neither good will nor acquiescence an opportunity of standing aside for the time and seeing the experiment tried.
I agree very heartily with what Lord Clonbrock said, that every person in Ireland who is a law-abiding citizen is entitled to the fullest measure of protection by the

189
law, whether he lives in Ulster or out of Ulster; but it is not by bundling out four or five Protestant counties from the new Government that you can do justice to these citizens who are scattered throughout the rest of the country. I do not feel that this is the time to go into questions of detail as to how this tangled puzzle of Home Rule should be solved. I should be very sorry to go into the question of Federation, or, as the Lord Chancellor much better put it, Devolution. These questions are much too large to be tacked on to the solution of this matter. This question has not arisen—and here I am sorry I do not agree with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn—out of the overweighting of Parliament. It has arisen out of the national sentiment and feelings of the mass of the people of Ireland, and that is why this question is one of urgency. If we are to throw the Constitution into the melting pot, it would have been far more satisfactory if we could have had a carefully constituted Commission to consider what should be matters of devolution and what matters should be retained by the Imperial Parliament. All that would have been very good if we had come to the subject with a free hand. But we know quite well that Parliament and the Government of this country do not come to the question of Irish Home Rule as perfectly free agents. I do not mean because they are bound by an Irish dictator who controls seventy or eighty votes, but because you have now reached in regard to the Irish question an impasse. You have to look at this question as statesmen, as moderate and fair-minded men, and not consider what is the thing which, if you had a free hand, you would regard as the best thing to do, but what in this grave crisis it is possible for you to do. I hope, with the responsibility that must characterise the Front Bench opposite, that we shall have some more sober and thoughtful and helpful utterances than we have had hitherto in this debate.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down mentioned that this question was one of urgency arising from the sentiments of the Irish Nationalists in Ireland. I will ask him one question. Why was it, in that case, that His Majesty's Government did not bring this measure forward when they had a very large majority in the other House free of all hindrance by the large
190
Irish Nationalist Party? In 1906 they came in with a large majority of 300, and it was not until they lost some part of that majority that they took up this question. Therefore I do not think the noble Lord can quite well say that it is a question of urgency, except this— it is a question of urgency in so far as it is important to Cabinet Ministers on the Front Bench opposite, for it cannot be denied that Mr. Redmond is holding the line on which they have got their toes.
There has been a very distinct change in the last six months in the speeches of Ministers, and the comparison of the speeches of Ministers in both Houses is very interesting. I think Ministers in the other House are rather more generous to the Opposition than are the Ministers in this House. For example, on the first evening Lord Morley tried to show that there was a great advance on the part of the Unionist Party in their view of this question. On the other hand, in the other House the Prime Minister acknowledged that to advocate the exclusion of Ulster on the part of the Unionist Party was not showing that they were weakening at all on the Union, but was merely showing that they had a hearty desire to save the country from the worst evil of civil war. The noble Viscount, Lord Morley, said that he had very great experience, together with the noble Marquess who leads this House, of the temper of Ulster Unionists. May I then ask why is it with this knowledge he could not impress it upon his colleagues in the Cabinet and thus prevent bringing the country to the state of civil war?
Where have the Unionist Party changed in their position? We stand where we stood before on this question of Ulster. Ulster is determined to resist and has made resistance good in the eyes of the electors of this country. The Government have no right to coerce Ulster, and they know it. We know that they know it, because they have allowed this large organisation of the Ulster Volunteer Force, of which we are very proud in Ulster, to continue without the least sign of any effort to reduce its numbers or to keep it within certain limits. In the exclusion of Ulster we only desire to save the country from civil war, and I was glad to see that Mr. Bonar Law last evening in the other House disclaimed any responsibility whatever for the consequences of that exclusion. The exclusion of Ulster does not please anybody,

191
and cannot be a settlement of this question. In making our claim for a General Election we do so because it is clear that there can be no justice without an election, especially for those Unionists in the South and West of Ireland. Even if the two great Parties in the State came to an agreement on this question, the Unionists in the South and West of Ireland, some 300,000 men, would feel aggrieved; they would feel that if this question had been placed before the country the electors, like they have done before, would have refused to allow Home Rule to be put into force. But, my Lords, His Majesty's Ministers will have it that in asking for a General Election the desire of the Unionist Party is only to wreck the Parliament Act. Mr. Bonar Law, in another place, dealt with that in a very able manner. I think the shoe is on the other foot on this occasion. The real truth is that His Majesty's Ministers are betwixt appealing to the people—which means humiliation to them, and the acknowledgment that the last two years work amounts to absolute failure— or, on the other hand, coercing Ulster, for which they have no mandate.
In a speech last night the noble Earl the First Commissioner of Works said that in the event of the Government going to the country this year—he was good enough to say this year—it would mean that, supposing they came back, they would have to go through the usual practice under the Parliament Act and would not be able to get their Bill for three years. But it was open under the Parliament Act for His Majesty's Government to go to the country at any time, and if they had come back they would have found the Home Rule Bill still alive, and it would not have lost its position. They could have passed it in a single session—this session. Now that is no longer the case. On the other hand, if they accept the offer made to them by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, and offered again yesterday by Mr. Bonar Law in another place, of a referendum on the question of Home Rule, they would still be able to come back, and provided that they could keep their coalition together, which would be very doubtful, in that case they would still be able to pass their several measures. Therefore the claim of the noble Earl is not quite correct, that they would have to go through the troublesome time of two more years under the Parliament Act.
192
One word about the organisation in Ulster. I think it is a pity that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack could not go over and see for himself that organisation, which may be called in every sense territorial. I am sure it would please him to see the keenness of these men in walking four, five, and sometimes six miles on wet and stormy evenings to a drill hall which is not very good. Sometimes I have known them go to a barn where there was very little room in which to make their military movements, probably with a threshing machine getting in the way. But these men continue to meet twice and three times a week and to pay large sums for their instruction. I know one particular drill sergeant of forty men who would gladly pay 10s. a week themselves for a man to visit them two nights a week. We have a number of old soldiers going about teaching these men. If the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would come over—we could provide him with an Ulster name which would be acceptable; it would be necessary, no doubt, for him to come incognito—I feel sure it would gladden his heart, setting aside the question of Home Rule, to see the keenness of our Ulster Volunteers.
What has been the reason for the entirely changed atmosphere that we have seen in both Houses of Parliament? It is solely due to those gallant men of the Ulster Volunteer Force. All credit is due to them for their arduous work and their sacrifice of time and money, and, above all, for what they have suffered in opposition from the other side. I could tell numbers of stories of how they have practised self-restraint on many occasions. One in particular. A man on a bicycle was met by six Nationalists across the road. They demanded where he was going. He said he would tell them when they had let him by. He took out his revolver and they let him by, but he noticed that they followed him. Therefore he put down his bicycle and sat on the bank playing with his revolver. He waited with patience. Eventually the men dispersed. They dared not face him. I could tell of other cases of a worse kind, where bottles and stones have been thrown at these men going home after drill. I think the appeal of these men will still continue to make itself heard, and I do not believe that the Government can possibly refuse in all justice to go to the country on this important subject.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, we are drawing near to the close of a discussion that has presented several remarkable features. It has been remarkable in its inception and in the form of the Amendment upon which we are about to vote. That has been a step not indeed without precedent, but a very exceptional step, although a step, as we hold, rendered necessary in order to call the attention of this House and of the country to the extreme gravity of the circumstances in which we are placed. The debate has also been remarkable in the large number of Front Bench speeches to which we have been privileged to listen. It has indeed been rather an unusual experience for us in this House to have such a plethora of Ministerial exposition. We have had speeches from Lord Morley, Lord Beauchamp, the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Loreburn, who, although not now on the Front Bench, was only recently there and who was one of the principal framers of the Home Rule Bill. Further, I believe that I shall have the honour to be followed by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House.
But if we have had a remarkable number of Front Bench speeches there has been a remarkable paucity of Back Bench speeches. The speech of Lord Sheffield, couched, if I may say so, in a very reasonable spirit, was a pleasant oasis in a desert of silence on the other side of the House. With the exception of the two noble Lords who moved and seconded the Address in complimentary terms of great excellence, there have been only two other noble Lords on that side—Lord Charnwood and Lord MacDonnell—who have risen to address the House. I do not know what this silence means; but certainly it does not seem to indicate any very enthusiastic acceptance of this measure. I expect it is rather the silence of troubled minds and anxious hearts, the silence of a real and sombre apprehension as to the future that lies before us.
What have we gained, if we have gained anything, by this debate? Are we any more advanced than we were when we began? In answering this question we ought to consider the speeches made almost simultaneously in the House of Commons. What we want to get at is, what is in the minds of Ministers; and if the speeches in this House, which have not erred on
194
the side of clearness, can be supplemented or elucidated by those delivered in the House of Commons, it is our duty to study them. Comparing the speeches of Ministers in the two Houses, we note a perceptible advance towards the understanding of this question, if not towards a solution of it. I will explain what I mean. In the first place, we have a recognition, frank, universal, and unqualified, of the gravity of the crisis by which we are confronted. No attempt whatever has been made to belittle it in your Lordships' House. Indeed, Ministers have assured us—notably the Lord Chancellor—that they have recognised it all along, although, if that be so, my recollection of their earlier speeches in many cases would lead me to think that their language has been a very imperfect reflex of their opinions. However, I do not wish to press that point. It is enough for us that we have no longer any talk of bluff, bluster, or bravado—that the Provisional Government which only a year ago was treated from that Bench as a childish and foolish fantasy is now only spoken of with respect, and that we have no more gibes at the expense of the wooden guns, and so forth. I think this is a substantial advance. There is a common recognition now in every quarter of the House that Ulster is serious, is sincere, that she has raised a force which, in point of equipment and organisation, is comparable with a Regular Army, and that she is resolved to use her strength for the defence of what she regards as her liberties and her rights. We might say, How often have we not pointed this out ourselves in the past? But I will not take that line. I will merely say that we are grateful for the universal recognition now.
Then we have gained another valuable admission from His Majesty's Government —the admission, I mean, that the responsibility for the next step rests with them. We are no longer told, as we used to be, that the duty of submitting a scheme rests with us. The Government have now accepted it, and they propose to act, and to act presently, upon that sense of responsibility. There is yet a further admission that we have won, and that is the admission that the Home Rule Bill in its present form cannot be placed on the Statute Book. Whatever form the suggestions or proposals that are foreshadowed may take one thing is quite clear—they must involve a con-

195
siderable remoulding, if not an entire reconstruction of the Bill. Of coarse, the Prime Minister in the House of Commons in making this admission accompanied it by a claim that he must not be taken to admit that the Home Rule Bill is in any way defective. On the contrary, he said that he still regarded it as a sound and statesmanlike and workable measure. We need not quarrel with this innocent and flattering illusion. As we all know, it is part of the business of the skilful combatant to cover up his retreat. The point for us rather is that the sacrosanct character of the Bill, of which we used to hear so much—the fact that it was going to be forced into law without the change of a line or a comma—has now disappeared; that it is admitted that the Bill, instead of bringing peace to Ireland—the claim that used to be made for it up to only a few months, almost a few weeks, ago—really carries with it a sword; and that it must be substantially altered if it is to have any prospect of success.
From this fallibility of the Bill I venture to suggest that there flows another and a much more important consequence, which really is not the least of the results of these debates. If this Bill is so imperfect as to be unworkable, then, my Lords, the case for coercing Ulster, if she declines to accept the Bill, is gone. I own I never much believed in the brave words that were used by Sir Edward Grey and others as to the use of the forces of the Crown in certain contingencies to coerce Ulster; still less did I attach any importance to the threats of persons like Mr. T. W. Russell that the Government were going to treat Ulstermen as if they were moonlighters and to enforce the Crimes Act in Ulster, or the threats that there would be a blockade at the ports of Ulster or that martial law might be proclaimed in those parts of Ireland. As I say, I never attached much importance to those threats myself—not, I must say, because I believed Ministers to be incapable of the action, because, as we all know, distracted men are often guilty of the most violent deeds; but because I have always felt that they have much too shrewd a regard for their own existence to take any steps that would be almost certain to bring it to an abrupt and inglorious conclusion. But whether there was ever any likelihood of the Government's using force or not, I venture to say that that likelihood has now dis-
196
appeared, and that from the moment that Ministers conceded that the demand of Ulster must be met, the chance of coercing or punishing Ulster, if she declined to forego it, disappeared.
We have had also another admission in the course of these debates, and that is the admission from the Prime Minister, in his impressive speech in the House of Commons, that the only chance for the future good government of Ireland lies, not merely in the avoidance of the outbreak of civil war, but in starting the new system of government in Ireland, whatever it may be, in what he called an atmosphere that would give it a chance of working happily. I thought I traced some faint recognition of this spirit in the otherwise uncompromising speech of Mr. Redmond last night. I have never been able myself to understand why Mr. Redmond, whose love for his country I do not desire to impugn, has always adopted such a singularly unbending attitude towards Ulster, and more particularly towards the possible exclusion of Ulster—why he has repeatedly talked about going full steam ahead, and, if the safeguards which he is willing to yield are not accepted, about insisting upon the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. If that is the line taken by him it seems to me that the whole chance of his ever getting Ulster with the consent of Ulster disappears, not only now, but in the future, and that, even if he were in the chapter of accidents to secure Home Rule in some form or another, he would really only get the rind without the fruit. I hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will bear in mind this doctrine of atmosphere which has been laid down by their chief, and that, whatever proposals they may shortly place before us, these proposals will satisfy the two essential conditions at this moment—the first, that they avoid civil war; the second, that they create this spirit and atmosphere to which I refer and without which any success for their policy or any policy in Ireland is not to be dreamed of.
I go on to ask, How, if at all, far have the proposals that have been made or indicated in this debate satisfied those conditions? May I first deal with the proposals which have been made on this side of the House? Our remedy, so far as we are entitled to suggest one, is a General Election. When we say a General Election

197
I take it that the greater may be held to include the less, and if His Majesty's Government had at any time during the past six months seen their way—or should in the near future see their way—to refer this Bill to a special vote of the people, putting to the people (assuming the Bill with their new proposals attached to it to have left the House of Commons and come up to this House) the question—"Are you or are you not in favour of this Bill?"—I entertain no doubt that that is a proposal that we should have accepted and that we should still, if it were proffered, accept. I am not an advocate of at all a wide and unrestricted use of the referendum in this country. On the contrary, I think if it ever is adopted as part of our constitutional machinery, it will have to have a very circumscribed operation. But in a case like this, where the issue is so clear, where it is so easily capable of being isolated and detached from all other issues, where the point is one of such capital importance, where, after all, there is— everybody must admit—legitimate doubt as to whether the people do or do not favour this scheme—I think that in such an instance a very strong case for the referendum might have been set up. But I understand that you unhesitatingly reject a referendum, and you also scoff at the idea of a General Election.
In his speech yesterday Lord Loreburn said that he did not understand why we should press for a General Election, because in the first place he regarded it as an unreasonable demand, and, in the second place, he did not see how it could offer any solution; on the contrary, instead of offering a solution it would postpone it. I do not, if I may say so with respect, quite follow that reasoning. Supposing you won, supposing the Lord Chancellor was right when he said that the electors have fully made up their minds, and that they are quite satisfied with the Government and with the Bill, then in that case I cannot see why the General Election should not give you precisely the solution that you desire. You have the assurance of the Unionist leaders that if the result of such an election were in favour of your cause they would abide by the result. You have further the assurance that they would be precluded from continuing their active support of Ulster. And therefore you would get your Home Rule Bill intact—perhaps the last thing in the world that
198
you would like at this moment—and there would be only left the hostility of Ulster— a hostility which must be powerfully affected, which must, indeed, be seriously diminished by the consciousness that the voice of England had pronounced, on the hypothesis that I am discussing, against them, and that they were deprived of the support of the official Unionist Party in the future. I should have thought myself that such a solution would have satisfied your most extreme aspirations.
The noble Viscount opposite took another line about our demand for a General Election. He looked upon it as an attempt on our part, by a covert attack, to upset the Parliament Act, and to wipe out the proceedings of the past three years. I do not suppose anyone on this side of the House is very much enamoured of the Parliament Act, and I doubt if noble Lords on that side care for it much more, at any rate a good many of them. The more we see of the Parliament Act the more unconstitutional and intolerable does it become, the more insidious and pernicious in its effect, not merely on this House, but on the House of Commons and on the whole tone and spirit of public life in this country, and the more certain, I take it, does it become that the Parliament Act in its present form cannot retain a permanent place in our governing system. But to suppose that we are engaged by a side wind over this issue of Home Rule in a plot to get rid of the Parliament Act is really to imagine us much more stupid than the noble Viscount has any right to suppose, and it is quite inconsistent with the fact, which I think he forgot in making this remark two days ago, that we were equally pressing for a General Election all through last year, and that if a General Election had been conceded at any time last year or up to the opening of Parliament he would have retained the full protection of the Parliament Act and would have been able to pass his Bill without the alteration of a comma or a line.
May I suggest to the noble Viscount, who is a great student of human nature, that the simplest explanations of the phenomena of human thought and action are often the most true. We plead for a General Election on two very plain and easily intelligible grounds. The first is that we entertain a very sincere doubt as to whether this Bill has the

199
support of a majority of the electorate of the United Kingdom. Whether they did or did not accept the principle in 1910— I think there are grave doubts as to that— we cannot believe that there was a single man voting in 1910 who had the slightest idea what this Bill was going to be—indeed he could not have, because at that date you had no idea yourselves—still less that there was a single man who had the dimmest notion that the yoke of it was going to be laid on the unwilling shoulders of something like 1,000,000 of their fellow-countrymen in Ireland at the cost of civil war. We may, of course, be mistaken. It may be that the electors may have foreseen all these eventualities four years ago. If they did they must be much more intelligent than many of us suppose. It may be that they will be willing to accept the consequences of these eventualities. All that is possible, but what we ask is that the question should be put to the simple test of a reference to them.
The second reason for which we ask for a General Election is that a General Election is obviously the shortest, the promptest, and the most efficacious method of escaping the horrors of civil war. If we were to win there would be no civil war, because Ulster would have won the day. If there were a dead heat there would be no civil war, because both Parties would be compelled to settle down together and thresh out some solution of the Irish question. Supposing you won, the chances of civil strife would be enormously diminished by the factors that I mentioned just now, and in the case of Ulster, conscious that England had pronounced against her and deprived of the support of the Unionist Party, might almost be regarded as of secondary importance. These, therefore, are the two reasons why we press for a General Election. We do not, of course, ask for it to-day or to-morrow. We want to know what is the final shape of the proposals which His Majesty's Government are going to bring forward. What we ask is that the Bill in the final shape in which it leaves the House of Commons shall be placed before the electors before it receives the assent of the King. It is by the result of an appeal to the country in those circumstances that we are content to abide.
May I say one word with reference to an argument that has played a great part in
200
this discussion and has been used by every speaker, I think, from the Front Bench opposite—the argument as to the difficulty that it is alleged we shall experience in dealing with the Nationalist majority in Ireland supposing that they lose Home Rule in the hour of their triumph. Lord Loreburn and Lord Haldane both used the same argument in speaking of the "cup being dashed from the lips" of the Nationalists in Ireland at the moment they were about to quaff it. Metaphors are very dangerous things in political as well as in other controversies, and I venture to say there is a good deal of exaggeration in the use of the image in this case. In the first place, as some one has pointed out, this cup, or some similar cup, was dashed from the lips of Ireland in 1886 and in 1893 without, so far as I remember, producing any very disastrous or terrible consequences. In the second place, on the various occasions on which the cup has been offered it has contained a different beverage. The present cup-holders have been so indifferent about it on previous occasions that in 1906 they substituted an entirely novel and greatly-diluted brew, and finally they are now contemplating a substantial change in the nature of the ingredients. Therefore I am not so much impressed, even although the metaphor came from two Lords Chancellor, with this image of the cup, and I am not so frightened of the awful consequences of its contents being spilled to the ground. Even if I am wrong I should like to say this for the Party behind me, that we should not in the least quail at the prospect placed before us. We might be confronted with anxious and troublous and even stormy times in Ireland. I think that is very likely true, but I do not think the difficulties would be found insuperable, and at any rate with a brave heart we should endeavour to meet them.
Further, I should like to point out the illogical position of those who use this argument. The whole case of His Majesty's Government is, I understand, this, that Ulster ought to submit because of an alleged decision of the electors in 1910. That, of course, is the old doctrine of vae victis, the spoils to the conquerors and the beaten minority to the wall. But, on the hypothesis I am now discussing, if a General Election results in a victory for the Unionists, this duty of obedience to the verdict of the electors is to be entirely forgotten.

201
The old Adam of rebellion against constituted authority, which lurks somewhere in every Radical bosom, and renders them such uneasy custodians of law and order, reappears, and, as we gather, the rest of Ireland—the three-fourths—are to be encouraged and justified in doing precisely the same thing with infinitely less provocation as that which they condemn Ulster for doing now. That is an entirely illogical position to take up.
There is one possible consequence of refusing a General Election now which the noble Viscount omitted to take into account. If there was a General Election now the matter would be settled one way or the other before it becomes more acute than it now is. But if what I understand to be your plan—namely, a General Election after the Bill has been passed into law and the King's name is upon it, but before it comes into operation—is carried out, then, in certain circumstances, you would be guilty of the very greatest of crimes; for, supposing the election turned against you and gave a majority to us, you would be shown to have used the Parliament Act in order to force upon this country a measure which in the contingency that I am discussing they would have disowned, which all along they would have disapproved, and which they would have taken the first opportunity of repudiating; and you would leave to us the odious task of repealing your Bill, with all the trail of misery and tumult and disorder which that must entail. You may be willing to run that risk, but you have no right to put us in that position. If things turn out—and it is not inconceivable—in the way I speak of, you would be found guilty of almost the greatest crime—I do not think a smaller word ought to be used—which a Government has ever perpetrated in this country, and it would be small consolation to Ulster and to Ireland to know that your countrymen would never forgive that crime, and that you would be debarred from office, as I believe you would be, for at least a generation.
I hope, therefore, I have shown that in advocating a General Election we are not doing an unreasonable thing. And I would add that I think noble Lords opposite, even from their own point of view, are not very well advised to reject this idea of an election with so much scorn, because there are some of us—I am one of them—who think that it will be the result
202
to which before many months have passed they will be driven.
I have spoken about our proposals. May I say a word or two about what we know of yours? I allow that not much enlightenment is to be derived on this matter from the speeches which we have heard in this House. The noble Viscount told us that the Government would submit their proposals or suggestions with no avoidable delay. Is there any reason for delay at all? If Ministers have made up their minds, why cannot they make a clean breast of it and take Parliament into their confidence? The noble Viscount did not give us the slightest clue as to what the nature of these suggestions may be. In these circumstances, one turns naturally to the speech of the Prime Minister in the other House of Parliament. The Prime Minister has generally been regarded as the possessor of powers of lucid exposition, which we have often applauded and admired, but I am bound to say that in recent times he has become almost as cryptic and obscure as a Greek oracle. You will remember that the priestess at Delphi, like the Prime Minister, always delivered her oracles in irreproachable literary form. It was in fact generally understood that there was a poet kept to touch them up and turn them into Greek hexameters. Like the Prime Minister, also, the oracle at Delphi was usually couched in terms capable of being interpreted in two different ways. There was the famous case we all remember of Crœsus, who consulted the oracle before he decided to invade the kingdom of Persia, and who was told by the oracle that if he crossed the Halys, the boundary river of his country, he would destroy a great kingdom. I do not know whether I dare quote Greek, but I will try it—

Well, Crœsus did cross the frontier and he did destroy a great kingdom, but it was his own—an omen which I think might be commended to the Government in the present case.
It was with almost equal obscurity that the Prime Minister in his speech seemed to contemplate the exclusion of Ulster from the Bill. There were certain passages in his speech which seemed to be incapable of any other interpretation, and I notice that Sir Edward Carson so interpreted them in his remarkable speech last night. But,

203
differing apparently from the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor seemed to have quite another idea in view. He seemed to contemplate a situation in which the Ulster party would still contribute members of Parliament to Dublin, and he talked about safeguards, to which, with a wide measure of political autonomy, he and his colleagues were apparently willing to consent. I say regretfully but deliberately, that whatever proposals you may submit for what I will call the constructive independence of Ulster, whatever safeguards you may invent, however many vetos or boards you may set up, however plausible and symmetrical you may make your plans for a new scheme of Government in Ireland on paper, I believe, so long as they involve, if they do, the incorporation of the Unionists of Ulster in the scheme of a Parliament at Dublin, they will be vain and futile. I believe it will be wasted breath and wasted paper. The time has gone by when such expedients can be put forward with any chance of acceptance.
The Lord Chancellor asked us last night to advance towards him by the acceptance of some common principle, but he did not explain what the principle was. I rather agree with Lord Sheffield that the time is not one in which either Party can be wisely or safely asked to accept the principles of the other Party. The only principle which we have both in common at this moment—at any rate the first principle— is the duty of trying to prevent strife and to maintain peace in Ireland. Before the Lord Chancellor asks us to accept his principles it would surely be more pertinent to ascertain how far his principles are accepted by the electors of this country.
I spoke just now of exclusion. It would be idle to contend that the idea of the total exclusion of Ulster has not been not merely considered, but favourably considered, by members of the Party opposite, and even by prominent members of the Government. I recall the speeches of Sir Edward Grey and of Mr. Churchill on the Second Reading debate in 1912, the speech of Mr. Churchill at Dundee in the autumn of that year, which has been called the heptarchy speech, the speech by him at the same place last autumn, the speeches of Mr. Asquith at Ladybank, and again in the House of Commons the other day, which make it perfectly certain
204
that exclusion as a policy has been favourably considered even by members of the Government. Therefore for them to treat the thing as absurd hardly tallies with the facts of the case. Moreover, apart from policy, however difficult and complicated it may be, exclusion in itself is not impracticable. It could be done if it had to be done. It may even have to be done.
Upon this question of exclusion the attitude of our friends on this side of the House is quite clear. It was well expressed by Lord Leitrim. Our Party regard exclusion with no enthusiasm whatsoever. Many of our friends in this House, in the country, and in Ulster are entirely opposed to it. We cannot think that it is a desirable thing in itself; but always coming back to the governing consideration of the whole of this case—namely, the imminence of civil war in Ireland—sooner than have the Home Rule Bill passed in its present form or have war as a consequence of persisting in it, we should be bound to consider exclusion if you put it forward as your suggestion, and I venture to say that you are bound to consider it. But the question of exclusion, if it be thus brought forward, is not a matter for bargaining and trafficking between the two Parties in Parliament; and if exclusion is to be considered—if you favour it—it must not be the nominal and, as I call it, the constructive exclusion to which I referred, but it must surely be total exclusion for Ulster from the operation of the Bill.
There is only one other plea which I ask to be allowed in all seriousness to submit to the Government. A great crisis and a great danger lies before us. It is urgent, it is imminent. It may be attended with disastrous consequence which would react upon our country and our race for many long generations to come. Whatever solution you in your wisdom put forward, may I venture to hope that you will get away from the region of tactics? When two forces are on the verge of civil war it is no good to conduct manœuvres on the battlefield. Depend upon it, if your side—or if either side, because I am quite willing that my argument should apply to both— if either side merely treats this matter as a question of Party finesse, with a view to how much advantage they are to extract from it on the platform or at the polls, the solution put forward will be doomed to failure, and the Party which puts it

205
forward will suffer. It would suffer because it would presently be confronted with a new crisis more acute and dangerous than that which it might have momentarily escaped, and sooner or later it would have to face the anger of a duped and infuriated people. I pray, therefore, that His Majesty's Government may remember that the sands are running out, and that whatever may be thought of them at any other time, this is not the occasion for federal solutions or paper safeguards or for ingenious adaptations of possible forms of Home Rule within Home Rule. If you reject our policy, as you do—the simple policy of an appeal to the people—let us have your own; but in framing it and putting it before the country, see that it satisfies the primary and essential condition of the case—namely, that if it is to be fruitful in result its first consequence shall be to save the country from the unspeakable calamities of civil war.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, in trying to sum up briefly the general effect produced by such a debate as this, a debate which will conclude with a Division of, of course, a foregone character, and a Division which will not immediately affect opinion outside, it is even more important, I think, to consider the tone and. temper of the more important speeches that have been made than to discuss their actual content. I ought to say a word on the complaint which the noble Earl made that not many noble Lords on our Back Benches have taken part in this discussion. Only three, I think he said, had made a contribution to the debate. But I must remind the noble Earl, and although the reminder is not necessary to him it may not be unnecessary to the House, that this is not the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill. This is a debate on an Amendment touching the single question as to whether we ought to advise His Majesty to dissolve Parliament before proceeding any further. Consequently I venture to think that the contributions which have been made from our side of the House are, both in number and substance, adequate to the occasion.
Of the speeches made on the Benches opposite my noble friend behind me, the Lord President, had some reason, as he thought, to complain of the tone of the
206
noble Viscount who moved the Amendment, as not offering a real response to the desire expressed in His Majesty's Speech; and he also made it a matter of some complaint, with which I confess I agree, that Lord Midleton's speech was one which in many of its parts might more naturally have been made some thirty years ago than to-day. The noble Viscount talked about the feelings of Irish-America and of the dangers of a Fenian conspiracy if Home Rule were granted. That is, I think I may venture to say, rather belated talk. So far as I have any knowledge of the subject, those who have any dream to-day of the existence of an Irish Republic are scarcely more to be considered than the other body of gentlemen who desire to institute the succession of the Jacobite line in this country. As for the speech of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, who spoke, of course, with the gravity which he always brings to bear on a great occasion, the main point on which he dealt, and the main point of practical interest in his speech, was his almost unreserved acceptance on behalf of the Party over which he presides of the complete exclusion of Ulster from the purview of the Government of Ireland Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I certainly gave nothing like an unreserved acceptance of the principle of excluding Ulster.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I did not mean to accuse the noble Marquess of regarding the scheme as one which he favoured from the point of view of policy, but I did understand him to say that he would take it, not, of course, with agreement, but with some kind of acquiescence as a possible solution of the question. I hope I am not putting it too high. Then the other noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, spoke in terms which we on this side of the House recognised as studiously moderate. It was possible to see that the noble Marquess was exercising much self-restraint in the terms in which he spoke of the situation, and it was only in one or two casual phrases, as I thought, that he departed from that rule which he had laid down. But the speech of the noble Marquess was a speech pure and simple against Home Rule. He never, I think, once alluded to the possible exclusion of Ulster from the purview of the

207
Bill, and it was only in the very last sentence, half a dozen words just as he sat down, that he alluded to a General Election as a solution of the question. His speech was a speech simply directed against Home Rule.
Then the noble Earl who has just sat down devoted his speech, as I should have expected, almost entirely to the Amendment before the House. At first I confess, I could not regard the tone which he adopted as very hopeful. He seemed to me to be taking a somewhat stiff and intransigent tone with regard to the whole subject. But as the noble Earl proceeded, and when he spoke of the appeal made elsewhere for a calmer atmosphere in the discussion of the subject, I confess I liked his tone far better; and when before he sat down he made a concluding appeal for the large treatment of the question and the broad view, that is an appeal to which I, and I am sure also my noble friends behind me, would desire most cheerfully and most fully to respond. One argument used by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, was that we were committing an impropriety in bringing forward this subject at all before the question of the reform of your Lordships' House had been considered. That argument is not highly relevant to the Motion before the House, for obvious reasons. I need not dwell upon this; but it does seem to me to assume, what I think is a somewhat large assumption, that a reformed House of Lords would necessarily have taken the line which your Lordships desire to take, of what you call referring the Bill to the people—that is to say, of throwing it out. It seems to me rather hasty to assume that the reformed House of Lords, however constituted, is necessarily likely to act in any respect as the great majority of your Lordships choose to act on this occasion.
We have been told that a new situation has been produced by the declaration of the Prime Minister that he was prepared shortly to bring forward suggestions for some amendment of the Bill. Of course, we have been told—we expected to be told —that this proves how bad we think the Bill in that we are coming forward with proposals of our own to alter its character. I ought at this point to deal with the question which was put to me by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry. "When did the Government know," the noble Marquess asked, "that Ulster would
208
resist?" and in answering that question I can also deal with the point which the noble Earl raised as to the probability of trouble in the South and West of Ireland if noble Lords opposite were in power and the Home Rule Bill had been rejected. My noble friend behind me answered that question to a great extent. He reminded the House that in 1886 he was Chief Secretary for Ireland when the riots in Belfast and elsewhere in the North of Ireland took place. I was not connected with the Irish Government then, but in 1893 I was, and I know, like my noble friend, what precautions we took to ensure the maintenance of order after the rejection of the second Home Rule Bill.
When the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, speaks rather lightly of the cup being dashed from the lips of the Nationalists I think he forgets two things. He forgets, in the first place, that what happened in 1886 was no light matter. Some twenty people were known to have been killed during the riots that took place steadily and continuously, though at intervals, between June and October in that year, and 300 or 400 people at least were seriously hurt. Many people were killed by rifle shots and by methods which, if you desire so to call them, you can describe as methods of civil war. A Catholic chapel was burnt down by a Protestant mob, and lives were lost. A Catholic mob made a raid on a prison and tried to rescue prisoners, and more lives were lost. Those were not light matters. Also, I think, the noble Earl is bound to remember that the kind of disappointment which would be felt in those parts of Ireland in which Nationalists predominate would be, if Home Rule were to be lost now, entirely different in kind from anything that was felt either in 1886 or in 1893. I desire to make no ominous prophecy, but I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl has spoken somewhat too lightly of those possibilities. As I have said, we have been taunted with the expression of the intention to bring forward proposals on the subject. I think that there is real force in pointing to the fears of Ulster as placing a responsibility upon us to meet those fears if we can, and it is worth noticing that on this point Mr. Bonar Law, in his speech in another place, accepted, on behalf of the Party opposite, his share of the responsibility which rests upon all serious people in a predicament of this kind.

209
Whether those fears on the part of Ulster are justified is not really quite the point. The argument, as was pointed out in another place, is a dangerous one to use, for you cannot always be prepared to meet fears which you do not believe to be in themselves justified, but in this case we are prepared to do so. If there is an alarm of fire in a crowded playhouse or other assembly, it may not very much matter for the results whether the building is really on fire or not, and on those lines we desire to meet the fears of Ulster, assuming the Home Rule Bill were carried in precisely its present form. It is our duty, as we think, to miss no possible opportunity of reaching a peaceful solution. But I do desire to say this, that on my honour and conscience I do not believe that if this Bill were passed precisely as it stands any class of persons, either in Ulster or out of Ulster, would stand in peril either to their conscience, their person, or their purse. At the same time I do not deny, as I have already said, that changes in the Bill may properly be made. If I did not believe what I have just said—and I am sure I can say the same for every one of my colleagues either here or in the other House—if I did not believe what I have said, although all my colleagues did, I would not stay a day a member of His Majesty's Government if I believed we were imperiling any class of persons in Ireland.
And then the noble Earl asked, as some others have asked, If you have any proposals why cannot you produce them now? The answer to that is a simple one, although it will probably not satisfy noble Lords opposite. It is that we believe that the best chance of arriving at a satisfactory solution through those proposals would not exist if we were to place them on the Table now before all the financial business in another place has to be discussed. Whether we are right or wrong time alone can show. In one sense time can never show, but that is our belief; and it being our belief we are bound to act upon it. The demand of the Amendment is for a General Election. In the autumn, speaking somewhere—I forget where—I said that I confessed I could not see what precise difference in the situation would be created by a General Election, and it happened that Mr. Bonar Law was speaking somewhere not long afterwards and he alluded to the remark which I had made
210
and invited me to use my intelligence in framing a reply to the question. I have tried, both at the time and during these debates that have been going on, to use my intelligence, such as it is, and I confess that I still find myself in a difficulty as to the precise benefits that would be conferred, I do not mean on ourselves, but on the situation generally by the holding of a General Election. My difficulty is founded largely upon the double presentation of the argument about Ulster which I have heard, not merely in this debate, but which has been freely coming from the Party opposite. One presentation is that this is a great Constitutional change of an intricate and elaborate kind which ought to be examined in detail by the country before it becomes law. Well, that is a plausible argument, although I do not think that researches in history or searches for precedents would afford much aid to those who use it. From the time of the Act of Union itself onwards you will not find that measures involving important changes have been studied by the country before they have come before Parliament.
The other argument which is used is entirely of a different kind. We are told that Ulster is going to be handed over to gangs of moonlighters and to an ecclesiastical domination only comparable to that which we read of in Spain in the sixteenth century, and a great number of simple-minded, not very highly educated, and deeply prejudiced people are encouraged to take this view. They believe that their freedom, their faith, and their fatherland are all going to be placed in peril by a Home Rule Bill. And then you offer those people a General Election or a referendum. You might just as well, it seems to me, have offered a referendum to the clansmen who followed Prince Charles Edward to Culloden. It is only every now and then, and at very long intervals, that I find myself in agreement with anything said by Lord Willoughby de Broke, but I entirely agree with him when he said that an election will not make right a wrong. If this is really an outrage on humanity and a crime against God and man, you will not make it any better by having a General Election or a referendum to sanctify it; and it is really the double presentation of that argument which for one thing places me and my friends in great difficulty as to this question of a General Election. If these states

211
ments about Ulster are at all well founded, the people who really matter will not be helped by a General Election. The noble Earl said just now, and I really think he must have said it without reflection, that after a General Election the people of Ulster would become of secondary importance.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: What I said was that when a General Election had pronounced, if it did, in favour of the Party opposite and Ulster was deprived of the support of the Unionist Party, the risk of civil strife would be reduced to secondary importance.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think the noble Earl is somewhat sanguine, supposing he agrees that the innermost faith of Ulster is involved in this, in thinking that the mere fact that he and his friends acquiesce in the obtaining of a majority in this country and in Scotland by the voters and by the Ministers who are in favour of Home Rule, will be regarded as satisfactory to Ulster. It is only fair to point out that we have not had from any of those who are entitled to speak for the people of Ulster any asseveration that they share the view of the noble Earl.
This brings me to another point on which the noble Earl also spoke. The day before yesterday the noble Duke, the Duke of Portland, made a speech in which he described his recent experiences in the North of Ireland, and he used a phrase in the course of that speech which was even more pregnant, I think, than the noble Duke himself entirely realised. He begged us not to regard Ulster as a pawn in a paltry Party game. The noble Duke was evidently deeply stirred by his experiences in Ulster, and he desired, I have no doubt, in saying that to plead with the Government to leave Ulster altogether alone. But, as I say, the remark was in some respects even a more pregnant one than he imagined, and what fell from the noble Earl I think shows it. If the present situation is to be regarded as a game of chess, it cannot, I think, be argued that Ulster is a piece which is of any service to us from a Party point of view, or can play in the game any part that helps us. But there is a temptation, a very strong temptation I venture to think, to the Opposition, a temptation which the noble Earl tried to explain away, to regard
212
Ulster and the fears of Ulster from their point of view in a Party game. That temptation, as I firmly believe, has been entirely resisted by the leaders of the Party opposite. Anybody who read the speech of Sir Edward Carson in another place yesterday, or, indeed, anybody who knows at all what the sequence of events has been during the last few months, will say that the leaders of the Party opposite have in no way succumbed to that temptation; but there is, I think, a very real temptation to use Ulster as a pawn on the side of the Party opposite, one of those pawns which goes on and becomes a queen and ultimately sweeps away the adversary's pieces and lets you win the game. That pawn means a General Election, the hope being that it might bring Party gains to the Party opposite, gains even beyond the dreams of political avarice.
The noble Earl scorned the idea of an intrigue to defeat the Parliament Act. I do not think there is any necessity to speak of an intrigue, but it is an undoubted fact that a General Election would defeat the Parliament Act, certainly as regards its operation upon measures now before Parliament, and it might not be too much to say, defeat it altogether Further than that, a General Election, if you were lucky enough to get a majority at it, would give noble Lords opposite and their Party the reform of this House, creating a body which I think it is not unreasonable to state, although its composition would be greatly altered, would be at any rate permanently Conservative in its general character. Therefore it cannot be disputed, I think, that from the purely Party point of view a General Election taken now, so far as its chances and possibilities are concerned, offers an infinitely more attractive kind of gamble to noble Lords opposite than it does to us. But then the noble Earl said, "But if you had taken your General Election some months ago before Parliament reassembled you would have got the full benefit of the Parliament Act; if you could have got a majority your Bills would have been alive and you could have gone on and started a new lease of life." These matters are not entirely in the hands of those who sit on the two Front Benches in this House and in another place. The demand for a Dissolution, if it was to come, must have come from the Party who do us the honour to regard us as their leaders. To suppose

213
that a set of Ministers could go to His Majesty and ask that Parliament should be dissolved against the practically universal desire, as I believe it would have been, of their followers is, I think, hardly to be thought of from any point of view. I can make noble Lords opposite a present of the assertion that if we had asked for a Dissolution in such circumstances as those, they would in all probability have won the day, not because the country was adverse to Home Rule, but because those who ordinarily support us in the country would have declined to walk across the street to support people who showed such infirmity of purpose, such poltroonery of character, and, I venture to think, such imbecility of intellect. That is the only answer I can give to the noble Earl's contention that we ought two or three months ago to have asked His Majesty's leave for a dissolution of Parliament.
I must say a word about the possibilities connected with the exclusion of Ulster. I do not want to argue the various points pro and con which have been mentioned in the course of the extremely interesting discussion that we have had, but nobody who has listened to the debate could fail to have been struck by the strong expressions of views from many members of the Unionist Party in opposition to the exclusion of Ulster, and it is hardly enough to say that many noble Lords do not like the exclusion of Ulster but would sooner have it than the inclusion of Ulster. One seems almost entitled from this side of the House to say that some other noble Lords seem to regard the exclusion of Ulster with Home Rule as almost a worse state of things than Home Rule applying to the whole of Ireland. Although, therefore, as I say, I do not wish to argue all the points connected with the subject, there is one which one cannot help bearing in mind—that the measure of approval which is attached to the exclusion of Ulster is not so much the comfort which it would bring to Ulster as the annoyance which it would inflict on the Nationalist Members of Parliament. That has been frankly, and some may think too candidly, admitted by noble Lords—that the charm of the exclusion of Ulster is that it is a death-blow to Home Rule. That may or may not be the case, but it is hardly the tone, noble Lords will agree, in which to commend it to those who are in charge of a Home Rule measure. That, of
214
course, would mean that the Parliamentary minority and the minority in the country was claiming a right to defeat Home Rule in this particular way.
I think it is fair also to point out that there are two minorities in Ulster itself. There is the Roman Catholic minority in Ulster, even in the selected and concentrated form of Ulster which is often understood by the term. There is there a Catholic minority, but there is also another minority of quiet persons, many of them Protestants, some, I dare say, Roman Catholics with a leaning towards Unionism, who, although they have no wish for Home Rule and would be glad to see it left alone, yet do not belong to what may be called the fighting element, of which we have heard so much during the last two or three days. That quiet minority—and perhaps added to the Roman Catholic minority it may not produce so very small a minority altogether—has not been greatly heard of, but in considering the exclusion of Ulster it is a fact which has to be borne in mind, more particularly when you are asking yourselves how the exclusion of Ulster would be regarded by the Roman Catholic majority in other parts of Ireland. That, I am certain, is a point which noble Lords opposite will not miss.
What I would beg noble Lords opposite to do on this question of the exclusion of Ulster is to consider carefully—we shall all have to consider—before you decide that the dismemberment of Ireland in this way—because it is a complete dismemberment of Ireland to attempt to exclude Ulster—is the only alternative to fighting. The country will have to consider what is the utmost limit of concession and agreement to which the majority can go, and the country must then ask whether the line beyond that concession can be so sharply drawn that a clear-cut distinction exists between a solution which will be, if not welcomed, at any rate calmly acquiesced in on the one side and civil war and bloodshed on the other.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I beg to move that leave be given to Lord Cottesloe to vote in the House.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Motion is, That the following humble Address be presented to His Majesty to offer the humble thanks of this House for His Majesty's gracious Speech addressed to both Houses of Parliament—namely, "Most Gracious Sovereign,—We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which your Majesty has addressed
to both Houses of Parliament." To that an Amendment has been moved, to add at the end of the Motion, "But humbly represent that it would be disastrous to proceed further with the Government of Ireland Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the people." The Question is that these words be added to the Motion.
On Question?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 243; Not-contents, 55.

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Lauderdale, E.

Aldenham, L.

Argyll, D.

Leicester, E.

Alington, L.

Beaufort, D.

Lichfield, E.

Allerton, L.

Devonshire, D. [Teller.]

Lindsey, E.

Ampthill, L.

Marlborough, D.

Londesborough, E.

Armstrong, L.

Portland, D.

Malmesbury, E.

Ashcombe, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Manvers, E.

Atkinson, L.

Rutland, D.

Morley, E.

Balfour, L.

Somerset, D.

Morton, E.

Barnard, L.

Wellington, D.

Northbrook, E.

Barrymore, L.

Northesk, E.

Basing, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Onslow, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Orford, E.

Belper, L.

Ailsa, M.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Berwick, L.

Bath, M.

Plymouth, E.

Biddulph, L.

Bristol, M.

Portsmouth, E.

Blythswood, L.

Camden, M.

Powis, E.

Bolton, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Roberts, E.

Botreaux L. (E. Loudoun.)

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Rothes, E.

Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

Exeter, M.

Sandwich, E.

Lansdowne M.

Scarbrough, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Salisbury, M.

Selborne, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Winchester, M.

Shaftesbury, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Zetland, M.

Shrewsbury, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Abingdon, E.

Stanhope, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Albemarle, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Amherst, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Aylesford, E.

Verulam, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Bathurst, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Cadogan, E.

Westmeath, E.

Colchester, L.

Cairns, E.

Wharncliffe, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Camperdown, E.

Wicklow, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Clarendon, E.

Bangor, V.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Coventry, E.

Chilston, V.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Cromer, E.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

De Mauley, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

De Saumarez, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Esher, V.

Desborough, L.

Darnley, E.

Falkland, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Dartrey, E.

Falmouth, V.

Digby, L.

Denbigh, E.

Hambleden, V.

Dinevor, L.

Derby, E.

Hampden, V.

Dunleath, L.

Devon, E.

Hardinge, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Drogheda, E.

Hill, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Eldon, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Elphinstone, L.

Essex, E.

Erskine, L.

Ferrers, E.

Iveagh, V.

Estcourt, L.

Fortescue, E.

Peel, V.

Farnham, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

St. Aldwyn, V.

Farquhar, L.

Halsbury, E.

Fermanagh L. (E. Erne)

Harewood, E.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Harrowby, E.

Gloucester, L. Bp

Forester, L.

Howe, E.

Peterborough, L. Bp.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick)

Huntingdon, E.

St. David's, L. Bp.

Grenfell, L.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

Aberdare, L.

Greville, L.

Kilmorey, E.

Abinger, L.

Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

Lanesborough, E.

Addington, L.

Gwydir, L.

Harlech, L.

Monck Bretton, L.

Savile, L.

Harris, L.

Monkswell, L.

Seaton, L.

Hastings, L.

Monson, L.

Sherborne, L.

Hatherton, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Shute, L. (V. Harrington.)

Heneage, L.

Mostyn, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Hindlip, L.

Newlands, L.

Sinclair, L.

Hothfield, L.

Newton, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Hylton, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Somerton, L (E. Normanton.)

Inchiquin, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Southampton, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Kenyon, L.

Parmoor, L.

Killanin, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Playfair, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Plunket, L.

Suffield, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Kinross, L.

Templemore, L.

Langford, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Tennyson, L.

Leigh, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Teynham, L.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Rathmore, L.

Torphichen, L.

Lilford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Tredegar, L.

Llangattock, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Trevor, L.

Lovell and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Vivian, L.

Rothschild, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford)

Massy, L.

Sackville, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

St. Audries, L.

Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

Merthyr, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Methuen, L.

Sanderson, L.

Wynford, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Sandys, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Blyth, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President.)

Butler, L. (E. Carrick.)

Marchamley, L.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Moulton, L.

Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Charnwood, L.

Murray, L.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Nunburnholme, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Coleridge, L.

Pirrie, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

Cowdray, L.

Reay, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Devonport, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Craven, E. [Teller.]

Emmott, L.

Rotherham, L.

Granville, E.

Eversley, L.

St. Davids, L.

Kimberley, E.

Farrer, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Loreburn, E.

Glenconner, L.

Shaw, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Southwark, L.

Allendale, V.

Grimthorpe, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Bryce, V.

Haversham, L.

Strachie, L.

Hemphill, L.

Swaythling, L.

Aberconway, L.

Hollenden, L.

Tenterden, L.

Airedale, L.

Inchcape, L.

Weardale, L.

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

Lucas, L.

Welby, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative accordingly.
And the Address agreed to as follows: "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament, but humbly represent that it would be disastrous to proceed further with the Government of Ireland Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the People":
The said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

SCOTTISH INSURANCE COMPANIES (SUPERANNUATION FUND) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL, [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Scottish Insurance Com-
218
panies (Superannuation Fund)—Was presented by the Lord Emmott; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 7.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, as there is no business on the Paper for Monday next, I understand that it will be for the general convenience of your Lordships that the House should adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Tuesday. I beg to move.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.