Sitting of 22 March 1917

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Land Drainage (Ramsey) Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
London Corn Exchange Company Bill,
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.

RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of Part I. of the Report of the Agricultural Policy Sub-Committee, appointed in August, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    FOREIGN OFFICE (CORRESPONDENCE BAGS).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Foreign Office bags sealed and entrusted to Foreign Office messengers have been frequently used during the present War for the conveyance of private correspondence; and if he will take effective steps to stop all letters of private persons being conveyed in the Foreign Office bags either to or from this country?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): Private correspondence is only conveyed in the Foreign Office bags under exceptional circumstances and with a special authorisation. I am satisfied with the present regulations on the subject.

  REVOLUTION IN RUSSIA.

    GREECE (INTERVENTION).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the charges which have been levelled against the late Czar and his Ministers, he will now give full information as to their action in opposing the intervention of Greece on the side of the Allies in connection with the attack upon the Dardanelles?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: No, Sir.

    IRISH PRISONERS.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the first act of the new Russian Government has been to direct the release of all political prisoners; and whether he proposes to direct that similar steps be taken in connection with Ireland?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, if the hon. Member is referring to the prisoners undergoing sentence in connection with the rebellion of last Easter, in the opinion of the Government the time has not yet come for their sentences to be reviewed.
    Mr. LYNCH: How about those who are now undergoing sentences not in connection with the rebellion at all and against whom, in fact, no charge whatever has been preferred?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as I know, there are none of that character in prison.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his Friend on his left (Mr. Duke), who will tell him that there are?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that these Russian prisoners who have been released were imprisoned on exactly the same charge?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think not.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Oh, yes! The hon. Member asked: Whether M. Kerenski, the new Minister of Justice in Russia, has given a public pledge on assuming office that no person in Russia will be condemned without trial in the open Courts; and whether it is proposed to establish a similar practice in Ireland and to release those prisoners who were sentenced by secret military Courts?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the answer to the last part of the question was given in my reply to the hon. Member's previous question.

  ARRESTS AND DEPORTATIONS (IRELAND).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the arrest and deportation of Mr. J. J. O'Kelly, without charge or trial, was because he is the author of about a dozen volumes, including one on the influence of the Irish on European civilisation, a life of Brian Boru, a life of St. Brendan the Navigator, a life of Father Mathew, a drama laid in Ireland's heroic period, and a number of standard volumes prescribed as texts by the Intermediate Education Board and by the National Education Board; and whether literary work of this class is now held to be illegal?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): No, Sir.
  Mr. GINNELL: Are these activities considered illegal in Ireland under the Defence of the Realm Act?
  Mr. DUKE: I have just answered that question.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the purpose of the order given by Major Moul to the Irishmen under arrest in Arbour Hill Barracks, Dublin, that they were not to consider themselves prisoners though they were at the time inside locked gates, were immediately ordered into cells, the doors of which were locked, were, without charge or trial, deported by armed force to England, were not allowed to know their respective destinations, and were not allowed to attend Mass on their first Sunday in Shrewsbury?
  Mr. DUKE: I am informed that orders were given that the men should not be treated as prisoners except so far as was necessary to secure their removal to their new places of residence, and that the purpose of the order was to ensure them reasonable consideration as regards food, smoking, seeing friends, writing letters, and freedom from inapplicable prison rules. I am inquiring as to Shrewsbury.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many persons
  2026
  are now in prison in Ireland on public or political grounds, as distinguished from the ordinary crimes that involve moral turpitude?
  Mr. DUKE: I have no means of making such a classification as the hon. Member suggests, but so far as I am aware nobody is in prison in Ireland under sentence who has not been knowingly guilty of an offence against the law.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise purely political offences as distinguished from crime?
  Mr. DUKE: I am afraid I cannot debate that subject on the question which is before me without more particular knowledge than I have of the matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    TILLAGE (IRELAND).
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why the Congested Districts Board have not enlarged the uneconomic holdings of the following tenants of the Towerhill estate, county Mayo, which was acquired by the Board six years ago, Patrick Reilly, Pat Feeny, Pat Malley, Margaret Halligan, John Connell, and Darby Halligan, all of Rinaneel, Ballyglass, county Mayo; and, as the Board is in possession of sufficient untenanted lands in the district, will the Board proceed without further delay with the necessary enlargements so as to enable these poor people to increase their tillage in this year?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that the Congested Districts Board have no untenanted land in the district referred to out of which the tenants mentioned in the question could be provided with additional land for the enlargement of their present holdings.
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps the Department of Agriculture intend taking to enforce the increased tillage scheme on the large landholders in the Rathdowney, Donaghmore, and Aghavoe electoral divisions who have failed to comply with the Order; whether he is aware that a number of small farmers and labourers requiring allotments for tillage in these divisions have been unable to obtain such

    2027
    land; when the Department of Agriculture intend to carry out the powers vested in them under the tillage scheme against landholders who fail to comply with the orders issued; and, if so, upon what date the Department propose to enter on such lands?
    Mr. DUKE: Warning notices have been served by the Department of Agriculture on a number of landholders in the districts referred to, and the Department have received from the hon. Member a list of persons desirous of obtaining allotments in these districts. There will be no delay in taking any action which may be found to be necessary.
    Mr. FITZPATRICK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of people have been unable to get land in this district?
    Mr. DUKE: Most of the population of Ireland, so far as my experience has gone, want land which they cannot get.
    An HON. MEMBER: You will not allow them to get it!
    Mr. FLAVIN(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the serious condition of the tillage question in the Listowel Rural District Council owing to their inability to procure supplies from the Department of Agriculture in Ireland or from the merchants supplying the Department with artificial manure and seed potatoes, and whether he will take immediate action to secure the necessary seeds and manure for the land?
    Mr. DUKE: I have not had sufficient notice to obtain information from the Department of Agriculture, but I am communicating with the Department.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that his predecessor in office stated on the 24th June, 1915, that the question of making lands then used for grazing more productive would necessarily come before the Irish Food Committee then sitting; that the Committee afterwards rejected evidence offered relating to evicted grass. lands and the districts in which they are situated, and issued a Report without a word about the redistribution of those lands; and, in view of the increasing danger of food shortage, how long this
    2028
    greatest of available sources of food is to be spared in the interests of a class and of the Government which enabled that class to exterminate the people and replace them with cattle?
    Mr. DUKE: I am aware of the statement made by my predecessor, but I cannot find in the minutes of the Committee on Food Production in Ireland any rejection of evidence such as the hon. Member refers to. Much evidence was heard on the subject of the increase of tillage, and the Report of the Committee deals with this on pages 4 and 5. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that under recent Regulations a large area of land which had long been under grass, including the lands to which he refers, is being brought under tillage.
    Mr. GINNELL: From whom did the right hon. Gentleman seek information; and is it not also the fact that this Committee refused to hear the Rev. Robert Barry, P.P. of Oldcastle, county Meath, who wanted to give evidence on this subject?
    Mr. DUKE: I told the hon. Gentleman I did inquire about the matter. The minutes have been searched, and no record has been found of such a matter. If, however, the hon. Gentleman will put down another question, I will again inquire into it.

    EXPORT OF FOODSTUFFS (IRELAND).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if instructions will be issued to prohibit the exporting of all classes of foodstuffs from Ireland; if he is aware that, as a result of the prices being offered by English buyers, unemployment and low wages, the Irish people are in many towns and cities not able to purchase the ordinary necessaries of life; and if he will state the Government proposals in this matter?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture see no reason for the prohibition of the export of all foodstuffs from Ireland, and think it well to indicate that the chief items in the food of the poorer classes in the towns and cities of Ireland, e.g., breadstuffs, tea and sugar, at present are not home-grown but imported.
    Mr. BYRNE: May I ask if potatoes are not one of the principal foodstuffs of the poor people of Ireland, and if there is a scarcity there at the present moment?
    Mr. DUKE: I have answered the hon. Member's questions about potatoes, I should think, at least half a dozen times in the last fortnight.
    Mr. BYRNE: The answers conveyed nothing.

    FERTILISERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has received resolutions from many county councils in Ireland pointing out the difficulty of procuring fertilisers for immediate use on the land without which, in many parts of Ireland, the food-production scheme cannot properly be carried out; and, if so, can he say what action, if any, the Department propose to take in regard to the matter?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture have received resolutions from some county committees of agriculture as regards the difficulty of procuring fertilisers for immediate use. The stocks usually accumulated by manufacturers at the beginning of the season have been almost cleared out owing to the extra demand for fertilisers this year, and dp-liveries are limited to the regular weekly output of about 3,500 tons. Every effort is being made to secure the importation of sufficient raw mineral phosphate to maintain the output and, if possible, to supplement it by the sale of a two parts to one mixture. I am informed that manufacturers are doing their utmost to distribute the weekly output as fairly as possible.
    Mr. DIXON: Have not some of these fertilisers been sent to Denmark?
    Mr. DUKE: No fertilisers are being sent to Denmark from Ireland. I do not know what fertilisers are being sent from this country to Denmark.

    FOREIGN AND DOMINION MEAT.
    Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that, since the Board resolved on the request of certain salesmen in Smithfield Market to withhold or largely withhold the marketing of Government imported sheep and lambs, a large consignment of River Plate sheep and lambs arrived from the Anglo-South
    2030
    American Export Company of Zarate; whether these were imported by the firm of W. Weddel and Company, Limited, of which Mr. Gordon Campbell is a director; whether, in view of previous admissions by the Government that Mr. Gordon Campbell was both employed and consulted by them, it was upon his advice as well as that of the salesmen that the Government marketings were reduced; (2) whether a deputation of Smithfield salesmen waited on the officials of the Board and requested them to withhold the Government-controlled supplies of Australasian mutton and lamb; whether, in view of the charges of meat gambling and market rigging now definitely made by responsible persons connected with Smithfield Market and the riverside cold stores, he will state the names of the persons composing the deputation; and (3) whether he is aware that the reason advanced by the deputation of Smithfield salesmen who requested him to withhold the 700,000 sheep and 900,000 lambs recently arrived from the Antipodes was that they would make English and Scotch sheep cheaper to the public; whether advantage was taken of this withholding by the firm of W. Weddel and Company, Limited, to introduce a large supply of River Plate meat of a character not hitherto imported into this country and in no sense affected by the Government arrangements with other South American companies for Army meat supplies; and why, if it was necessary or considered advisable to withhold the Government supplies, steps were not also taken to prevent the fresh importations of Weddel and Company, Limited, from being placed on the market?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): The Board of Trade periodically consult their selling agents and the market salesmen as to the state of the meat market and the position of British and imported trade as well as Government meat. From the information so obtained and that solely in their own possession the Board came to a decision as to the best course to be taken from time to time, and there was nothing exceptional about the occasion to which my hon. Friend refers. The Board are satisfied that the advice given to them by those best acquainted with the market is given honestly and without regard to any private interest, and they strongly deprecate the unfounded suggestions on which the questions are based.

    SUGAR DISTRIBUTION (IRELAND).
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the dissatisfaction caused by the method of distributing sugar in Ireland at present, he will consider the advisability of opening a sugar depot in each province in that country so that small traders and poor people generally may be assured of a sure and ready-supply of this article, no matter how small?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): The Food Controller has been in consultation with the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to the desirability of establishing some local organisation to assist sugar distribution in Ireland. He is not, however, at present satisfied that the suggestion of the hon. Member affords the best solution of the problem.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the soil of Ireland is more suitable for the growing of beet, and will he make representations to the Food Controller or the Government for the establishment of two or three beet factories in Ireland in order to produce sugar?
    Captain BATHURST: Yes, Sir. I fully recognise not only the desirability of beet cultivation, but also the fact that Ireland is specially suited to its cultivation, but whether anything can be done during the War is quite another matter.
    Mr. JOYCE: What is the Food Controller going to do unless he accepts what is suggested in the question?
    Captain BATHURST: As regards sugar, the supplies of sugar to Ireland are on a generous scale compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The distribution of sugar in Ireland is being steadily improved every week, and every effort is being made to improve it.
    Mr. O'DOWD: Is it not a fact that in regard to sugar distribution a general state of disorganisation prevails in Ireland, and is it not absolutely necessary to open provincial depots in order that the traders may be supplied?
    Captain BATHURST: Every well-founded case of unequal distribution on a serious scale in Ireland is being thoroughly investigated, and every effort is being made to prevent it.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if his attention has been drawn to the fact that certain potato growers are refusing to supply potatoes in some cases under £12 per ton; and whether he-will take proceedings against such firms if he is supplied with evidence to that effect?
    Captain BATHURST: Proceedings will be taken against any person who contravenes the Potato Orders issued by the Food Controller, if sufficient evidence of this contravention is available. If the hon. Member has any such evidence I should be glad if he will furnish me with particulars.
    Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he proposes to take any action in dealing with growers of early potatoes in Scot land to prevent them digging in this time of war early or immature potatoes in view of the fact that potatoes so dug yield only 4 to 5 tons per acre and are a luxury, whereas, if left in the soil until ripe, at least double that weight per acre could be secured?
    Captain BATHURST: It is not clear that the course suggested would increase the total production of food, as it might interfere with the raising of a following second crop from the same land, but I am communicating with the Scottish Board of Agriculture on the subject
    Mr. STANTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has any official information showing that a quantity of potatoes were received from England and were offered in the market in competition with those grown in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Western States; the date on which these goods were exported from England and the names of the firms exporting them?
    Captain BATHURST: I believe that a statement of the character referred to in the question has appeared in a Texas newspaper, and, perhaps, elsewhere. The statement is untrue. The importation of potatoes into the United States from Europe is prohibited. The export of potatoes from this country is also prohibited, except under licence, and no licences have been granted.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that Mr. Sam Francis, of 156, King Street, Hammersmith, greengrocer, was selling, on Saturday 17th March, potatoes at 2½d. per lb. to women with market baskets, and that the greengrocer living at 198, King Street, Hammersmith, was charging 3d. per lb. and had a board up which advertised King Edward seed potatoes at 3d. per lb.; and, seeing that the local police refused to warn the greengrocers in question, if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Captain BATHURST: I was not aware of the circumstances stated in the question, but I am causing inquiries to be made, and proceedings will be taken if it appears that a breach of the Food Controller's Orders has been committed.

    STARCH.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the amount of rice and other cereals annually consumed in the manufacture of starch for starching clothes in laundries; and whether it is proposed to put an end to this waste of the people's food?
    Captain BATHURST: There are no official statistics of the quantities of rice and other cereals used for the purpose of starch in laundries; but in view of the importance of conserving all cereals for food, the Food Controller is contemplating the necessity of a general Order limiting, if not entirely prohibiting, their use for this and other like purposes.

    RIVER PLATE SHEEP AND LAMBS.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Parlimentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any reason for the rise of price of River Plate sheep, River Plate lambs, frozen forequarters of beef, boneless beef, and frozen hindquarters of beef between 1st February and 1st March, seeing that between these respective dates there was an increase of supply and stocks, and that there had been a de crease of consumption of three-quarters of a pound per head per person?
    Captain BATHURST: The price of the particular items of meat mentioned by the hon. Member is, of course, affected by the total supplies of meat of all kinds. It is not the case that the total stocks of frozen and chilled beef and mutton showed an in-
    2034
    crease between the dates mentioned. On the contrary, they showed a slight-decrease.

    IRISH BACON AND PIGS.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if Ulster bacon curers were asked to send representatives to the Conference on the 9th instant at which prices were fixed for Irish bacon and pigs; and if representatives of this interest will be present at the further Conference on the 23rd?
    Captain BATHURST: The necessity for rapid action, to prevent a further heavy rise in prices, made it impossible to secure the attendance of representatives of the Ulster bacon curers at the Conference on the 9th instant, but they have been invited to be present at the further Conference, which is being held to-day.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if bacon curers and farmers in the North of Ireland resent the action taken by the Glasgow Produce Exchange in fixing Irish bacon prices without regard to Irish interests; that the fear of a further reduction of prices on the 23rd instant has caused Irish farmers to dispose of their pigs at prices much below the market rates ruling before the 9th instant; and if he will give an assurance that no further reductions in the price of Irish bacon will be authorized without a full opportunity being afforded to those concerned in this industry to state their views on the subject?
    Captain BATHURST: I have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the first two parts of the question. I can, however, assure the hon. Baronet that the future bacon prices will only be fixed after all interests concerned have been considered and consulted.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the leading stores in the City of London Irish bacon and English bacon are quoted side by side at the same price, so that there is no difference in, price on the public market?
    Captain BATHURST: I am certainly not aware of that. As the hon. Gentleman himself is aware there has been for many years, as a rule, a substantial difference between the prices on the English markets of English and Irish bacon.
    Mr. FLAVIN: I am personally aware of the contrary. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the official organ of the grocers and traders in this country—the "Grocer"—he will see that every week Irish bacon quoted at the same price as English bacon.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, if, following the conference held on the 9th instant, at which the prices of Irish bacon were settled, telegrams were received in Belfast from the Glasgow Produce Exchange intimating that the adjustment of smoked ham prices had been remitted to the Glasgow Association, and subsequently the maximum price was fixed by them at 176s., ex-Irish ports, although the price ruling for four weeks previously was 184s.; and whether the Glasgow Produce Exchange had any authority from the Food Controller for their action?
    Captain BATHURST: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the question. The committee of the Home and Foreign Produce Exchange made arrangements in consultation with the Provincial Produce Exchange for fixing agreed maximum prices. The Food Controller has no reason to question the fairness of the procedure adopted. As already stated the prices come up for revision at meetings every fortnight, when representatives of the North of Ireland bacon curers will, amongst others, be present

    TEA, COFFEE, AND COCOA (WEIGHING OF WRAPPERS).
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is prepared to consider the advisability of insisting that all retailers of tea, cocoa, and similar commodities, whose habit it is to give short weight when retailing such commodities by weighing in paper or other wrapping, shall state in a conspicuous position on the outside cover of such wrapping the exact weight of such paper or other wrapping; and whether he will now state what is the maximum weight of wrapping which the Food Controller proposes to permit?
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that when
    2036
    tea, coffee, and cocoa-powder are sold in packages of certain weights, the weight being inclusive of the wrapper or wrappers, the notice to that effect required by law is sometimes so unobtrusive as not to attract notice: whether the Food Controller will issue a regulation on this subject under the Defence of the Realm Act; and (2) whether when tea, coffee, and cocoa-powder are sold in packages of certain weights, these weights being inclusive of the wrapper or wrappers, these wrappers which are sometimes of both foil and paper, in some instances make up an undue proportion of the weight, particularly in the case of the smaller packages; and whether the Food Controller will issue a regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act restricting the proportional weights of the wrappers?
    Captain BATHURST: The question of the full net weights of packages of tea and other commodities is the subject of a further conference with different sections of the trades affected, and a definite decision may be expected in the course of next week.
    Mr. BILLING: When that conference is held will the hon. Gentleman give attention to the fact that this particular thing presses most hardly on the very community which the Food Controller should look after himself?
    Captain BATHURST: I have already said that a decision will be come to as regards this matter next week. I hope I shall not be further pressed at the present time, because I cannot believe that an interrogatory fusilade will conduce to the decision being advanced.

    WHEATEN FLOUR.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the fact that white flour, in accordance with the rubrics of the Catholic Church, is required for the making of altar breads, and that these have to be supplied to the Catholic chaplains in the Army and Navy as well as to the Catholic clergy in Great Britain and Ireland, he can state whether arrangements can be made for the necessary supply?
    Captain BATHURST: Licences are being issued for the manufacture for religious purposes of pure bread—that is to say, bread made of wheaten flour only.

  "FREEMAN'S JOURNAL."
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will give the name of the valuer on whose advice the Government have enabled the "Freeman's Journal" Company to issue an enlarged paper in war time by paying £27,000 for machines insured for only £15,000, £2,500 for furniture insured for only £1,000, £6,837 for stock insured for only £3,325, £3,700 for loss of revenue insured for only £1,000, and £21,286 11s. 7d. for buildings insured for only £1,000; and whether the Government will obtain and act upon the valuation of the same valuer in compensating for the newspaper plant destroyed by the military and police in Ireland during the last couple of years?
  Mr. DUKE: The amounts paid to the company represented what the Property Losses Committee found to be the actual loss upon an insurance basis. A good deal of the property was only partly insured, as the company had its own arrangements for security against an ordinary outbreak of fire. There is no ground for the suggestion that these claimants received any exceptional treatment from the Committee.
  Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not given the name of this wonderful valuer asked for in the first paragraph of the question?
  Mr. DUKE: That valuer was not employed by the Government.
  Mr. GINNELL: What was his name?
  Mr. O'DONNELL: May I ask if he is the same valuer who valued other properties in Dublin?
  Mr. DUKE: I have not the least idea. There is no doubt he did his duty properly and gave his evidence before the Committee, upon which the Committee came to a conclusion.
  Mr. GINNELL: Did he not, as a matter of fact, succeed in getting £63,000 of public money to start a newspaper in Dublin to support the Government?
  Mr. DUKE: I should like to see the paper in Ireland that supports the Government!

  PEAT INDUSTRIES.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will make avail-
  2038
  able immediately a copy of the statement regarding the absence of peat industries in Ireland which the Irish Department has prepared in the interest of the British coal trade for submission to the Industrial and Research Committee; whether this Committee comprises any person with knowledge of Irish bogs and desire for the utilisation of them; whether any such persons will be invited to give evidence or information before a decision is reached; and why has he not facilitated the testing of the heating power of peat-mixture bricks in a Government laboratory?
  Mr. DUKE: The statement referred to was prepared for the Advisory Council of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and is at present under the consideration of their Fuel Research Board. Under these circumstances, it would not be proper to publish the statement. There is no foundation for the allegation that it has been prepared in the interests of the British coal trade. The Board is fully informed as to the various schemes which have been tried or proposed for the utilisation of peat in Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I understand that arrangements are being made for a conference between the Fuel Research Board and representatives of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question asking why he does not facilitate certain experiments and the testing of the heating powers of peat?
  Mr. DUKE: This whole matter is under immediate attention by the Fuel Research Board to which I have referred. It is not for me to give directions.
  Mr. GINNELL: What I want to know is whether the right hon. Gentleman will or will not enable me to test the heating power of a peat mixture which the Department have never seen, and know nothing about?
  Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Gentleman brings to the Department—
  Mr. GINNELL: No, I will present it to you, not the Department.
  Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member presents to me any product of peat which seems to require examination I can assure him it shall be looked at, and properly examined.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACTS.
  Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that breaches of the Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Acts which are applicable to Great Britain, but from which Ireland is exempted, have been committed through ignorance by persons coming from Ireland to Great Britain; and will the Irish Government take steps to have a pamphlet printed and exposed for sale setting out the more important Regulations dealing with compulsory enlistment, treating, consumption of liquor, veiling of lights, etc., which are not applicable to Ireland, but are enforced in this country?
  Mr. DUKE: I have had no complaints of the kind suggested. I do not think there is any real demand for such a publication as the hon. and gallant Member suggests.

  DUBLIN (REBUILDING).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware of the condition of those engaged in the building trade in Dublin; if he is aware that these circumstances have been brought about by the action of the Government in refusing to grant facilities for the obtaining of the necessary materials for the rebuilding of the destroyed area of the city; and if he will cause instructions to be issued for the supply of materials to enable owners of destroyed property to rebuild their premises'?
  Mr. DUKE: I am aware of the desirability of stimulating employment in Dublin. The Government has not refused facilities for obtaining the materials for rebuilding the destroyed area of the city. The Minister of Munitions promised some time since to give all practicable facilities, and I am glad to see it stated in a leading journal in Dublin that: "The good will of the Minister of Munitions has been demonstrated, not only by his good offices in allotting to Dublin a quantity of steel for building purposes, but by his securing it at a remarkably favourable price." I regret that the hon. Member thinks fit by this and other questions in the House to impute to the Government malevolent intentions with regard to the Irish metropolis which do not in fact exist.
  Mr. BYRNE: If it were not for questions in this House the builders of Dublin would be left without materials, and that is well known to the right hon. Gentleman.

  CANADIAN SOLDIERS' DEPENDANTS.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that there are 20,000 dependants of Canadian soldiers in this country at the present time, and that a large number of them are anxious to return to Canada, but cannot do so because they cannot get passports; and whether, in view of the limited supply of food, he will facilitate the issuing of passports to these people?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland): I understand that some of the dependants of Canadian soldiers now in this country wish to return to Canada, but have been unable to do so owing to the restrictions which in the existing maritime conditions it has been necessary to impose on the travelling of women and children. It would not be possible for me to intervene in a matter for which the responsibility must rest exclusively with the naval authorities.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether, within the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, any of these dependants of Canadian soldiers who have been discharged and sent back to Canada are now in severe distress in this country?
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no-knowledge of that, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will try to give the information.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: If it is discovered that there is a large number of those soldiers dependants, will some allowance be made to them?
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is asking a question on a hypothesis. I think the best thing would be for the hon. Member to put down a question, first to ascertain the facts, and afterwards he can put any question he wishes.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board

    2041
    whether the transference of conscientious objectors employed on work of national importance from Warwick and other places to Dartmoor has been completed; can he give the number of such men now at Dartmoor and the general nature of the work on which they are engaged; and what is the rate of their pay per day or week, and who is responsible for their discipline?
    Mr. REDDY: Before this question is answered, may I ask what right the hon. Member (Major Newman) has to pry into the work conscientious objectors are forced to do when the hon. Member is drawing two salaries, and refuses to go to the front although posing as a soldier?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The number of men now at Dartmoor is 407, and I understand that the Committee propose shortly to transfer to Dartmoor the majority of the men now at Wakefield and the whole of the men now employed at Warwick, except a few who will be employed on cultivating the land adjoining Warwick Prison. The men at Dartmoor will be employed on the large farm adjoining the buildings, and on the reclamation of land for agricultural purposes. The men are paid 8d. a day, and the former Governor of the Prison is, subject to the Committee on the Employment of Conscientious Objectors, responsible for their discipline.
    Mr. REDDY: Hear, hear. They have done their bit, which he has not.
    Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give an estimate of the number of conscientious objectors now employed as teachers in elementary and other schools; and what steps have been taken, or are to be taken, to eliminate this class of teacher from our schools in future?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I am unable to form any estimate. The employment of teachers is a matter for the local education authorities, governing bodies and managers of schools, and there is no reason to believe that they are not competent to deal with the question.
    Colonel YATE: Considering the examples we have had before us, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a
    2042
    little recommendation to the local authorities to be more careful in future would be advisable?
    Mr. FISHER: I am by no means convinced that in present circumstances an inquisition by the State in a matter which the law recognises as one of conscience would be right or wise.

  REPAIR OF HIGHWAYS (HAULAGE OF TIMBER).
  Mr. BECKETTasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the burden that ratepayers in certain localities are called upon to bear in consequence of the damage done to the highways by the haulage of quantities of timber; and whether, as the timber is cut and required for national purposes, he will endeavour to arrange by legislation or otherwise that some portion of the cost for the repair and maintenance of the roads in the districts affected shall be borne by the National Exchequer, and so not fall entirely upon the local ratepayers?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Only one or two specific complaints on this subject have reached my Noble Friend. I understand that arrangements have been made by the Department concerned whereby, in cases of damage caused or likely to be caused by the hauling of timber on behalf of the Home-grown Timber Committee, such repair and strengthening of the roads as is considered necessary to keep them fit to carry this traffic is undertaken by the Road Board on behalf of the Committee, and the cost of the work is defrayed out of funds at the Committee's disposal.

  HOUSE REFUSE (CONVERSION INTO FUEL).
  Mr. TICKLERasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the Board's refusal to grant the application of the Southall-Norwood Urban District Council to put down a plant for the conversion of the house refuse into fuel was because the Board was not aware of any statutory authority for the proposal; and, if so, whether the Board will state what additional authority is required by them?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: As I stated in my answer to my hon. Friend on the 8th instant there are other considerations which affect this matter.

  NATIONAL SERVICE.

    ENROLMENT OF MEMBERS or PARLIAMENT.
    Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHasked the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle whether it is the desire of the Director-General that Members of this House should enrol as National Service volunteers?
    Mr. BECK (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): My right hon. Friend has requested me to reply to this question. The appeal to men to enrol as National Service volunteers is a general one and includes Members of this House.
    Mr. BILLING: If the idea is to set an example, would it not be well if some mark were worn to distinguish those who enrol from those who refuse to enrol under this scheme?
    Mr. KEATING: Will you be able to get any work out of them when you get them?
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked how many Members of the House of Lords and how many Members of the House of Commons, respectively, have enrolled themselves as volunteers under the National Service scheme; and to how many of these whole-time or part-time work has been assigned under the scheme?
    Mr. BECK: Such volunteers have not been separately recorded, and the information asked for in the first part of the question is, therefore, not readily available. Members of either House of Parliament who have volunteered arc not being called up at the present time.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Could the hon. Gentleman say how many of the eighty-nine Members of the present Administration have volunteered?
    Mr. BECK: I am afraid I have no knowledge. I am answering for my right hon. Friend.

    VOLUNTEERS IN SITUATIONS.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked how many of the volunteers for National Service have already been placed in situations by the Department?
    Mr. BECK: National Service volunteers are not placed in situations by the Department, but by the Employment Exchanges. They are, however, only supplied to firms and industries indicated by the Director-General. I am informed that in response to demands received the Exchanges have submitted some 3,000 volunteers. It is expected that the number will be considerably increased very shortly as employers become aware of this source of supply.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand that situations have been found for 3,000 out of 140,000 who have volunteered?
    Mr. HOGGE: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether the Labour Exchanges could not have found those 3,000 jobs?
    Mr. BECK: I am afraid I must have notice of that.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of those cases have been exchanges of employment, which has simply meant the payment of subsistence allowance for the people travelling from one place to another?
    Mr. BECK: I regret that I have no personal knowledge.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the 3,000 he has mentioned are the number of names they have sent forward to employers, or the number of employés for whom they have found situations?
    Mr. BECK: Perhaps I had better read again the sentence in the reply "I am informed that in response to demands received, the Exchanges have submitted some 3,000 volunteers."
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many of the 3,000 have got employment?
    Mr. BECK: I am afraid I must have notice of that.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: It is on the Paper.

    RETURNS OF MEN AND WOMEN.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked whether employers have been asked to make returns showing the number of men and women required by each firm and the wages offered; and, if so, whether he can state the total required in each trade?
    Mr. BECK: No such return has been required by the National Service Depart-

    2045
    ment, but firms asking for the services of National Service volunteers have been asked to supply the necessary information to enable the Employment Exchanges to allocate men to them.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: If you do not ask how many they employ how are you going to find out the number which have volunteered?
    Mr. BECK: I am sorry that I have not the information. I am only now answering temporarily for the Department, and until the Bill has passed through Parliament there is no Minister to answer these questions.
    Mr. HOGGE: Would it not be possible to have the Minister here so as to give us a chance?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: No, he is a wise man, and he stays away.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle whether he can state the total number of volunteers up to date under National Service; how many are women; and how many of the men are already engaged on Government work or in firms arrying out Government contracts or in essential trades?
    Mr. BECK: The total number of volunteers enrolled, including war munition volunteers, up to Tuesday last was 157,323. None of these are women. It is calculated that nearly one-half of the volunteers may be in Government employment or engaged in industries of primary importance.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Does that mean that, after all, the colossal money spent on advertising has only resulted in discovering some 30,000 people who are not already on Government work?
    Mr. BECK: I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Member more than the answer I have read.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the Director-General satisfied with the result?
    Mr. BECK: I should think that, as a great campaign is being run, that the Director-General is not satisfied with the result.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Are we to understand that 70,000 names have been received wanting employment, and only 3,000 have been sent forward?
    Mr. BECK: No, I do not think that is so.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think these questions are rather unfair, because the hon. Member is not responsible for this Department.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: He ought to be here.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked whether the appeal made to women to enrol under the National Service scheme is to be limited to women not already engaged in work of national importance whose services are required for specific work which they will be at once asked to. undertake?
    Mr. BECK: Where a woman is so employed as to be giving her best services to-the State it is undesirable that she should enrol, as there is not the same shortage of female as of male labour; and it is only proposed to enrol women for the special purposes for which they are required.
    Mr. MILLAR: Does that apply to males as well?
    Mr. BECK: I really cannot answer these questions. Until the Bill setting up the Ministry of National Service is through both Houses of Parliament it is impossible for the Minister to be here, and as soon as that is done there will be a Minister here.
    Mr. KEATING: In view of the inconvenience caused, will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Minister concerned the wish of the House that he should be here?

    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the paper and labour shortage in this country, he will take steps to secure that heads of public Departments refrain from encouraging members of their staff at present on Government work to enrol themselves under the National Service scheme; and whether steps will also be taken for calling upon any man in any Department who in the event of his leaving Government service, would refuse to take up other work of national importance to immediately advise the head of his Department to that effect?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend has issued a circular to all Government offices, giving it as his desire that Civil servants should enrol as National Service volunteers, and if this is generally

    2047
    done the necessity for such steps as are indicated in the latter part of the question will not arise.

  RESTRICTED IMPORTS.

    PAPER.
    Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that one issue of a paper of the circulation of the "Sketch" will consume as much paper as the whole bill-posting trade throughout the Kingdom will consume in a week; and, if so, will he say whether his Department still considers it advisable to stop the bill-posting trade and continue comic papers?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have no information as to the amount of paper consumed by individual newspapers, but their supplies are at present being severely restricted. As I have already indicated, I cannot undertake to prescribe which newspapers and periodicals shall and which shall not be published, within the limits of the supply of paper that still remains available.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it not time to review the position, and would it not be advisable to restrict the waste of paper used in advertising non-essentials and luxuries'?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
    Major NEWMANasked whether the informing of the public of the contents of newspapers they may wish to purchase by means of slates or on specially prepared linen surfaces has been forbidden under any article of the Paper Restriction Order, 1917; will he give the exact connection between the restriction of the use of slates and of paper; and is he aware of any crisis in the slate supply of this country which has made their restriction for this purpose necessary?
    Mr. ROBERTS: By the Paper Restriction Order, 1917 (No, 2), the restriction upon the exhibition of contents bills of newspapers and periodicals is extended to posters or advertisements of a similar character of whatever material they are made. The object is not merely to save the paper consumed in the production of the contents bills, but to restrict the circulation of the papers which they formerly advertised. In view of the urgent necessity for confining the consumption of paper
    2048
    to essential national needs, I feel sure that all concerned will loyally co-operate with the Government in this matter.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked whether a printed slip may be attached to a wholesaler's bill indicating the local retailer of the article advertised, as has been the custom?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir. It is not permissible to mention the name of a retailer on any poster placed on exhibition by a wholesale dealer after 24th March.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the hon. Member aware that a great number of these posters have been printed, that permission has been given for their distribution, and that they are of no value unless they are allowed to draw attention to them by attaching a printed slip indicating the local retailer of the article advertised?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Permission is only given under the conditions of the Order. Therefore those who have secured permission are quite aware of the restrictions.

  ENEMY FIRMS (WINDING UP).
  Mr. BROOKESasked whether, in all cases since the start of the War, his Department has accepted the advice of his Advisory Committee as to the winding-up of enemy firms; and, if not, how many exceptions have been made?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Orders for winding-up enemy firms have been made in all cases where such orders were recommended by the Advisory Committee, and in one case an order was made for winding-up where the Committee had advised the vesting of the enemy shares.

  CONTROLLER OF COAL MINES.
  Mr. D. MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement in the House as to the arrangements which have been made for the control and management of the coal mines by the Coal Controller?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The Board of Trade have now assumed control of all the collieries in Great Britain and Ireland, and a Department has been set up under the Controller of Coal Mines to exercise this control. An Advisory Board representa-

  2049
  tive of the coalowners and the miners in the various districts has been attached to the Controller. It is not proposed generally to interfere in the actual management of the undertakings by their owners, who will be responsible to the Government for the safe and efficient working of the properties. It is also not proposed to interfere with the machinery already set up in the various districts for dealing with disputes.
  The Controller of Coal Mines is now dealing with the question of the distribution of supplies with a view to securing economy of transport and of consumption of coal. The financial arrangements arising out of the control are receiving very careful consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement on the subject. Miners' wages are, as a general rule, based on the prices of coal. It has been agreed with the representatives of the miners that, in the event of prices falling in any district, no steps will be taken to effect a reduction of wages without the representatives of the men being first taken into consultation.
  Mr. MILLAR: Have the financial arrangements yet been completed with the coalowners, and has any announcement yet been made to them direct on the subject?
  Mr. ROBERTS: No. The whole matter is still under consideration and negotiations are being opened up with the coalowners.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Has any representative of Irish coal mines been appointed on that Committee?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot say, but I will make inquiries, and communicate with the hon. Member.

  HORSTMAN BANK.
  Major NEWMANasked if the Horst-man Bank, the property of a naturalised alien, the Baroness Deichmann, is still carrying on its business; if so, what is the exact nature of the business and what control or supervision by the Board of Trade is exercised over its dealings; and is the Baroness Deichmann sole proprietor?
  Mr. ROBERTS: So far as I am aware, the business of Horstman and Company is still being carried on. The owner of
  2050
  the business is the Baroness von Deichmann, a British subject and of British birth. There are two salaried partners, both British subjects, but I understand that they have no proprietorial interest in the business. The nature of the business is that of merchants and bankers. It is not being carried on under the control or supervision of the Board of Trade, but the books and documents were some time ago inspected under an Order of the Board.
  Major NEWMAN: What was the result of the investigation of the Board? Did it disclose anything?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Nothing unsatisfactory.

  INDUSTRIAL WORKERS (TOTAL EARNINGS).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of Labour if he is able to state approximately the total earnings of industrial workers in Great Britain, male and female, for each of the years 1913, 1914, 1915, and 1916?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I regret that statistics are not available which would enable me to give the information asked for by my hon. Friend.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Pensions Minister whether any pension or gratuity is payable in respect of a soldier killed in action if such soldier's father is still serving with the Colours; and, if not, whether it is proposed to alter a procedure which has the effect of penalizing long military service performed by men whose sons are also serving?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part that it is proposed under the new Royal Warrant that a woman whose husband is serving with the Colours should be granted a pension in respect of a soldier son killed in action within the limit of pre-war dependence on that son and not exceeding 15s. a week.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Pensions Minister, concerning the case of ex-Private Harry Jackson, No. 10573, 3rd Duke of Wellington's West Riding Regiment, who

  2051
  enlisted in September, 1914, was sent to France in December, 1914, was gassed on Hill 60 in June, 1915, and subsequently, after repeated lapses into a state of mentally deficiency, was finally discharged into Menston Asylum on 16th December last, whether he is aware that Private Jackson's wife is only in receipt of 10s. per week for herself and a baby nine months old, after the guardians had deducted 12s. from her husband's pension for his maintenance; if he will state the amount of the pension ex-Private Jackson will be entitled to under the new Royal Warrant; whether the amount will be subject to deduction by the guardians; and, if so, what will be the net weekly sum due to her under the Warrant?
  Mr. BARNES: I am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the question except that Mrs. Jackson is in receipt of 12s. weekly in respect of the balance of her husband's pension. Under the draft Royal Warrant such a case would be dealt with by the grant of an allowance under Article 6, and the wife would, during the period of her husband's detention in an asylum, receive an amount not less than the pension and allowance for children to which she would have been entitled had she been a widow. In this case the allowance would be 18s. 9d. weekly.

  SMALL FARMERS (MORTGAGES).
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to many cases of hardship to small farmers who have purchased their holdings and have a mortgage left on the land; is he aware that in a number of cases the mortgage is being called in or a large increase in the interest is demanded; and whether he can see his way to deal with the matter and protect the interest of these men, either by legislation or otherwise, during the period of the War?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Board are aware of the increased burden which is caused to small farmers and others who have purchased small holdings and have a mortgage on them, where the rate of interest has been raised on account of the increased interest which is being
  2052
  obtained at the present time for money on loan, and they have the matter under consideration.

  LIQUOR TRADE, SCOTLAND (PROHIBITION).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at a conference of the official representatives of the larger burghs in Scotland, urging the prohibition of the sale of ardent spirits during the War and the subsequent period of demobilisation; whether he has been asked to receive a deputation in support of the resolution; and whether he proposes to take any action to satisfy himself as to the state of public opinion in Scotland on this subject?
  Mr. FINNEYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the quarterly meeting of the fourteen Wesleyan churches of the Newcastle-under-Lyme circuit urging their conviction that at this crisis in national affairs, in view of the special needs of the nation with respect to the supply of food and the successful conduct of the War, it is advisable that the Government should act at once and prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors until the end of the War and for a period of six months afterwards; and whether he can indicate the intentions of the Government in respect to the same?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The attention of the Prime Minister has been drawn to the resolutions in question, and they will have his consideration.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Are any steps being taken by the Government to ascertain the nature of public opinion universally held in Scotland on this subject?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, we have taken steps, but it is very difficult to ascertain the universal public opinion in Scotland.

  GERMAN FOREIGN POLICY.
  Mr. SHAWasked the Prime Minister whether, towards the close of 1905 or in the early weeks of 1906, a Minute was-drawn up by Sir Eyre Crowe, of the-Foreign Office, in which the development and tendencies of German foreign policy

  2053
  were traced; whether that Minute touched upon the possibility of conflict between Great Britain and Germany; and whether, in view of the interest and importance of the subjects treated, he will cause a copy of the Minute to be laid upon the Table of the House?
  Lord R. CECIL: Yes, Sir; an extremely able Memorandum was drawn up by Sir E. Crowe and submitted to the Secretary of State on 1st January, 1907, dealing with German policy and the grave dangers with which it threatened this country. But I do not think it would be in the public interest to make a precedent for the publication of secret Departmental Memoranda by laying it on the Table. I say this with reluctance, because the publication of this very striking State Paper would set at rest for ever the baseless insinuations which have been made against the patriotism and character of one of the ablest of our public servants.
  Mr. DIXON: Did the Government of the day take any steps to prepare after this particular information was given by such an important public servant, or did they go on neglecting it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord cannot answer for the last Government but one.

  COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will, prior to this House going into Committee on the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill, lay upon the Table of this House a list containing the names of all Members of the House of Commons who are at present contracting with the Government, together with a statement showing the gross value of each Member's contract; and, failing this, will he state to this House what objection the Government have to taking this action?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. BILLING: Might I ask whether it it is not proposed to introduce a Bill for the purpose of relieving certain Members of this House from the consequences of a grave breach of the laws of this House and of purity in public life, and whether, as we are to Debate this Bill in the House,
  2054
  we should not have the opportunity before debating it of knowing whom we are relieving and to what extent?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe that the subject is being considered by the Law Officers to ascertain whether any legislation is necessary, but it is certainly not being considered with a view that there has been any lack of purity in public life.
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this proposal embodied in this legislation is in direct violation of the celebrated Contractors Act of 1782?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of that fact.
  Mr. MacNEILL: You ought to be.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Clause 4 (a) of this Bill does give an indemnity?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.
  Mr. BILLING: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it compatible with public dignity or honesty that Members of this House should vote public money into their own pockets?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for the Committee stage of the Bill.

  LUXURIES AND NON-ESSENTIALS.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether steps will be taken for encouraging the manufacture and sale in this country of luxuries and non-essentials during the period of this War?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Member means encouraging, as appears in the question, the answer is in the negative; but if he means discouraging it is in the-affirmative.
  Mr. BILLING: That is the reply I wish, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider the advisability of actively discouraging instead of passively encouraging the manufacture and sale of luxuries and non-essentials?

  SIR S. MAUDE'S PROCLAMATION.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet has censured Sir Stanley Maude for the Proclamantion issued at Baghdad; whether the War

  2055
  Cabinet is aware that he proposes in the Proclamation, on behalf of Great Britain and the Allies, to force Home Rule on the Arabs without regard to the views of such homogeneous communities amongst the Arabs as may desire to remain under Turkish rule; whether the Arabs have agreed amongst themselves as to the form of government they desire; and, if so, how their views have been ascertained; whether Sir Stanley Maude's action in preaching to the Arabs the evil results of alien rule, in promising that alien institutions will not be established amongst them, and in urging them to remain a united nation north, south, east, and west, has the sanction of the War Cabinet; and, if not, what action the Cabinet proposes to take?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to what I said in reply to a similar question yesterday by the hon. Member for West Belfast.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Might I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that four vilayets of North-East Arabia strongly object to being taken out of Turkish rule, and is he going to force Home Rule upon an unwilling community?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know the source of the hon. Member's information, but we have received no similar information.

  TAXES (IRELAND).
  Major NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give a list of the taxes payable in this country from which those ordinarily resident in Ireland are either totally relieved or which are levied at a lesser rate than in this country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Land Tax, Inhabited House Dufy, Establishment Licences, Dog Licences, Patent Medicine Vendors' Licences, and the Medicine Stamp Duty are not chargeable in Ireland. There are also a few trifling Stamp Duty exemptions and lower charges.

  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Chanellor of the Exchequer whether, before essessment of any shipping company for
  2056
  purposes of Excess Profits Tax, depreciation has been allowed by the Government accountants on a ship of as much as 50 per cent.; whether such depreciation is calculated on the basis of the present selling price of ships irrespective of their cost to the companies making the claim; and whether any case has been brought to his notice of an amount being allowed for depreciation in excess of the cost of the ship to its present owners?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot discuss within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question the principles governing depreciation allowances, but I am certainly not aware of any case in which such an allowance has reached the figure named. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any case which he has in mind, I shall be glad to have inquiry made.

  MORTGAGE AND DEBENTURE COMPANY.
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has seen a copy of a circular issued by the Mortgage and Debenture Company, of Moor-gate Street, E.C., repeating a suggestion that its debenture holders should accept 16s. in the £ for their holdings, based upon an alleged opinion of the Treasury; and whether he will communicate to the House the wishes and opinions which were communicated to the company by the Treasury?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have seen the circular referred to, which, in accordance with the wishes of the Treasury as communicated to the company, makes no mention of the Treasury of any kind.
  Mr. CURRIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this company has made statements to its creditors concerning the wishes of the Treasury that were not authorised by the Treasury?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, that is so. I gave a reply to that effect, I think, to a previous question by the hon. Member.
  Mr. CURRIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it would be only fair to these creditors who have been left under a wilful misunderstanding as to his wishes that they should be put right as to what the Treasury really wishes?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If there is any advantage in publicity, I hope that the hon. Gentleman's question and my answer will give it.

  INCOME TAX (ALLOWANCE FOR CHILDREN).
  Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make provision for relief in respect of Income Tax to be granted in cases where children are maintained by grandparents or other relatives in the same way as is done in the case of children maintained by a stepfather?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The question raised by the hon. Member is one which I have under careful consideration.

  MERTHYR TYDFIL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE.
  Mr. STANTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Merthyr Tydfil Assessment Committee have recently greatly increased the farm assessments in their union, in some cases 50 percent, above the rent charged by the land lords; and whether, in view of the regulation that landlords cannot increase their rents, the same regulation will also be made applicable to the rating authorities, whose action is likely later on to encourage an increase of rents?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question, and I am in communication with the Union Assessment Committee on the subject.

  LOANS TO RUSSIA.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the total amount of the loans advanced by this country to the late Czar of Russia and his Ministers?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It would not be in the public interest to add anything to the information already given to the House in regard to the advances made by this country to Allied Governments.
  Mr. BILLING: May this House understand that the present, Government will
  2058
  call upon the new Russian Government to undertake the obligations of the late Government?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on the question.

  GOVERNMENT STANDARD SHIPS.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller how many of the standardized ships are already under actual construction; how many have their keel plates laid; how many are in frame; how many are plated; when the first of them will be launched; and whether their engines, boilers, and other machinery will be ready for putting on board at the time the steamers are launched?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING CONTROL (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): Over fifty of the standard ships are already under construction. None of them is framed or plated, and it is not possible to say when the first of them will be launched. It is fully anticipated that the engines, boilers, and other machinery will be ready for putting on board at the time the hulls are ready to receive them.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary 'Secretary to the Shipping Controller if he can state the average ocean speed per hour for twenty-four consecutive hours' steaming of the standardised ships when fully laden to their deepest summer draft, and their maximum speed for six consecutive hours at this draft; and what the average consumption of South Wales coal will be at sea at their average speed for twenty-four hours?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Having regard to the object in view in building the standard ships, I regret that it is not desirable to publish the detailed information asked for, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that the speed of the standard ships has been carefully considered. I may add that I shall be very pleased to give my hon. Friend privately the information for which he asks.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he will state the number of steamers the Shipping Controller has purchased from or arranged to purchase from foreign owners, and the average total dead-weight capacity and average speed of the same?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Negotiations are rapidly proceeding with regard to the purchase of tonnage, but I do not consider that it would be in the public interest to publish the details for which my hon. Friend asks.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked how many standardised ships have already been arranged for; whether they are all of one and the same type; if not, how many types; and whether they are of the single, well, double, or spar-deck type, and their total deadweight carrying capacity, including bunkers, under the old freeboard rules?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Over 100 standard ships have been arranged for. These vessels are all of the three-island type, with poop bridge and forecastle, and are of three sizes, with an estimated carrying capacity of 8,000, 5,000, and 3,000 tons deadweight respectively. Some of the 8,000 tonners are being built as two-deck vessels. The others are single-deck vessels.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked whether in any shipbuilding yard in the United Kingdom constructional work on an ordinary type of cargo steamer has been delayed, although plates are lying in the yard for same, because of orders given in regard to standardised ships?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes, Sir; it has been found necessary in some cases, where a comparatively small amount of material had been delivered, to delay work on hand for private shipowners, in order that the Government standard ships may be built.

  MUNITIONS.

    EXPORT OF STEEL.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Minister of Munitions how many tons of steel suitable for shipbuilding purposes have gone from, this country to Italy and France, respectively, during the twelve months ended 31st December, 1916?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Major Sir Worthington Evans): I regret that particulars could not be given without disclosing information which might be of service to the enemy.

    CAMP WASTE.
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the
    2060
    inclusion of foodstuff in the method of conversion of camp waste into fuel is not necessary for the process; and whether he will cause investigations to be made into this matter with the view of a correct statement being made?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): If any evidence is submitted to me as to the possibility of adopting any-such process for the conversion of camp refuse into fuel which does not involve the treatment of food refuse, I shall be happy to cause it to be investigated.

    SHELL EXAMINERS.
    Sir. Mr. CROOKSasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the men who have been trained as shell examiners, and now employed at Ponders End under the Inspection Department, Woolwich Arsenal, have been requested to sign a document agreeing to the withdrawal of the subsistence allowance of 4s. per day now allowed for working at a distance; whether he is aware that the wages of these men, apart from the subsistence allowance, is only 9½d. per hour, and that the men have therefore come to regard the subsistence allowance as part wages in view of the responsibility of their work; and whether he will give instructions that the incomes of these men are not to be reduced, and that those who have refused to sign the document are not to be victimised?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Subsistence allowance is granted to employés of this Department who are transferred in the interests of the Department from one locality to another, and is intended to cover extra cost of living. This allowance is given only to men employed away from their base, and is subject to reconsideration after three months. The Department could not agree, in any case, to the allowance being considered as part of wages. The 9½d. an hour mentioned is not representative of the rates of the men so employed, although it is within the scale of the lowest class of male examiner. An examiner on the minimum rate of the lowest class at Ponders End is now earning an average of about £2 6s. per week on day shift and £3 10s. on night shift, exclusive of subsistence allowance.

    LIGHT METAL WORKERS.
    Mr. ARTHUR RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Munitions if he is

    2061
    aware that on 1st February last the National Union of Stove, Grate, Fender, and General Light Metal Workers, along with twenty other small unions, were granted an interview by the Under-Secretary of Munitions; that these unions asked for the privilege of being given the members' trade cards exempting them from military service; that at that meeting the Minister promised that their request? should be inquired into; that up to the present these unions have not received any satisfaction; and that, in view of the fact that many other similar unions have been given members' trade cards, he can see his way clear to grant this privilege to the National Union of Stove, Grate, Fender, and General Light Metal Workers?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The representations made by the deputation referred to by my hon. Friend were placed before the Army Council, who did not find themselves able to extend the trade card scheme to the use of unions not already parties to it. The whole question is now before the War Cabinet, and, as was stated by my right hon. Friend, in answer to the hon. Member for West Ham on 19th March, it is hoped to announce a decision shortly.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the decision be announced before the House rises for Easter?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I certainly hope so.

  MANIPULATIVE SURGERY.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether, in view of the fact that Miss Wade Thompson was not allowed to resume work for a fortnight at Woolwich Arsenal on the ground that she had not presented a certificate from a registered medical practitioner, he will state the name of the registered medical practitioner, if any, on whose certificate she was eventually reinstated; and, if she was eventually reinstated without any such certificate, whether she will now be reimbursed for the two weeks' salary, seeing that it is well known that she was absent through illness?
  Sir W. EVANS: Out of consideration for Miss Thompson, the rule requiring
  2062
  a medical certificate before returning to work was not enforced, and she was treated as if she were absent with leave. If she desires her case to be considered as one of absence from illness, she must comply with the rule and present a medical certificate in the manner required.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is the hon. Baronet aware that a Member of the present Administration committed the same crime that this girl did, namely, that he went to Mr. Barker and got cured, and will he be dismissed from his job?
  Sir W. EVANS: The hon. Member, I think, is mistaken. It is not a crime to get cured.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: You stopped her wages and refused to allow her to resume work?
  Mr. KING: Will the salary of the Minister for Labour be reduced?

  FISHING (CAHIRCIVEEN).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Admiralty on what grounds the English Government in Ireland discriminate between individuals in carrying on the lawful industry by which they live; why, for example, has Mr. Maurice O'Connell, Renard Road, Cahirciveen, been refused a permit to carry on his industry of fishing in his boat "St. Fiacri" in which his money is invested, while permits have been given to other boat owners in the same district; and whether a permit will now be given or compensation paid for the loss occasioned by refusal of it?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Fishing permits are issued in Ireland to persons recommended by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. Nothing is known at the Admiralty as to the particular ease referred to.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was referred to the Admiralty for this information by the Chief Secretary?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will inquire into that. There is a misunderstanding.

  INTOXICATING LIQUOR (RESTRICTION OF SALE).
  Mr. WATT(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in the further restriction of sale of liquors which is in contemplation for initiation this week by Order in Council, he will adopt the system of allowing by permits each licence holder to get a certain percentage of his former wants in the same manner as petrol has been licensed, so as to prevent brewers and distillers being able to give all their available supply to favoured houses?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury): I am informed that this proposal has been carefully considered, but that it will not be possible to adopt it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that they are to be free to give all the supplies to the tied houses?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Not at all. Steps are under consideration which, it is hoped, will have the effect of ensuring an equitable distribution among all the retailers.

  RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION (IRELAND).
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR(by pricate Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether the Board of Trade has decided as a war measure to make a railway from Wolfhill, Queen's County, to the main line at Athy?
  Mr. DUKE: Yes, Sir.

  Education (Ireland)
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has any explanation to offer of the present policy of the Government in enforcing illiteracy in parts of Ireland by the refusal of schoolhouse accommodation and by the enforcement of unsuitable rules; and, if he disapproves of a policy producing such results, whether he will have it immediately reversed in a case in which the Catholic clerical manager has furnished the particulars?
  Mr. DUKE: There is no such policy as the hon. Member suggests. If he has a particular grievance in mind, and it has not been already examined, I shall be happy to investigate it.
  Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman not received from me a communication on this subject?
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member does me the honour of writing to me occasionally. I cannot, however, say offhand whether one, or which one, of his communications referred to this matter. He did not specify—
  Mr. GINNELL: Yes, I did. Mr. Speaker, will the right hon. Gentleman-say what became of my communication referring to this matter?

  Science Education (Ireland).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the dissatisfaction in educational circles in Ireland, which are concerned with instruction in science with the new Rule of the-Intermediate Board imposing a written examination for science students, he has taken steps to acquaint himself with the character and strength of the objections entertained; and whether steps will be taken to annul the rule in question?
  Mr. DUKE: I saw a deputation with regard to this matter in Dublin during the Parliamentary Recess, and promised them that when the Rules in question came up-for reconsideration they will be carefully reconsidered by the Executive.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is it not merely playing with the question of scientific education to imagine there can be proper examination simply by written questions?
  Mr. DUKE: I do not suppose any person imagines that a written test is a sufficient test. What has been insisted upon by the Intermediate Department is that the examination shall include a written test. That is no new discovery.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman Bay what business it is proposed to take next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday we propose to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule till Easter, and take the War Pensions Bill (Committee), the Coal Mines Regulations (Amendment) Bill (Committee), the Army (Annual) Bill (Second Reading), and, if possible, some other Bills.
  On Tuesday, the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill (Third Reading), and, we hope, the Agricultural Bill (Second Reading).
  On Wednesday, Mr. Speaker's Electoral Reform Conference; and
  On Thursday, Irish Estimates.
  I Will give the business for Friday at the beginning of the week.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: Will the Memorandum by Lord Selborne, which the right hon. Gentleman promised yesterday, be in the hands of Members shortly?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope so. Instructions were given to circulate it yesterday.
  Mr. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Easter Adjournment will take place and how long it will be?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No. Business is not far enough advanced to enable me to answer that question now. I hope to do so some time next week.
  Mr. BILLING: When will the Courts Emergency Powers Bill be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As soon as possible. I hope on Monday.
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to call attention to the ordinary relations between Ministers and Members in the asking and answering of questions, and to what should be the courtesy observed towards this House and the respect due to it. If you will look at Questions 28 to 33 you will find that they are put down as addressed to the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle, as representing the National Service Ministry. Those questions were not answered by that Minister,
  2084
  who is only representing a Department to which he does not belong. They were answered by the Controller of the Household, who, with great candour, said that he knew nothing about them, and that he was a mere machine repeating the answers put into his hands. I wish to know whether it is not usual when a Department is not represented directly in this House, and a certain Gentleman is stated to represent that Department, that he himself should answer the questions, and not someone who represents him? The right hon. Member for Barnard Castle has nothing to do with this Department, although he is put down as representing it, and these questions are answered for him by a Gentleman who only represents the Member who represents the Department, and this representative of the representative of that Department tells us he knows nothing whatever about the questions. Would it not be better, inasmuch as vast sums of money are given out of the public purse to this Department, to remove all the drapery and to have no questions asked about it at all? Parliament has no control over it. May I give one instance in which Parliament vindicated its right to have authoritative answers to direct questions. About ten years ago the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was at least in the House of Lords— whereas the National Service Director is neither in the House of Lords nor in the House of Commons—told the Under-Secretary who represented him here not to answer supplementary questions. This was considered an abuse of this House, and the Adjournment was accordingly moved. Now we have got a step further, and we find that one important Department is not represented in this House, and that even questions addressed to the Minister who is stated to represent that Department, are not answered by him because he is not here, but they are answered casually by a Gentleman who cannot answer supplementary questions for the simple reason that he knows nothing about the subject, because he is only in the same position as an agent who is the representative of the representative of a representative. This is not treating the House of Commons with proper respect.
  Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Motion relative to Russia (Congratulations to Duma), on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, and on the Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Grand

  2085
  Juries (Suspension) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
  Resolved, "That this House do sit tomorrow (Friday)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

RUSSIA.

  CONGRATULATIONS TO DUMA.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I beg to move the Resolution which stands in the name of the Prime Minister:
  "That this House sends to the Duma its fraternal greetings and tenders to the Russian people its heartiest congratulations upon the establishment among them of free institutions in full confidence that they will lead not only to the rapid and happy progress of the Russian nation but to the prosecution with renewed steadfastness and vigour of the wax against the stronghold of an autocratic militarism which threatens the liberty of Europe."
  The events in Russia, which have followed each other with such startling rapidity during the last thirteen days, have arrested the attention of the world even in the midst of the greatest convulsion that has ever been wrought upon earth by man. What has happened in Russia reminds us of the earlier days of the French Revolution. We recall with what a glow of hope the fall of the Bastille was received by liberal-minded men throughout the world, a feeling which was thus expressed by our own poet:
  "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
  But to be voting was very Heaven."
  We recall, too, how quickly and how sadly that bright dawn was overcast. It is too soon to say that all danger is over in Russia. It is too soon to feel confident that the new Government has already laid the foundation on which, in the words of Burke, liberty
  "will have wisdom and justice for her companions, and will lead prosperity and plenty in her train."
  But it is not too soon for the Mother of Parliaments to send a friendly greeting to the Parliament of an Allied country, and it is not too soon for us to send a message of good will to the new Government, a Government which has been formed with the declared intention of carrying this War to a successful con-
  2086
  clusion, and a Government which has undertaken a task as arduous as has ever fallen to the lot of any Administration—the task at once of driving out a foreign aggressor and of establishing freedom and order at home. It is not, I think, for us to judge, much less to condemn, those who have taken part in the government of an Allied country, but I hope I may be permitted to express a feeling which I believe will be shared by the vast majority of the Members of this House, and which I, at least, hold strongly, a feeling of compassion for the late Czar, who was for three years, or nearly three years, as I believe, our loyal Ally, and who had laid upon him by his birth a burden which has proved too heavy for him. But we cannot forget that one of the issues, and the greatest of all the issues of this War, is whether or not free institutions can survive against the onslaught of military despotism, and we cannot but rejoice in the hope that in the final stages of this world conflict all the Allied Powers will be under the direction of Governments which represent their peoples. The Government, in putting down this Motion for the consideration of the House of Commons, were well aware that it might be considered premature, but we have submitted it to the House in the hope and in the belief that if sent now it may strengthen the hands of the Russian Government in their difficult task. I venture earnestly to express the hope that no Debate may be found necessary, from the fear that such a discussion may diminish the value of our message as an encouragement to the Russian Government and the Russian people.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. ASQUITH: The Resolution which my right hon. Friend has proposed expresses, in my belief, the opinion not only of the House of Commons, but of all the peoples of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom and of the whole British Empire. It is not our practice to interfere in the domestic concerns or the internal controversies of other nations, however closely their interests may be bound up with ours by kinship, by industrial relations, or even by the closer and more sacred ties which bind together Allies who are unitedly making sacrifices for a common cause. This rule we have steadily observed, and, in my view, it is no violation if we feel, as we all do, that the momentous events which are

  2087
  taking place in Russia are of such a kind as to deserve, and even to demand, from us special and—I agree with my right hon. Friend—immediate recognition. An autocracy which, notwithstanding the strange mutations in its history in the personal fortunes of the occupants of the throne, seemed to have become an integral part of Russian life, and beyond the reach of possible attack, has, in the course of a few days, without effective resistance, or even defence, been blotted out of existence. The form of Russia's future government is to be submitted, as we are glad to know, to the free judgment of an enfranchised people. Whatever their ultimate decision may be, at this moment, by that very fact, Russia takes her place by the side of the great democracies of the world. We, here, as my right hon. Friend has reminded us, the first home, the original home, of Parliamentary institutions and of popular election, feel that it is not only our privilege, but that we have a special claim of our own to be the first to rejoice in her emancipation, and to welcome her into the fellowship of free peoples.
  There is no lesson which history teaches more clearly than that freedom is justified by her children. Power and responsibility go hand in hand. The wider you make the basis of your power the more you infuse and stimulate the sense of responsibility. We may predict with confidence that that will be found to be as true in Russia as it has been proved to be true in every other part of the world. In the meantime, and until the moment comes when the great Russian people become constitutionally articulate, we here watch with the keenest solicitude and sympathy the efforts and labours of her Provisional Government. To carry through a revolution so deep and so far-reaching in its effects upon the social and political fabric of a vast and varied community, to carry it through with foresight, with self-restraint, with only a slight dislocation of the framework of life, and as little hardship to innocent victims of the change as is consistent with the due and complete achievement of the governing purpose—that is a task which under any conditions would tax the sagacity of the wisest statesmanship. But, in fact, it has had to be done, as my right hon. Friend has said, at a time when Russia was under the strain and stress of the greatest War in history.
  2088
  We have confidence that the distinguished men who formed the new Government. will be found to be endowed with the patience and the prudence which such a situation demands; but, above all, we feel sure that neither they nor the Russian people will abate by a jot the tenacity of their resolve or the concentration of their resources to bring the War to such an end as will justify all the sacrifice of all the Allies. We read with pleasure to-day—but, of course, with no surprise—the declaration of the new Russian Government that they will sacredly observe—I am quoting the words-—the alliances uniting them to other Powers, and will resolutely carry out all the agreements concluded with the Allies-The cause of the Allies, whatever may be the number and variety of the theatres of war, is one and indivisible. Russia has from the first played her part, not only loyally, but lavishly as well. We-are assured, now that the people see their own freedom within their grasp, they will continue in that course with, if possible, an intensified fervour of purpose-and of will. Every blow that is struck effectively by the Allies in this War is aimed against the design of our enemies to set up an international autocracy, and it is aimed equally on behalf of the-freedom of the peoples, be they great or be they small.
  Mr. DEVLIN: On a great and historic-occasion of this character I think that. the House will agree that the voice of Ireland ought not to be silent, and, in the absence through illness of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford, I have been invited by my colleagues to associate myself on their behalf with the Resolution which has been proposed by the Leader of the House. If I may be permitted to offer one criticism-before I briefly support this Motion, I. should express my deep regret at the fact, that there was not a more triumphant, note in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, because we are in the presence of a great and epoch-making event. In the midst of the horrors, of war—we ought to rejoice at it—there springs into life a free and enfranchised Russian nation, and this mighty people, now in the enjoyment of genuine liberty themselves, will be all the more determined and the better equipped to battle successfully for the liberty of Europe, and particularly.

  2089
  for all small nations rightly struggling to be free. We on these benches regard the Russian Revolution—striking, dramatic, and almost bloodless, as, it has been—as a message of hope to all oppressed peoples and to all freedom-loving nations. But it is something more than that. It is a warning and a portent of doom to autocracies and tyrannies everywhere. I might be tempted on this occasion—for it affords me a splendid opportunity—to draw a moral from the great events of the last two weeks, but I do not desire to avail myself of it. I want to let the voice of Ireland join in, in united harmony, and my right hon. Friend knows now, after his experience of Leader of the House, that when we have opportunities to draw a moral at other times, we will avail ourselves of them. My desire now is, on behalf of my colleagues representing Ireland, to express the profound sympathy which we feel with the Russian people, and to say how deeply we rejoice at their emancipation.
  Mr. WARDLE: I feel that it is impossible to let this occasion pass without adding a word on behalf of the Labour movement of this country. There is one point on which I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down. The right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Resolution, I do not think, was quite so happy as the Resolution itself. I venture to submit to the House that the Resolution, in its wording, is all that any one of us could possibly desire. At a Labour Conference held this week, although we were met to consider the conference over which you presided, our first thought was Russia and the revolution which had taken place there; and although we were considering in regard to this country some kind of franchise which should take the place of the present franchise, yet universal suffrage was the message that we heard, and it was rather difficult to persuade our people to take anything less. But our first thought was Russia, and we sent on our behalf a congratulatory telegram to that country on its successful emergence from the throes of revolution. I think we all desire to join with the whole of the nation, as represented in this House of Commons, in sending a message from the democracy of Great Britain to the democracy of Russia, and to extend to her the hand of fellowship.
  2090
  I would just like to say one or two words more. With myself and those with whom I am associated there is no reservation in our greetings to the Russian people. There are no doubts or hesitations in our welcome to the giving of liberal institutions to a great people. It is often asserted that wars breed reaction, and reaction alone. It has not been so in the case of Russia. The Russian people for some time have won fresh liberty in every war in which they have been engaged. The emancipation of the Serfs followed the Crimean War. The establishment of the Duma was the immediate consequence of the Japanese War. Civilisation itself sometimes gets forward on a powder-cask. There is something inspiring about liberty when it is accompanied by a free and resolute acceptance of law and of order. Two facts stand out with regard to this revolution—it is parliamentary, and it is constitutional. It betokens no weakening of Russia's will in regard to the War. May I add this one word—it is the sign and the signal that representative government is not dead. It receives fresh inspiration from this revolution so dramatic, so clear, and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, so almost bloodless. But let us hope that it may not have been achieved too easily. I hope there will be no dissension amongst any classes of the Russian people, but that they will accept this revolution, that they will accept this new system of government, and that they will all combine, along with our Allies, to break wherever they can, and on every occasion, the bonds of tyranny, and to set up free and liberal institutions throughout the world.
  Mr. PONSONBY: I do not think it is inappropriate on a great occasion of this sort that an unofficial private Member should be allowed to add his voice to the congratulations which are being tendered to the Russian Government. I welcome the overthrow of the late Government in Russia, and the establishment of a constitutional system and free institutions. I congratulate the members of the Duma on the skill and determination that they have shown in bringing about this very remarkable result. I for one have always had a most profound admiration for the Russian people. I have for long watched their struggles against misgovernment and against oppression with sympathy and with interest. They are a very great

  2091
  people, capable of great achievements in all branches of human activity. But they have been thwarted, oppressed, persecuted, and arrested in their development by a reactionary Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] Through the instrumentality of their elected representatives the Russian people have at last cast off the yoke which has been weighing down on them for so many years. It is, indeed, an occasion for warmest congratulation. These sentiments may be applauded here to-day, but not long ago they were criticised, and even blamed. But I think that the House will look back with appreciation on the words of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman at the Inter-Parliamentary meeting which was held in the Royal Gallery of the House of Lords, in 1907, who said, "La Douma est mort, vive la Douma!" That was regarded at the time as an indiscretion, but indiscretions are sometimes the better part of wisdom. In 1908, soon after I entered this House, I was severely reproved for protesting against the greatest compliment that could be paid being paid to the Russian Government which has now fallen. But events have proved that some of us had, perhaps, foresight even in those days. But the task which lies before the chief agents in this great event is no light one. They have before them problems which at this distance, and with the meagre information allowed to filter through, we cannot appreciate. Our Press, no doubt under instructions, emphasises the keen desire of the new Government in Russia to prosecute the War with increasing vigour. Many in the country may be led to think that the revolution was in order that the War might be continued indefinitely, and that there should be no falling off in zeal for conquest and victory, and that this is the chief concern of those responsible for the remarkable change in the government of Russian. The Prime Minister a few days ago said:
  "But it is satisfactory to know that the new Government has been founded with the express purpose of carrying on the War with vigour."
  That is not my reading of the event. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed!"] The chief concern, the great ideal, of the eminent statesmen who are now at the head of affairs in Russia, is, and indeed must be, the consideration of good government, the redressing of evils, the alleviation of distress caused by hunger
  2092
  and starvation, the safeguarding of their initial efforts from the forces of reaction, and the establishment of stable and just government, which will lead to a freer and fuller development, not only of the resources of the Russian Empire, but of the qualities and talent and the well-being of the Russian people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed!"] This must be the one aim and object of these statesmen, who have accomplished so great an achievement; and it remains to be seen whether the sufferings which her people are now undergoing, and the losses which the European War is inflicting upon them, are compatible with the attainment of these high aims. Anyhow, I trust they will be allowed to pursue their great and noble work without discord in their own country, and without interfer-ference from outside. Let us remember that our Russian Allies have achieved a far greater victory than the conquest of Constantinople—[An HON. MEMBER: "Stop your whining!"]—or any other territory. Let us not contribute to the undoing of their labours, let us not divert them from their march towards freedom, but do all in our power to help them in every way we can in the great task which they have before them.
  Mr. GINNELL: As there is an Irish Debate coming on this afternoon, and I know that, as usual, the occupant of the Chair will be unable to see me, I thought that this would be an appropriate subject for me to intervene upon, and as I know I will only be allowed to do it on this question, I think it better to say a few words on this occasion with reference to a subject about which I do not care a jot. The leaders of the day on the Front Benches were good enough to intimate-to the House that they desired to speak, and they desired that nobody but themselves should speak on this subject. Do they think that this was a good object lesson to Russia? Do hon. Members who can do nothing better on this historical occasion than interrupt their colleagues, think that a good object lesson to Russia? Do they think they are maintaining the dignity of what is called this Mother of Parliaments by making themselves ridiculous. War produces reaction. Who can deny that war produces reaction? This Mother of Parliaments has been brought by war to destroy her own offspring—personal liberty. Can any of the inarticulate hon. Members deny that fact? I find fault with this Motion before the House?

  2093
  on quite a number of grounds. The leaders on the Front Benches congratulate whom? Successful rebels. Within the last ten months they have been hanging and shooting unsuccessful rebels. They have sent Lord Milner to Petrograd to foment this rebellion. They have not uttered a word of thanks to his Lordship. Free institutions indeed! This country was a country of free institutions. It is so no longer, and still less is Ireland. You recommend to everybody free institutions anywhere but at home at your doors. The Parliament that proposes to congratulate the Duma has destroyed the free institutions of this country, and it has always denied free institutions to my country.
  Sir S. COLLINS: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the general question of Ireland on this Motion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot stop a passing reference, but the hon. Member certainly would not be in order in discussing on this Motion the affairs of Ireland.
  Mr. GINNELL: I am discussing the qualifications of this House for congratulating anybody on setting up free institutions, which are destroyed in your own country. What do you know about free institutions, except what a murderer knows of his victim. I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof, the words,
  "this House, while appreciating Lord Milner's action in fomenting the Revolution which has dethroned our Imperial Russian Ally, whose fidelity to the Allied cause we have invariably applauded, and having betrayed its own promise of full self-government to Ireland, suspends its judgment on the new institutions alleged to have been founded in Russia until time has revealed their character."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's Amendment is an irrelevant negative.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, "That this House sends to the Duma, its fraternal greetings and tenders to the Russian people its heartfelt congratulations upon the establishment among them of free institutions in full confidence that they will lead not only to the rapid and happy progress of the Russian nation but to the prosecution
  2094
  with renewed steadfastness and rigour of the war against the stronghold of an autocratic militarism which threatens the liberty of Europe."—[MR. BONAR LAW]

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
  FURTHER ATTEMPTED SETTLEMENT.

    STATEMENTS BY MR. BONAR LAW AND MR. ASQUITH.
    Order read for Second Reading of Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words,
    "having regard to the state of affairs in Ireland and the supreme importance to the cause of the Allies of a settlement being effected without further delay, it is in the opinion of this House imperative that the Government should take such steps as may be necessary to achieve this end."
    I make no apology for asking the House to grant a very few brief moments' consideration to the question of the government of Ireland. Were any explanation necessary I would say that I entertain a profound conviction, and I know it is shared by many Members in all parts of the House, that the highest interests of this nation demand that a renewed effort should be made to settle the Irish controversy. Ireland to-day is a weakness and not a strength in the great task which lies before this country. Need I say I do-not speak to-day from a party point of view. Party labels and party shibboleth have been destroyed in the great infern which we have gazed upon for the last two and a half years, and whatever the result may be with regard to Ireland, I can say, with regard to other domestic matters, that parties in this House can never again be quite the same as they were previous to the War. I therefore, to-day, do not propose to explore the noxious vapours of the past embittered controversy. I propose to ask the House to look at the situation as it is, and consider the possibilities of the future. The Irish

    2095
    controversy is no longer a party controversy. It is at this moment an Imperial issue of the first importance. Why then do we urge the Government, with the knowledge which we have of past recent failures and with comprehension of the enormous and almost insurmountable difficulties which lie before anyone who tries to settles this question at the present moment, to try once again? In the first place, we urge them for reasons of military efficiency. The House knows that martial law, at any rate in name, exists throughout Ireland, and in order to sustain that law a vast Army of occupation is necessary. Is it unreasonable to suppose that, with a satisfied Ireland, a vast proportion of that Army could be released in order to fight the common foe? Not only so, but the question of recruiting is closely associated with the military position. We know that recruiting in Ireland is practically a closed book, and that there is little hope of it being reopened with success in the present conditions. But it does not stop there. The effect of your system in Ireland, so far as recruiting is concerned, has re-echoed throughout the great Dominions. In Canada, and in Australia, and in New Zealand, unfortunately, there is only too much of substantial indication that the position in Ireland has interfered even with the greater success of recruiting there. I urge that those considerations at the moment, when every man is required to carry a gun for the sake of his country, ought not to be lightly laid aside.
    We urge it also for the sake of national unity. In the life and death struggle such as this country is going through at the present moment, unity of the nation is a priceless possession. We have had abundance of it during the last two and a half years, but we have not got it at the present moment, and we are not likely to get it until there is a change in the relations between this country and Ireland. In a letter published this morning from the Prime Minister he declares that national unity is essential to victory. I believe that to be so. Is it, therefore, not worth while to make one more effort in order to restore national unity? It is necessary to take action also in order to put ourselves right with our Allies and with the civilised world. We entered this great War as champions of small nations. The balancing factor in the great decision
    2096
    was a scrap of paper—a Belgian scrap of paper. We cannot overlook or forget that at the present time there exists also an Irish scrap of paper—a scrap of paper authorised by the people of this country, and endorsed by the signature of His Majesty the King. I say, therefore, so long as the Irish problem is unsettled, so long will we lay ourselves open to the taunt and reproach that in claiming the championship of smaller nations we are guilty of perfidy. It is impossible to regard with satisfaction the present Parliamentary position of Ministers who carry on the work of the great Departments so far as the War is concerned. It is inconsistent with party debates in this House. They cannot give their whole and undivided attention to the work of the War if they are liable at any moment to be called back to this House to assist in preventing the possibility of a Snap Division. It cannot be done. Therefore, I would urge that, even from that point of view, this question deserves consideration, but that is small compared with the greater and more important side of the Parliamentary position. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was taken to task the other day for having made a threat that the present state of things would result in a General Election. I heard his speech made in reply to one of my own, and I never supposed for a moment it was anything in the nature of a threat. He was simply pointing out a possibility which is apparent, I think, to every Member of this House. What is that possibility? The life of this Parliament has been extended on two occasions. Very shortly it will be necessary, if this Parliament is to continue to exist, for another extension of life to be granted. I say it is impossible for any Government to persevere with a motion extending the life of Parliament for a short time if you have a solid body of opinion against it. It cannot be done, and from a constitutional point of view I say that the Government would be wrong to do it. The result would inevitably be that we should have a General Election, which nobody wants. It would settle nothing and unsettle everything, and therefore from that point of view I think there is an additional reason for attempting to bring about a settlement of this long controversy.
    See what the position is if something is not done. The position cannot remain

    2097
    as it is. Relations must inevitably get more strained. You have the action of Irish Members in this House. They understand the position, and I understand it to some extent, but the great mass of the people outside do not understand it, and the result will be that the enormous sympathy which has been garnered for Ireland during the past years may be minimised, if not destroyed. Not only that, but by doing nothing you are placing a weapon in the hands of a reactionary party in Ireland which must inevitably be used to destroy the constitutional movement. I ask the Government are they prepared to strengthen the position of the physical force party in Ireland? That is the inevitable result if nothing is done. The whole story of Ireland is a story of a struggle between constitutional agitation and physical force. Ireland was weaned from physical force and accepted the constitutional path, but what reply will the advocates of constitutional methods to-day make to the extreme physical force party in Ireland if they declare that the constituional method has failed so far as the granting of their rights is concerned? Every day that you delay settling the Irish question you are recruiting a new soldier to the physical force party. I therefore say that time is important, even from the constitutional point of view.
    Mr. GINNELL: Time is on our side.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: We have many happy omens at this moment. All parties appear to be willing to forget the past and honestly to try and bring about a better condition of affairs. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is, I know, as keen as any man to bring about a solution; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already demonstrated, I think, his anxiety, if possible, to bring about a settlement; and my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty not very long ago gave ample proof that he was desirous that, if possible, something should be done. Therefore the situation is not altogether without hope. Let me say that Ireland is not a promising field for speculative theorists. It is no good imagining that a solution is certain, even if efforts are now made to bring it about. The man who thinks it is easy to settle the difficulties that exist at the present moment does not understand the rudiments of the Irish question, and although I am urging that steps should
    2098
    be taken, I confess I am by no means sanguine, if they are taken, that they will be successful. Any action that is taken by the Government can only be successful if great sacrifices are made of cherished ideals and of acknowledged principles by the great parties who are concerned in a settlement. Without great sacrifice in that direction no solution is possible, no matter what machinery you may create—sacrifices not from one party alone, but from all parties concerned.
    What, I ask, is the position of the Government in this matter? The latest official utterance in any detail as to their position was that made the other day by the Prime Minister. He suggested many alternatives. He suggested, for example, that the different Irish representatives should meet together and try to settle the matter themselves. With all respect, I think there is little or no help in that direction. What guarantee have the Irish representatives from all parts of Ireland that if they were to settle between themselves, the Government would accept the settlement? We know there was a practical settlement arrived at between the various sections in Ireland some time ago, and that the Government withheld its support to that agreement. It was also suggested by the Prime Minister that the Government would be prepared at this moment to grant self-government in Ireland to those portions of Ireland which desired it. That was a very important declaration. What does it exactly mean? What is the unit that is to determine the result? Can the Government be more explicit? Can it be the individual constituency? There must be a geographical area. What is in the mind of the Government? Then, again, it was favourably suggested, I think by my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith), that a Commission might be created with a view to finding a solution to this problem. I confess that, although I see difficulties, that is the most attractive and the most hopeful line of action. Presided over by a high authority, containing possibly representatives from our Colonies, possessing the confidence of both sections of the Irish people, I believe, at any rate, it would be worth an honest effort.
    But the appointment of a Commission, as, indeed, every step in connection with Irish government, raises many difficulties. Would the Commission be purely

    2099
    a Commission to negotiate and try to bring about a settlement, or would it be a Commission with plenipotentiary powers, which would be allowed to settle the whole question? I see difficulties, but I see also that these difficulties could be settled without the final authority of this House. Would the Government pledge themselves to carry out any decision at which that Commisison arrived? All these points raise difficulties, but they are not insurmountable. My view is that in that direction the most hope of a settlement seems to centre. There are things that I think ought to be considered at the present time in any decision which any Member of the House, belonging to any-party, may arrive at, when he is coming to a decision. Liberal Members who supported the late Government ought especially, I think, to bear them in mind. We have to remember that the representatives of the Nationalist party from Ireland have supported the Government of the day practically for eleven years. They have supported it in expectation of their constitutional demand being granted, and, so far as they are concerned, they have committed no act, nor have they been guilty of any offence, which would justify a denial of their claims. Remember, too, that the country, by its constitutional expression, has expressed its approval of the Bill which is now upon the Statute Book.
    Remember, also, the patriotic part played by the Nationalist party at the beginning of the War and since that time. Does the House really realise what the position would have been if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Water-ford (Mr. J. Redmond) had taken a different line from that which he did take in regard to the War? Why, he could have dealt a deadly blow at the very heart of the Empire which would have made it impossible to wage the War with any degree of success. That, I think, should be remembered to-day. I say, therefore, that the time seems opportune. It seems peculiarly opportune to-day that we ought to consider a method of granting free institutions to Ireland. I do not believe my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House or any member of the Government requires to be forced to take action in this matter. I am perfectly certain that they are as anxious as we are that something should be done, but they require the
    2100
    encouragement of this House, the strength of this House, and we also desire to fortify them, in endeavouring to bring, about a solution. I ask the House to declare to-day that the highest Imperial interests, the continuance of national unity, and the triumph of our arms in the field alike demand that a renewed effort should be made to bring about and to establish lasting foundations of peace between this-country and Ireland.
    Major J. W. HILLS: I rise to support the Amendment that has just been moved by my right hon. Friend. I am impressed, as he was impressed, with the great difficulties of this question, and I can assure the House that nobody would follow me into a thorny quarrel of this sort unless he felt that the urgency of the question was so great that every effort should be made to settle it at once; and the only-excuse that I have to give to the House to-day is that I feel that this is the most urgent question in our national politics, that it ought to be settled at once, and that time is running against us. The longer we delay the settlement the harder it becomes.
    Mr. GINNELL: And the better for us!
    Major HILLS: I do not propose to go through all the reasons for a settlement. They have been dealt with by the Mover of this Amendment, and they are quite patent to the House. Our unfortunate difference with Ireland weakens us during the War, and will paralyse us after the War unless it is settled. Can we contemplate with any sort of equanimity the position that we shall be in when peace is declared and we have to come back and reconstruct our shattered world and find the Irish question still blocking the way? It has warped and diverted our domestic politics for the last ten years, and unless we settle it now we shall go under it again. My object in speaking to-day is to reinforce the suggestion that was made, first by the late Prime Minister and repeated to-day by the Mover of the Amendment, for the shifting of this question out of our party politics into the atmosphere of some independent body. The late Prime Minister suggested an Imperial Conference. I am not bound to any one form of conference. I can imagine several different sorts of tribunals to whom you might refer this question, but I do think that an Imperial Conference has got many

    2101
    advantages. In the first place, it stands outside our local politics. It is composed of distinguished Imperial statesmen, nearly all of whom are men who in their own countries have had experience of similar questions, and have found solutions of those questions. There are, of course, many other bodies, but the important thing for the House to realise is that the only way of solving this question is by the appointment of some such body. It is perfectly out of the question to ask the Leader of the Nationalist party to meet again in conference the First Lord of the Admiralty. After what happened last July neither of those Gentlemen will ever go into a conference again. That is absolutely clear.
    5.0 P.M.
    Then, if it cannot be settled by private negotiation, can the question be settled by this House? This House has tried for a long time to settle it, and it has failed, and it has failed for the very obvious reason that, unfortunately, the Irish question has become a part of our domestic politics, and opinion has become committed on one side or the other, and we look at it too closely, and we are perhaps unable to take a broad view. I do not believe that inside the atmosphere of this House, or of domestic politics, we can settle this question, and so there remains some sort of impartial body, and, so far as my opinion has got any weight, I think an Imperial Conference is the best. It may be said, "Do you suggest that an Imperial Conference should come and dictate to us how we shall settle our domestic affairs?" I have seen that point raised in the Press, and the same point was dealt with by the Mover of the Amendment. I wish, first, to say, and to say quite distinctly, that any settlement, to be a lasting and proper settlement, must be acceptable to the leaders of any substantial body of opinion in Ireland. We cannot enforce a settlement by force; that has long ago gone by the board'; and therefore the Imperial Conference, or the conference that has got to consider this question, would not be a tribunal with autocratic powers. It would be a body that met and considered this question and reported in some way, I suppose, to this House, so that Parliament could take action on what it did report. It may be said, "All this is very much in the air. Here you have a heated question, and the only solution you have got is that some body should con-
    2102
    sider it and do something. What chance have you got of success?" I do not think anybody will deny the difficulty. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the chances of success are not great; but, small or great, we have to try them. It is the only road I can see. May I add this: in all compromises both sides have to give up something. They have to give up something that they hold dear, perhaps as dear as life. Compromises must involve always bitter sacrifices, and the only thing which justifies the sacrifice is that the object for which the compromise is made is something great. It costs just as much to carry though a patched-up arrangement which nobody likes and which time will soon destroy as it does to construct some great and lasting ideal which will appeal to men's sympathy and imagination. Therefore the more far-reaching the settlement, the more likely it is to be a lasting success.
    There is one further thing that ought to-be said, and it should be said because it is a matter of plain fact. The Prime Minister, in his speech the other day, was challenged with the position of Poland and was asked how he could go to a Peace Conference and there defend the position of Ireland. He explained to the House that defence was easy. Nobody has a greater admiration for the intellectual ability and dialectical skill of the Prime Minister than I have, but I think here he has taken a part rather beyond his powers. It is a question of plain fact. He can explain to-the Conference no doubt that the Government in Ireland is a just and equitable Government. But Austria will say the same thing regarding Poland, and the question the right hon. Gentleman will have to answer is, What is the Irish view of your Government? Has your Government the assent of the governed? There cannot be any question on that point. Suppose we go a step further. Suppose that at the Peace Conference we are met by a united and free Poland. I think even, then the Prime Minister will admit that it is not a case for mere words, but that he will have to show something of the. same sort in the case of Ireland.
    The reason for bringing this question-forward during the War is that it is essentially a war question. It weakens us all round, and the justification for submitting it to a body of Imperial statesmen is that it is an Imperial question and that the Empire suffers through it. I think we sometimes forget the exact relations of

    2103
    Ireland to ourselves in this way. We talk as though it was some boon which we are offering and for which Ireland ought to be duly thankful. War has changed a great many things, and old relations and old conditions are not what they were. I am not sure we ought not to regard this as an act of justice not merely to ourselves, but also to Ireland. After all, it will not be pleasant for us to have to go to a Peace -Conference with Ireland standing in the corner as a naughty child. It will want some explaining to the world, and I am not sure that the world will not listen to Ireland as much as to ourselves. Then there is the question of what is to occur after the War. We have to rebuild. But at present Ireland checks and hinders us. Why should she not come forward and help to rebuild the world as one of the best memorials and justification of our enormous sacrifice? She can do it. She has convictions and aspirations as deep-rooted as any we have. She has ideals as grand and as splendid as any for which men have died on the fields of Flanders and Picardy. I do appeal to the House to urge the Government to end this secular quarrel. It has lasted too long already. I believe if the question were lifted into an atmosphere of impartial consideration a fair solution would be found—a solution that would do injustice to no one, but will tend to the lasting prosperity of Ireland and of the Empire.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Hon. Members of this House who know anything whatever of the views I hold on this question will be aware that my opinions are very strong on the subject and my feelings very deep. Therefore, perhaps, it is with special difficulty that I venture to take part in a Debate such as this this afternoon. I am determined, however, so far as I can help it, that nothing I shall say will make it more difficult to arrive at some such settlement as that which my right hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment has suggested in the Motion he has proposed. But while I say that I think it is quite obvious that it is no use allowing a discussion of this sort to be carried on in this House, and possibly a vote taken, without some statement from those who feel strongly and who realise the difficulties that must be overcome if we are to approach a settlement, either by a Commission or by any other method. I myself am as strongly desirous as any man in this House that this question
    2104
    should be in some amicable way settled. At the same time, I cannot altogether endorse every word contained in this Resolution or which fell from my right hon. Friend. I think myself that it is an exaggeration to speak of the "supreme importance" of this matter from the Imperial standpoint. I agree that it is immensely important, but supposing that this matter were settled to-morrow, I do not agree with my right hon. Friend in thinking that that would give us one additional recruit from Ireland or enable us to take one soldier away from Ireland whom we have got there now. Therefore from the point of view of actual manpower in this War I do not believe that this question is of supreme importance at the present stage.
    On the other hand, there is no question as to its moral importance or its importance before the world as regards the unity of our own nation. There, I agree, is a matter of immense importance. Both the Mover and Seconder laid down a condition which they accepted as a condition precedent to the end we all have in view, and I entirely agree with them. They said it would involve sacrifices not on one side only, but on the part of all who are concerned. I hope that that is realised and accepted in all parts of the House. I am particularly anxious to say nothing that can be considered in any way offensive to any of my fellow countrymen below the Gangway, but I cannot help saying—and hon. Members know that although I do not represent an Ulster constituency I share the Ulster view with such authority as may be derived from having a seat on the Ulster Council—it is generally agreed—and it was freely acknowledged by the Prime Minister the other day—that the standpoint of Ulster must be taken into account. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite will agree with that.
    I am sorry to have to say it—and I do so without wishing in any way to be personally offensive—but one of the strongest obstacles at the present time to a settlement of this question is the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I note the hon. Gentleman smiles at that, but I know that the speech which the hon. Member made in this House immediately after the rebellion last year had a profound effect, not only in this House, but throughout the country, and very largely in Ulster. I am perfectly certain, though I have yet had no information upon the subject, that the

    2105
    speech he made two days ago will have a most disastrous effect in the same direction. I cannot imagine why the hon. Member, who is, I believe, as anxious as anybody else to settle this question, allowed himself to make such a speech. I cannot imagine why the hon. Gentleman, at such a juncture as this, when we are all supposed to be getting into an attitude of conciliation, should have brought on to the floor of this House this trumped-up, silly invention about a German agent having been reported in Ulster on the outbreak of the War, that he should have suggested what he cannot believe to be true and what is contrary to all the principles of Irish politics, with which the hon. Gentleman is perfectly familiar. I am sorry that he should have allowed himself to suggest that there have been any negotiations or any understandings between the conductors of Ulster policy at that time and agents of the Kaiser. The only effect that such a statement can possibly have is to stir up the fires of animosity in Ulster and in all parts of Ireland which disagree with the standpoint of the hon. Member. The only effect it can have is to make much more difficult the task which my hon. Friend opposite has taken upon himself.
    The point which I want to lay before the House is in reference to the demand that all parties must make sacrifices. I want the House to understand that we who represent the point of view that I hold have said singularly little since the War began upon this controversial topic. We have had ample provocation. I believe the House will do us the justice of supporting me when I say that we have had opportunity after opportunity to restate our position before the House; but rather than engage in controversy we have let those opportunities go by. Therefore the belief is prevalent in the House from the Debates which have been held in recent times, and from statements such as were made by my hon. Friend beside me on a recent date—from such statements that have been made in this House by hon. Friends of mine—there is a sort of idea, in view of the settlement that we all desire, that Ulster is the obstacle. That is a view which I want the House to get out of their minds. Ulster is not the obstacle. If a settlement is to be arrived at upon this question, if persuasion is to be used, if entreaty is to be used, there on the benches below me is where the en-
    2106
    treaty and persuasion ought to be directed! I do not want to labour the question. Certainly I do not want at the present time to go into the merits of any point of the controversy on which we were engaged before the War began. I merely want to state the positions from the point of view of the suggested agreement.
    The position from which hon. Members below the Gangway started in this great controversy was that they desired Home Rule for Ireland. The position from-which we started was that we objected to Home Rule for Ireland or any part of it. The controversy proceeded. We acknowledged defeat so far as our standpoint was concerned. We acknowledged, under all the circumstances—which I need not now discuss—that we were unable to maintain our full standpoint. When agreement was suggested, or negotiations were suggested last year, the point from which we started was that we objected to Home-Rule for Ireland. Our Friends below the Gangway said they were in favour of Home Rule for Ireland. We receded from: that position. It was suggested to us, as a means of compromise, that we should have what we had proposed, I think by Amendment when the Home Rule Bill was before Parliament, that the province of Ulster should be excluded. I do not want to go into the merits of this matter, or I could make a very strong case for treating the province of Ulser as a unit. I do not want to go into that. That was the suggestion pressed upon us, that the province-of Ulster should be excluded. That was-found impossible of acceptance by the Nationalist party. That was one point where we had shown our willingness to. make a concession. Our Friends below the Gangway had made none. Then we reached the second stage. It was not. possible to get the exclusion of Ulster, and so we said, "Well, much as we dislike it, we all recognise that if you take a perfectly arbitrary division of counties. that there are three of the counties where Nationalist opinion is largely predominant, and there are six counties where Unionist opinion is concentrated; therefore we will give up our claim for the province of Ulster in order to arrive at a settlement. We will do that if you exclude the six counties." We made that second step by way of concession. That proposal was also rejected by the Nationalist party.

    2107
    Where are we to-day? We are to-day in the position in which the Ulster party have taken first one step and then another step, steps which they considered very much in the direction of concessions, and our Friends below the Gangway are exactly where they started from. They have made no concession whatever. Consequently, I do think I am justified in saying to my right hon. Friend opposite the Member for Durham City, who has a sincere belief that a compromise should be arrived at, that it is not upon my friends in Ulster that that consideration should be pressed. Let me say this more in that connection: If every time negotiations are suggested the point on which Ulster last gave way is to be taken as a starting point for further negotiations, and we are to be told that we are taking an obstinate? standpoint, an obdurate, and non possumus attitude because we are not prepared to take a further step, that attitude can only result in an absolute reluctance on the part of any representatives from Ulster to go into any Conference Chamber at all. I only say that as a short restatement of the position as it appears to me at the present moment. I hope I have said nothing that will cause feeling amongst? our Friends below the Gangway. I certainly repeat that I am anxious to arrive at a settlement.
    Let me say one word upon the proposal of my right hon. Friend as to the method of arriving at that settlement. He suggests taking up, I think, the suggestion of the ex-Prime Minister the other day, that there should be a Commission appointed to consist largely of—I do not know to what extent—statesmen from our Overseas Dominions. First, let me say in regard to that, that very recent experience in this House has not tended to increase the prestige or authority of Commissions. We were dealing only the other day with a Report of a Commission presided over by one of our greatest pro-Consuls—to use a common phrase—that Ireland has produced and a man of vast administrative experience. In that Report there was a finding as to our methods of government in this country. The ex-Prime Minister, standing at that box, brushed it aside and said it was a mere obiter dictum which carried no weight. That is not the sort of procedure which is likely to enhance either the dignity or respect of Commissions of this sort. Let me say to my hon. Friend the
    2108
    Member for Durham this: He spoke very eagerly about a Commission of this kind. I would like to ask him whether he has consulted the statesmen whom he proposes to enlist for this service? Unless he has, I feel very strongly of opinion, in fact I feel convinced, that these statesmen from the Dominions so soon as they are approached will say that nothing is further from their intention than to deal with the subject. I do not think they would touch it with a barge pole. Why should they? Unfortunately, our Irish differences are not confined to Ireland. They extend to the Dominions. It is quite true that my hon. Friends from Ulster, largely perhaps of their own will, of past years have not cultivated opinion in agreement with themselves in the Dominions. It may be, owing to that, they have never brought before the people of this country, a fact, which is nevertheless a fact, that a very large body of opinion in the Dominions is not in favour of Home Rule, but in favour of the Union. I do not know exactly what are the numbers. I note my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast is smiling at my remarks. He is well aware that there are thousands of Orangemen in Canada and many thousands in Australia. I do not think that it is at all—
    Mr. DEVLIN: I should like to point out this to the hon. Gentleman. It is not the number of Orangemen or the number of Nationalists that are in Australia or Canada that count; it is the freely declared declaration of the Constituent assemblies in all those countries with practical unanimity.
    Mr. McNEILL: I think my hon. Friend rather misses my point. I will deal with what he says in a moment. What I was pointing out was that these different elements of opinion are to be found in the Dominions, and they already have a bearing upon their own domestic politics. For that reason I do not believe that the Prime Ministers of these Dominions with these political elements in their own constituencies are likely to come and set their hands to an instrument in this country which, whatever it does, will offend some opinion in their own country. I quite agree with the hon. Member for West Belfast in what he points out. I do not deny for a moment that some of the legislative bodies in the Dominions have expressed themselves in favour of Home Rule. That, in itself, I think, is the very strongest possible objection to the pro-

    2109
    posal of my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for West Belfast has himself shown that these Dominion statesmen cannot approach this question with an impartial mind. They have behind them Resolutions passed by the Senates or legislative bodies in their own countries, because of the different elements of Irish opinion there, the majority of which, I have never denied, represent the opinions of the hon. Member for West Belfast, and not mine. But that is no reason, when these statesmen come to this country with the weight dragging down one side of the balance of their own Legislatures at home, why we should consider them an acceptable tribunal for considering a question of our own domestic politics, on which, as I say, they are necessarily biassed, and which none of us in this country admit for a moment can be decided by reference? either to experience or analogies with which those statesmen are familiar. Therefore, so far as my own opinion is concerned, while I am anxious for a settlement, while I do not object in the least to the setting up, if it can be of any help, of some more or less illustrious tribunal, if it attracts to itself any authority, at the same time I do not think you are going to carry the thing any further by that means for the reasons I have given. I think the difficulties are not by any means overcome, and I am not at all sanguine that the particular method suggested by the two speakers who introduced this Resolution offers any great hopes of its solution.
    Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: I am sure the whole House will welcome the speech of the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. McNeill), and especially the tone of it. I always listen to him with the greatest regard and appreciation of his ability to express his well-known and strong views, and we all know there is no more doughty and chivalrous speaker than the hon. Member. That speech, following the speech of my two hon. Friends behind me, brings a tone and an atmosphere to the discussion of this Irish question which I, at any rate, have never before witnessed in this House, and I do urge the Front Benches to keep out of this Debate as long as possible. One of the catastrophes in discussing this or any other question is that, as soon as a Front Bench leader gets up, he whips into line the willing party followers of his particular view, and independence on the Back Benches has disappeared for that day. I
    2110
    do not include in the Front Benches the. independent and mixed Front Bench opposite, which, I am sure, represents the best opinion not in the Government for the time being. I repeat, the speech of the hon. Member for St. Augustine's is the most hopeful speech I have heard in reference to this Irish controversy, and I for one will say nothing, strong Home Ruler though I am, to offend him or those who, like him, feel so deeply—and rightly feel deeply—on this question of Irish Home Rule. May I say that he is wrong in his diagnosis of the feelings of the Dominions? The predominant feeling in the Dominions, not only amongst Irishmen, but among all overseas men and women is in favour of Home Rule, because they have experienced it in various forms, always with success to themselves, and always with a growing and warmer attachment to this Mother Country and the Imperial ideal The reason why the Irish element—I mean the Roman Catholic element—is so strong in the Dominions, and gives such vigorous, consistent support to the party led by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, is that the emigration from Ireland to the Dominions, commencing in the middle of last century, was largely from the south and west of Ireland. The emigration from Ulster has always been very small, and therefore you have the overwhelming proportion of Irish in the United States and in our Dominions Roman Catholic Irishmen. So far as the Orangemen in Canada-are concerned, I know them well, and I know their leaders. But an Orangeman of Canada is not, because he is an Orangeman, opposed to Home Rule for Ireland. I take issue with the hon. Gentleman there, and I know Orangemen in Canada very well. The Orangeman in Canada is an opponent of the Roman Catholic Church, but he is not an opponent of Home Rule, and the overseas man makes a clear distinction between opposing the Roman Catholic Church and opposing self-government.
    Let me go on with the Colonial analogy, and I hope the House will listen to me on this, because I must confess to the House —I hope without any loss of what little reputation I may have—that I am the great-grandson of a rebel in Canada, a fine old citizen, who took twelve sons with him into the rebellion for Home Rule. He took nearly his whole family. They were fine men in those days, and I hope their descendants are not wanting in the fibre that goes to make a race. Do not let me

    2111
    speak of the whole-hearted, loyal rebellion in Canada as one to be compared with the shabbiest and meanest rebellion that took place in Ireland last year. [An HON. MEMBER; "Shame!"] I say the shabbiest and meanest outbreak that ever took place. The rebellion in Canada was a comparatively small affair. The result was the grant of self-government. I admit there is a great difference between the grant of government to the Colonies of Canada and a grant—as I hope it will be —of government to Ireland. In all cases in the Colonies this House only made its grant of self-government after the Colonials themselves arranged their differences between races and creeds, prepared a draft scheme, came over to this country, and asked the Government of the day to revise, consider, and confirm their scheme, and put it through this House and the House of Lords. And, believe me, if you look up the Debates of the days when there were grants of Home Rule to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand you will find that this Imperial House of Commons rarely debated those great constitutions which were the foundation of this Imperial fabric. There is nothing more annoying to an overseas man than to suggest that the House of Commons of England gave him Home Rule. He submitted his Home Rule scheme to this House. It was more a matter of machinery than a matter of grant, and the first great difference between those grants of Colonial self-government and the suggested grant to Ireland is this: all Colonials agreed in asking for it, but you cannot get the two great parties of Ireland to sit down and agree to a scheme. That is the fundamental misfortune in this question. I wish it could be done. If it could be done I am certain the House of Commons, this country, and the whole Empire would acclaim that achievement, that mutual regard, respect, and confidence, as one of the greatest things in the history of our Empire.
    Let me say another thing about the Colonial analogy, and it is this: The Colonies—as they were before they got their grants of government, and I wish hon. Members who have not travelled or read much would remember they are not now Colonies, but Dominions; partners, not subordinates, in this Imperial fabric—these Colonies, when they got their Home Rule, were happy in this, that they did not arouse any party or
    2112
    partisan feeling in the Mother Country. The Irish question is distinctly different from that. The Irish question has two-great vanguards in Ireland. There is the. Ulster vanguard, with an enormous support in the Mother Country, with a limited support in the Dominions, and with no support in the great English-speaking Republic of the United States. The Irish Nationalist party has a great vanguard in Ireland, with a support in the Mother Country not always as warm as they have a right to expect, but still a support in this country, with a vigorous support in the Dominions, and with an overwhelming support running to some 10,000,000 of people in the United States. Therefore, the Colonial analogy falls down when you compare the development of self-government in the Dominions with the proposed grant of self-government to Ireland. It makes the Irish question more difficult. You have not got to settle the Irish question quâ Irish. You have got to settle-the great differences between the whole parties of this Mother Country, that are the most firmly fixed parties in certain fundamental principles, I suppose, of any parties in the world. That is the second ground on which the Irish question differs; from all our Colonies.
    I regret that we have not here in the Debate to-day the hon. and gallant Member for East Clare (Major W. Redmond), the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain S. Gwynn), and other hon. and gallant Members who belong to* the Nationalist party. To that party belongs the credit, by the way, of having sent to the trenches from this House the oldest soldier, the hon. and gallant Member for East Clare, and the youngest soldier, the hon. and gallant Member known outside the House as Captain Esmonde, who represents a constituency in Tipperary. He is, I hope, killing Germans, and he has not had an opportunity to make his maiden speech in this House, to which he was quite recently elected. The absence of those hon. and gallant Gentlemen is a great drawback when we are discussing this thorny question of Ireland, because they can speak with authority, and with a patriotic record of service for this Empire, as well as for Ireland, which commands respect, and makes dumb any old opponent who in days gone by differed from them. While-on that point, I think it is deplorable that in these days of national service, when

    2113
    every man should be doing that which he can do best, hon. and gallant Members of this House in khaki or in blue should be where they are not indispensable, and where they can be replaced, when they ought to be in this House, where their opinion is necessary to hammer out this difficult Irish question, and to meet the economic machinations of our enemy which can only be met from the floor of the House of Commons. I hope I may be excused for my little excursion into this most important and relevant issue of the Irish question. I for one would not like to see the Irish question settled with a considerable number of the really virile Members of the House away doing their duty, and not, to my mind, as important a duty as in another sphere. We are discussing this question because it is a war problem. I remember the Debate of September, 1914, when the Home Rule question was postponed with common accord until after the War. It has been raised for weeks and months past, and it is raised again to-day, and it will continue to be raised until it is settled, because it is a war problem. Being a war problem, the longer it remains unsettled the more difficult it will be to settle, and the more detrimental it will be in so far as it vitally affects the vigorous prosecution of the War.
    Let me say to the House, as one who had the honour to serve in the early days of the War in the Department of Recruiting, that I have the utmost sympathy with the Nationalist party in regard to the bad management of recruiting in Nationalist Ireland. I well remember when the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) came to the War Office and offered their services, and they were very coldly received. I can remember when the first seditious appeal on a sheet of notepaper was issued by the Sinn Feiners urging people not to go to the recruiting meetings. I remember how those pamphlets grew week by week, and how recruiting meetings were broken up. I never blame generals or admirals in these matters, but the Governments who appoint them and fail to remove them, I have always held that one of the causes of the growth of Sinn Feinism was the neglect of the Government of 1914–15 to scotch that weed as soon as it started to grow. But it was not done, and, in spite
    2114
    of the patriotic efforts of the Nationalist party, recruiting in Ireland grew worse and worse, and now, instead of two, you have three parties in Ireland—the Ulster party, the Nationalist party, and the Sinn Fein party, and the latter is growing stronger every day because of our neglect to settle this pressing question, the fundamental cause of which was our neglect to back up the Nationalist party in their patriotic offer to take the lead in recruiting in 1914. In August, 1914, the Government of that day—I say this to show how lamentably weak were all Governments in this Mother Country in their Imperial perspective—never officially counted upon getting recruits out of Nationalist Ireland or recruits from our overseas Dominions. I know that is a fact.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The War Office?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The War Office is a Department of the Government and an administrative Department, and its Regulations are passed by this House.
    Mr. PRINGLE: No.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not blaming anybody in regard to this matter, and I am simply pointing out that these men from Ireland, so often spoken of in abusive terms, rallied to a man to the support of this country and the Empire when the War broke out, and they were chilled in their warm enthusiasm and discouraged in their patriotic endeavours to serve the country. The Government of the day did not intervene to protect them, and the growth of Sinn Feinism and the remaining of 200,000 eligible recruits in Ireland who should now be in the Army is the disastrous result of a want of foresight and the need of an energetic policy. As a man from the overseas I feel this very much, and in all I have done in this House I have tried to bring the outer Empire to the notice of the Mother Country, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy said we must envisage the actual situation. I have always held that your Dominions would rise to a man if England was attacked, but one was not listened to in those days. When the War started the Government and the Army Council did not seem to believe that a single overseas kinsman would rally to the old Flag. The statement I make is based upon knowledge and information which is quite as good as that possessed by anyone who disagrees with me, but I do not

    2115
    want to elaborate that point or to put it to the proof, because the truth is somewhat slow in reaching some hon. Members.
    Let me say that a month after the War started the Government timidly asked for 10,000 men from Canada, but Canada sent men so quickly that we could not build the huts to house them, and many Canadian soldiers hired their own special trains in order to get to the sea coast, and actually paid their own fares to get across to this country. I hope to have another opportunity to prove my statement from official figures if any one doubts what I said. It comes to this: We have it suggested that the Imperial Conference should be asked to decide this question. I agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill), that to ask the Dominion Prime Ministers to settle the Irish question is simply to ask them to carry into effect in the Mother Country what they are all pledged to in the Dominions, namely, Home Rule. But would that be an impartial tribunal? Would it be fair to jeopardise the political existence of those Dominions to ask them to settle a problem which this Imperial House finds itself unable to settle? I think that would be an acknowledgment of political incapacity and political bankruptcy which I thought would never come to the Mother of Parliaments.
    May I make a practical suggestion? We have Home Rule for Ireland on the Statute Book. I think you might summon your Dominion visitors together, reinforced by distinguished men from the Dominions, who need not be politicians, and there are many of them—reinforce them, if you like, by representatives from Ulster and from Ireland, and take the Home Rule Act as a basis of settlement, and change it according to the course of events and the lapse of time where changes may be necessary to meet the views of the contending parties. Your Dominion Prime Ministers can sit in council and make suggestions from their practical experience as to how best to make that Act satisfactory to the contending parties in Ireland, but they should not be asked to shoulder this difficulty, which is certainly the right of the House of Commons, and the right of no other body, to ultimately settle. I look at this question entirely from the point of view of
    2116
    the War, and of course that means the point of view of man-power. For some time after the War broke out it was not necessary to keep any considerable body of troops in Ireland because the people were universally loyal and supported the War. Now however, we have a very large body of trained and well-equipped Infantry kept in Ireland and in this country waiting for events in Ireland. One dare not go into the figures, but we do know that this body of trained Infantry is sorely needed on many fronts, and we know it is very large, so large that it might very well be the deciding factor in a great battle, even in this colossal, modern war. To leave this Irish question, unsettled means to immobilise tens of thousands of our best Infantry, the most-needed arm of all, because we cannot settle the Irish problem, and this is a most unreasonable attitude—one might almost say a contemptible attitude on the part of the House of Commons to-day. These men are necessary on the various fronts, and, at any rate, we must make an effort to-settle this question. The matter is urgent. I think the time is opportune.
    We have a Government containing some of our most conspicuous members, and let me say, especially in reference to the Leader of the House, we have in the Government one of the most deservedly popular members in the House of Commons, and he is one of the stalwart champions of the rights of Ulster. That being so, I certainly join with those who-have made an appeal to the Government to try and settle this question. They have two courses before them. One is to do nothing—to drift and aggravate every difficulty in Ireland, and thus encourage the Sinn Fein movement, which is an -unconstitutional and a disloyal movement, and thus to weaken the constitutional party in Ireland That is one course. That policy will keep tens of thousands of your best troops here and in Ireland. The other course is one which has been well tried, and has always been successful, and that is self-government in some form or another. By this method you may not be able to send your troops away at once, but, at any rate, any action is better than drift, and at the moment we are drifting into a state of things in Ireland that those who know hesitate to talk about. I urge the Government to have courage, and act in the spirit suggested by the hon. and learned Member for the St. Augustine's Division. I urge them to

    2117
    do something to solve this difficulty, which is an outstanding reproach to this country, which immobilises tens of thousands of our men, which makes matters difficult in our overseas Empire from the point of view of recruiting and which now affects the vigorous prosecution of the War.
    Mr. MACMASTER: I have been very much interested in the references which have been made to the settlement of this Irish question by the appointment of a Commission. If we look at the language of the Amendment, we find the emphatic statement
    "that it is in the opinion of this House imperative that the Government should take such steps as may be necessary to achieve this end."
    6.0 P.M.
    "It is imperative that the Government" should do this, but after looking at the Amendment, what occurs to me is: What steps can the Government possibly take? The Government have tried in the past, and they have been unsuccessful. What further steps can they take now? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) has pointed out what the actual situation is, and we must face it. We find four different parties in Ireland at the present time. I am approaching the subject sympathetically. We find that three of those parties are supposed to be in favour of Home Rule, although they may differ as to the particular form of Home Rule. The fourth party says, "We are perfectly content with the situation as it is." I agree with the last speaker, and I have frequently said that it is an indispensable prerequisite to any substantial settlement of the Irish question that the parties concerned should come to some sort of agreement between themselves. An agreement between the parties concerned, if possible., is from every point of view essential, and. if it is not possible for them to come to an agreement, then by what authority can this House say, "We are going to impose terms upon you," terms that may have the effect of making the last state worse than the first? It is sometimes said, "Why cannot we do this? Our great Dominions have done it. Why cannot a Commission composed of the Dominion representatives settle this question?" Both these propositions are wide of the actual state of facts. What the great Dominions did was, in the first in-
    2118
    stance, to come to an agreement between themselves as to what they wanted. They did that in Canada, they did it in Australia, and they did it in South Africa. They had difficulties of the most formidable character to overcome. They had two races in Canada. They had two races, in South Africa. Notwithstanding the differences that prevailed amongst them, they managed to come to a settlement and, after having come to a settlement between themselves, they came to this House and asked Parliament to place the imprimatur of authority upon what they had done. I am sure everybody recognises, if the Irish parties by any possibility could come to an agreement, that it would be an immense relief to this House to give its legislative sanction to that agreement.
    The main difficulty in the Irish question now is to bring about an agreement. It seems to me that it is impossible for the Government to devise any scheme by which that agreement can be effected. Of course, in the face of the terrible danger with which we are confronted in this War, and in view of the supreme patriotism that has been shown by representatives of the Nationalist party and the Ulster party, and for that matter by all parties in Ireland, in the field of battle—in view of their comradeship in arms, and in view of the common interests that have been involved by the immense struggle in which all these parties have engaged—it does seem to me that there must be beaten out upon the anvil of patriotism some result by which an agreement can be come to between themselves. That arrived at, everything else would be perfectly simple. I do not wish to say a single word that would prevent the parties from arriving at a settlement upon the lines that I have indicated. I do see signs that there are possibilities of arriving at a settlement. The speech that the hon. Member for Clare (Major W. Redmond) made in this House a few evenings ago has gone through the land and met with a most hearty response. There is another thing-I wish to say, and I say it with the greatest pleasure. Though on past occasions I have been in opposition, as a rule, to his opinions, yet the attitude that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) has taken up in this House and in the country is one that should predispose everyone who desires to see a settlement to meet him as far as they

    2119
    possibly can. We must remember that the hon. and learned Member in the advocacy which he has given to our cause in this War—he might have avoided it, but I think it was entirely the proper line to follow;—took a course which was calculated to prejudice him in the opinion of certain of his opponents in Ireland, and we should take into account the fact that his position as a constitutional leader has been prejudiced by reason of the patriotic course which he has taken. The Sinn Feiners condemn him as heartily as they do British government in Ireland, and he and his party to-day are suffering in Ireland in consequence.
    It is sometimes said that it is the fault of this Parliament and of the British Government that we have not come to an agreement on this subject. It is said that British statesmanship is bankrupt so far as arriving at a solution is concerned. How can the British Government, or any other Government, settle the question when the parties concerned are not willing to have a settlement? How can they force it through? It is not the bankruptcy of British statemanship: it is the impossibility of doing the impossible. Let there be concessions on both sides. Let there be forgiveness, more or less, on both sides. Let them feel that there is something to forgive and something to forget. After all, Irishmen are men of judgment and men of heart, and surely, where the question of patriotism arises and where it is in the supreme interest of their country and of their Empire, they can give way. If they can only lead the way—I think that is the true way—they will not lack the sanction of this House or the sanction of the people of this country in carrying out the objects that they have in view. Of course, I do not overlook the difficulties that exist in the position. They are very grave indeed; they are as grave as they possibly could be, but surely a difficulty, as Napoleon said, is a thing to be overcome, and I believe if sensible men, like the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir E. Carson), got together and got some of their trusted counsellors together, they would find the way. I remember an occasion when the First Lord of the Admiralty said, "What I would wish is that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and myself should shake hands on the floor of this House." There is nothing that could possibly happen that would be more wel-
    2120
    come, and I believe that the handshaking of these men, holding different opinions, yet guided by patriotism, would result in a settlement of this great controversy.
    How are disputes in civil life settled? They are settled either by judicial compulsion or by arbitration. Before you can have arbitration you must have a reference, and with a reference you must have the consent of the parties to the arbitration. If the three or four Irish parties would name the Dominion Ministers with a number of other men of character and position, and if they would give them their power of attorney and say, "Gentlemen, get to work, and whatever settlement you work out we will accept," we could understand a committal to deal with the matter in such a way. But I am afraid there is very little hope of any result from appointing a number of Ministers from the Dominions, no matter with what association, and saying to them, "You go to work and see if you can work out a solution of this problem, which this House is not able to solve." There is no doubt in the world, no matter how disinterested the Prime Ministers from the Dominions might be in approaching this problem, that they would be influenced by the fact that a great number of people in their respective countries are very much interested in the question, and that they would run the risk of offending one party or the other. I doubt if they would undertake the operation. If they did, no matter how successfully they carried out the scheme, they would be blamed in their own country. After all, we should not be bound by it, and no party in Ireland would be bound by it. If there is no other possible solution to the question, of course we shall have to wait and see, but that is a policy which we do not wish to pursue. If the Irish parties themselves say, "We authorise you to go forward and devise a scheme, and we will accept it," or if Parliament says to them, "We authorise you to go forward and prepare a scheme," then there may be some hope of a solution.
    I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Colonel Sir H. Greenwood) upon every point he developed, but upon many of them I do agree. I cannot agree that there was any doubt whatever that the Mother Country would receive aid from the Dominions at the commencement of the War. Why, past experience had shown the utmost readiness of the Dominions to aid. I believe in the South African War New

    2121
    Zealand sent no less than eight different contingents; Australia sent several; and to the knowledge of myself and others—indeed, it was common knowledge—at least three different contingents were sent from Canada. This War was scarcely announced, when troops commenced to accumulate from one end of Canada to the other, so that the Minister of Militia, within thirty days after the declaration of the War, was able to dispatch 35,000 men to this country.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I did not say that the Dominions would not rally to the Orown to the last man. I said that the Government of the day which sat on those benches on August, 1914, did not count upon them coming forward.
    Mr. FRANCE: What authority have you for making that statement?
    Mr. MACMASTER: I must traverse that statement. The Government of the day, from the experience of the Dominions in the past, would naturally have expected them to do all that they could. There is no necessity, however, for us to differ about a small point of that kind. Let us concentrate our attention upon what they did, upon the fact that they made these splendid contributions to the War and made them willingly and on their own account. With India, the Dominions have sent, I think, in the neighbourhood of one million men into active service in this War. That is the finest feat that has ever been performed in connection with our war service. We must not get away from the main question. Is the Government able to take any steps at this time to bring about an Irish settlement1? That is a question for the Government. They may be able to devise a scheme—I hope that they will devise a scheme—but unless there is agreement on the part of the Irish parties I have not very much hope for any scheme that may be devised. If it is a scheme which means compulsion either for Ulster or for the Nationalists or for any other section, then it is bound to fail. The foundation of any successful scheme must be a compact between the parties, and, I believe, in view of the patriotism that has been shown by the men in the zone of battle, that those in the zone of peace will be able to devise or make some suggestion by which a peaceful solution of this question may be arrived at.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: If I intervene for a few minutes, it is only because I feel that
    2122
    any error in this matter will do immensely more harm than can be balanced by any good that is done by appeals to unity. The atmosphere of this House is, indeed, singularly favourable to a full and friendly discussion even of the most heated questions. We all share in the admiration that has been expressed for the gallantry of hon. Members on the Nationalist Benches who have gone to the War, and especially that of the hon. Member for East Clare (Major W. Redmond), whose speech was justly admired when he delivered it the other night. We all esteem and are able in these calmer days to express the esteem that we feel for the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond). I am sorry he is not able to be here and I earnestly hope he is not kept from being here by illness. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is!"] It is a matter of the most serious concern to us all that his health should be completely restored and that we should again have the satisfaction of hearing his eloquent voice in the Debates in this House. His powers as an orator are an honour and adornment not to his own party alone, but to the whole House of Commons. Therefore the atmosphere is, from that point of view, a favourable one. What I am anxious to say is that I do not think the Irish question is one that can ever be solved merely by getting people into a conciliatory humour. It is quite true that it there is not a conciliatory humour it is not much use introducing any proposal, but I do not believe you can solve the Irish question merely by getting distinguished Irishmen or distinguished Englishmen to agree upon a solution. I believe that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham (Major Hills) and many other people have got into the habit of looking at the Irish question as though it were essentially an extinct controversy, and that it is only necessary to get rid of the remains of the prejudices, the ashes of the fires that have gone out, in order to settle the question altogether and produce a new state of feeling in Ireland. That way of looking at it and approaching it is profoundly mistaken. You will never arrive at a solution in that way.
    The Irish question is a real problem to be solved. It is not merely an old story, with regard to which only prejudices of the past remain. You cannot say you have nothing to do but to get the First Lord of the Admiralty and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in a room together

    2123
    in a good humour and the thing is done. It is not a thing to be solved by diplomacy at all. It can only be solved by statesmanship. It is no bargain to be driven in a friendly spirit; it is a machine which has to be made to do the work it is intended to do. If you intend to construct a flying machine, you may get the workmen sufficiently friendly in order to work together as a preliminary, but the essential question is whether the machine will fly or not. The essential feature in Irish government is to set up a Government which would govern the island to the satisfaction of its own inhabitnats and of the inhabitants of the rest of the United Kingdom and of the British Empire. What are the two main things that stand in the way of a solution of the Irish question? First, there is the antagonism between the Protestants of the North and the Roman Catholics of the West of Ireland. That does not rest merely on antiquated prejudices. It is a matter of conviction. Conviction interpenetrates the mental attitude of the whole of the persons concerned. It could not be removed by either the First Lord of the Admiralty or by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford or by both of them together. It goes down to the very heart of human nature. No one would suspect me of any "no Popery" prejudices, but I am bound to say that I do not believe there is any great city in England or Scotland which would not share the reluctance of certain parts of Ireland to be handed over to a Roman Catholic, majority. It may be a wise or foolish thing. It is not necessary to inquire into that, but it is a feeling of the utmost depth and strength and it cannot be removed by diplomatic negotiations conducted by these politicians. That is the first thing—the antagonism between the Roman Catholics of the South and the Protestants of the North, and then of the conglomeration of feelings that have grown up in the process of centuries out of that original disagreement.
    Secondly, there is the most difficult question of the claim of Ireland to be a nation. I am not going to argue the merits of it. My own opinion and that of Unionists generally is that in the strictly political sense of the word Ireland is not a nation. What I am rather anxious to point out is that whatever assumption you make you will have great difficulties. What is the solution of Home Rule? It is founded on admitting the claim of Irish
    2124
    nationality, and it is only because you admit the claim of nationality that it is appropriate to speak, as Home Rulers always do speak, of giving Ireland self-government or free institutions, because, apart from the question of nationality, Ireland has self-government and free institutions in the membership of Irish Members in this House. I cannot help feeling a little surprised at my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham and other Unionists who, in their zeal of conversion, use habitually the language and the argument of Home Rulers, without the smallest explanation of the sense in which they use them, and, apparently, without being aware that, whatever might have been the effect of the War, it might have an effect on the inherent truth of the words "self-government." It is very regrettable and most unconciliatory that persons who change their opinion should hasten to use all the phrases most offensive to the feelings of those who hold the opinions that these new proselytes have now abandoned. They say that the problem of Irish government is to be solved by Home Rule, which admits and presupposes the existence of nationality. Having assumed the existence of nationality in Ireland, the Home Rule Act only offers what may be called provincial institutions. I believe that that inconsistency is the true cause of the Sinn Fein progress during the last two years. I cannot take seriously the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend beside me (Colonel Sir H. Greenwood), and of many other speakers, that the Sinn Fein movement was begotten of the tactlessness of the War Office. I do not pretend to be the judge of the sentiment of the Irish population, but I cannot suppose that they are so silly as to be driven into the Sinn Fein movement merely because the War Office were tactless about recruiting.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It was because of Ulster.
    Lord H. CECIL: There was an Ulster rebellion and it has not succeeded. The hon. Member says it was because of the success of the Ulster movement. If it-were, it would have been better if the Sinn Feiners had shown the wisdom of the Ulster movement in abandoning all such movements during the period of the War. The logic of the Irish nationality argument appears to be this: You say, "You are a nation; we give you institutions because you are a nation." But if it turns out that their institutions are

    2125
    inappropriate to nationality, and perhaps inappropriate to some system of federation, then if you are going to treat Ireland as a nation you will be driven to separation, because it is only in independence that nationality is fully realised. Hon. Members talk loosely about Poland—there is no country which is less an analogy to Ireland—and about what will happen at the Peace Conference. I do not suppose that the question before the Peace Conference will be any question of Homo Rule for Poland. I do not suppose that the Peace Conference will trouble its head about Home Rule for any portion of the world. It will say whether this or that country is to be taken away from the country to which it now belongs and be given to some other country. I do not suppose that this country will dictate to Russia what form of Home Rule is to be given to Poland, and am quite sure that Russia will not dictate to us what form of Home Rule should be-given to Ireland.
    The difficulty lies in the nature of nationality. That can never be solved unless Home Rulers in England and Ireland arc prepared to argue it both ways. If we call Ireland a nation, and by that we mean only a nation in a limited sense and not a full sense, we fully recognise that there is a larger nationality to which the Irish belong, and which extends to the whole of the British Empire. Unless they are going to offend their own extremists on that line you are never going to make progress towards a settlement of the question. I am quite convinced that the Sinn Feiners will go on succeeding so long as they have logic on their side, and until they are firmly convinced that Ireland is not in their sense of the word a nation at all you will not solve any of the difficulties that arise. It is rot a matter of policy at all. You have to make up your mind as to whether Ireland is a part of one nation with England or not, or a part that is to be federally related and is to have a position, say, like South Carolina, the independence of which you are prepared to deny, but to which you will give a certain measure of autonomy. You must get the great majority of the Irish people to accept your decision, otherwise it is no good offering it as a solution. You must get Irishmen to think clearly about the question of nationality as well as to come to an agreement. That is not a matter which the distinguished Colonial statesmen will
    2126
    be able to solve by a few fine words. Nothing could be vainer than to hope to heal a controversy of this long standing by such methods as that.
    I am told that this is a war problem. Of course, there is a certain sense in which that is true. It is very desirable, if you can, to produce an entire change of feeling in Ireland. I can understand a person saying that Home Rule is the eventual solution of the Irish question, that, if set up, in the process of years it will work towards a friendly feeling, that gradually old animosities will die away, and that ten or twenty years hence you will find the Irish question will be solved. That is not my opinion. To suppose that by here and now setting up a Parliament in Dublin it will act as a sort of charm and change all the controversies in Ireland, surely is the strangest delusion. If you set up a Parliament for the whole of Ireland or for six counties it will be filled in a large measure by Sinn Feiners. It is obvious that a certain number of them will be elected. Will they assist the British Government to carry on the War? Would you be aiding military operations'? Would you be able to draw soldiers from Ireland? Would your position be one of greater security? Would you be spared from rebellion in such circumstances? Surely not. You would have a centre of irritation because the setting up of the Parliament J have described could scarcely fail to act as an increased irritant, and you would have a violent fight between the Sinn Feiners and the two sections of Home Rulers. Would any of that make for the efficiency of the United Kingdom or the British Empire during the. War? I do not think that you will gain anything by handling the Irish question during the War. I do not believe you would have so good a chance of success in attempting a settlement during the War as you would have in time of peace. My hon. Friend said he did not like the idea of going back after the War to the old Irish question. That is the mere exhaustion of a war-wearied politician. It is not common sense at all. It is no more difficult to deal with the Irish question after the War than it was before the War, and no easier. But, at any rate, in time of peace you have to look at it in the frame of mind of peace. We are often told everything is changed by the War. Although that is a gross exaggeration in the main, there is a sense in which it is true. Every-

    2127
    one looks on things in a different light. When we go back to peace the continuity of our life, as far as there is any continuity, will be resumed. What we are passing through now will seem a dream, precisely like the ideas one has in a sleepless night, distorted, overstrained and exaggerated in every direction, and we shall go back to what, in my view, are the much more rational views which prevailed in time of peace. It is to that atmosphere of rationality that I would adjourn the Irish question. I would give the fullest respect to everything that falls from the Nationalist politicians themselves. I do not in the least wish to approach the solution of it in a spirit of distrust of their judgment, and I quite agree that the whole Empire owes the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Redmond) a deep debt of gratitude for his attitude during the War. All that you can say about removing the animosities of the past is most true, but, having granted all that, let us adjourn the discussion to a time of peace, taking with us only this legacy from the War—that we shall know and like one another better, and therefore have the advantage of a friendly feeling in renewing the discussion amidst a peaceful atmosphere.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: With one proposition suggested by the Noble Lord I think we shall all find ourselves in full agreement—that this problem is now, as it has been hitherto, surrounded by the most formidable difficulties, and that good will alone is not enough to solve it. You need not only atmosphere, but you need skilful statesmanship. But if that is true, it is also true that statesmanship is not enough to solve it without atmosphere, and the hopeful feature of this Debate is that until the Noble Lord himself addressed the House every speaker expressed an earnest desire that the settlement of this old controversy should be reached now, and, indeed, I feel certain that hon. Members who have spoken represent the heartfelt wish of the British people as a whole. If you wish to measure the Imperial importance of securing the settlement of the Irish question, let us for a moment, by an exercise of the imagination, and taking the most sanguine view of the conditions and prospects, suppose that in a few weeks it was possible to announce to the world that an agreement had been reached on this topic, and that, smoothly and without controversy, proposals were passing
    2128
    through Parliament for a settlement of the Irish question with the general assent of all parties. Can anyone doubt but that throughout the British nation, in every corner of our vast Empire, and among every circle of well-wishers of Britain in the neutral countries of the world, there would be a sigh of intense relief, and that only in one part of the globe would such an announcement be received with regret and dismay, and that would be among the councils of our enemies. The Noble Lord made great play with the word "nation." Is Ireland to be regarded as a nation or not? If it is not, you are deceiving the Irish people by saying that it is. Surely the Noble Lord is aware that within our own Empire there are several nations. Go to Canada and tell Canada that she is not a nation, and you would soon find the reply that you would receive. Tell the Australians or the New Zealanders that they had not the status of nationhood, and you would be rapidly undeceived as to their sentiments. There are many nations already in the Empire, and you may have nations with various degrees of sovereignty.
    But I think the House would be more disposed to brush aside all questions of words or dialectics and get to the central facts. It has always been our custom not to seek to make our political systems square with political theories and definitions. The definitions have got to be made to fit the constitution, and not the constitution to fit the definitions. I regard it as a profound misfortune to this country and the Empire that the Irish problem had not been solved before the War came upon us. We are all deeply grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Redmond) and his colleagues for the attitude which they adopted at the outset of the War. They did all that men could to strengthen the hands of the British Government. Whole-heartedly they threw themselves into this conflict, and on their advice and under their leadership scores of thousands of Irishmen enlisted into the British Army. That was only possible because there seemed an immediate prospect of the grant of self-government. The Home Rule Act was on the Statute Book, and that made all the difference between the attitude of the Irish National leaders of to-day and what it had been in previous generations. Even the prospect of liberty

    2129
    was enough to evoke loyalty. But as time went on, changes occurred, suspicions were aroused in Ireland, enthusiasm faded, the good which had been done by putting the Home Rule Act on the Statute Book was to a large extent undone by the doubts—I think well founded—that its enforcement would be found impossible. The moment the prospect of liberty receded, disloyalty brewed, and at last the world saw the spectacle of the British Government, asserting truly that it was engaged in a War on behalf of the freedom of small nationalities, compelled to divert a part of its armies in order to suppress a rising which was in intention, however foolish, designed to promote the freedom of the small nationality nearest to our own shores and under our direct control.
    Compare Ireland during the war with South Africa. Frequent recognition has been made in this House by some speakers of the immeasurable services rendered by General Botha and General Smuts, now an honoured visitor to this country, in this great conflict. There also there was a rebellion, but that rebellion was suppressed by the national Government of South Africa itself with its own forces, without having to call upon the Mother Country to dispatch troops. Why is it that the only part of the white Empire in which there has been doubt, disunion, holding back, embarrassment to the Imperial Government, has been the one part in which Britain has delayed to act upon her own sound principle of governing with the full assent of the governed? I do not think in the history of any nation in the world in a time of crisis has there been so clear a light to guide and so plain a beacon to warn as this nation has had in these critical days in South Africa on the one hand, and Ireland on the other. If, before the War, there had been established self-government in Dublin, as there was established self-government in Pretoria, I have not the smallest doubt but that there would have been the same loyalty, enthusiasm, and energy in the one case as in the other. In this House long ago, in 1782, Charles James Fox moved that full rights of self-government should be granted to the Irish Parliament that then existed. England was then hard pressed in war. The Motion was carried, and the very first act
    2130
    of Grattan's Parliament was to vote £100,000—a large sum in those days— in-order to raise and to pay for 20,000 Irishmen to be enlisted as sailors in the British Navy.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has omitted to add that that Parliament was abolished because Mr. Pitt found it impossible in a state of divided authority to carry on the war.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not want to go into these old controversies. Perhaps I was unwise to give, as an illustration, 1782; but I am sure my hon. and learned Friend, though I could give him an answer, will recognise the reasons that lead me to abstain from attempting to do so. Let those who are now resentful of the unrest in Ireland and of the attitude of the Irish Nationalist party in these days in this House think, after all, of all the disappointment which the Irish people have suffered. Thirty years ago one of the greatest of our statesmen, converted to Home Rule, introduced a Bill here. He was defeated. The hopes of Ireland were disappointed then. He strove again in 1893 to pass a measure. It passed this House, but was defeated again, and twenty years went by before a Home Rule Bill was again before Parliament. Then, after a struggle, which shook the Constitution to its foundations, it reached the Statute Book, but in an avowedly incomplete form. The Ulster question was not settled. The War came, and the hopes of Ireland were disappointed once more. Last summer the present Prime Minister, with great zeal and energy, endeavoured to arrange a solution of this problem. It seemed almost as though at last the question was settled and an agreement reached. Again these hopes were disappointed. Every time the stone of Sisyphus has rolled with infinite pain and trouble and toil to the top of the hill it trembles at the very crest, the labourers seem to see their hopes fulfilled and their toil at an end, but some malignant hand seems to press it back again, and it goes crashing down to the bottom of the hill. This cannot go on. The patience of no nation could stand a strain of this kind indefinitely. There is. no one who believes when the War is over, when, as we all hope, we make a fresh start in many directions in order to put our national affairs on a better basis, that the Irish question can go on as it has been in the last thirty years, the football of party politics—a series of efforts leading to no result. The right hon.

    2131
    Gentleman who moved this Motion said that a solution would not be easy. The Noble Lord told us that we must face facts. It is not enough to be oratorical; it is not enough to preach good will, we must deal with the definite concrete issue as between the Ulstermen on the one hand and Nationalist Ireland on the other. The formidable difficulty which has prevented solution till now is that you have a minority, different in race, and of separate sympathies, concentrated largely in one area, unwilling to co-operate with the great mass of their fellow countrymen. It is generally agreed that three principles must be fulfilled in any settlement—that for the greater part of Ireland there must be established self-government; that there must be no compulsion of the other part, and that there ought, if possible, to be established some visible sign and mark of the continued unity of Ireland. If those principles be agreed upon, it is a problem for careful statesmanship to translate them into action. It then becomes a question of detail. If those are the objects generally allowed, you have to find the ways and means to fulfil them. There are many possible plans for achieving those objects Several alternative schemes have, I know, been submitted to the Government. Whether the Imperial statesmen could with profit be brought in to act as conciliators and mediators, and to try to work out these schemes and translate them into action, the Government are the best judges. They will know the sentiments of those distinguished statesmen. I do not think it is right to say, as did my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. McNeill), that the co-operation of the Dominion statesmen is ruled out by the fact that their Parliaments have for the most part passed resolutions favourable towards Home Rule. After all, we proceed on the assumption that any plan must constitute Home Rule for the greater part of Ireland. The point at issue is one in which both parties claim really to be proceeding on the Home Rule principle. Both parties claim the right of self-government Nationalist Ireland claims the right of self-government within the United Kingdom, and Ulster claims that they should be governed according to their own will within Ireland.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir E. Carson): By this Parliament.
    Mr. SAMUEL: By this Parliament. Without going into these matters, my point is that both sides are really appealing to the rights of people to be governed according to their own will in the way they prefer. Therefore, it appears to me that the intervention and assistance of the Dominion statesmen is by no means ruled out, a priori, on the ground that the principle of Home Rule has been accepted and endorsed by the Parliaments which they serve. No doubt, as has been said by almost every speaker, if a settlement is to be arrived at, both sides must make sacrifices. The hon. Member (Mr. R. McNeill) said that if an appeal for sacrifice is to be made, it should be addressed to the Nationalist Members rather than to him and his Friends, on the ground that the Nationalist Members hitherto have shown no tendency to contemplate any form of sacrifice or surrender of the views that they have held. Is it nothing that Nationalist Ireland should contemplate, even for a moment, that a system of self-government should be set up, and that it should not completely cover in all respects the whole of Ireland? Was it no sacrifice to them to have been ready to accept a scheme which, even for a time, and even for some comparatively short area, contemplated that that area should be withdrawn from the general self-governing system which they contemplated?
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Absolutely illusory!
    Mr. SAMUEL: When we remember that the portion of Ireland which was to be withdrawn is one which we all recognise to be amongst the, most progressive, enlightened, and enterprising parts of Ireland, and the portion which Nationalist Ireland passionately longs to see cooperating with themselves, surely it is not quite right to say that Irish Nationalists have shown no readiness to make sacrifices of any kind! I would say to my hon. Friend and those co-operating with him this last word—whatever differences there may be on this Irish question, every man is at least agreed in this, that the spirit of Unionist Ulster is one of intense British patriotism, and that nowhere in the Empire does the flame of patriotic fervour burn more clearly and brightly than it does in Ulster. Patriotism is in the very blood of the people. Could they not, therefore, now recognise that in these days, to help in promoting a settlement of

    2133
    this age-long controversy is really the highest service which they can render to the Empire they love?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I certainly have no intention either of criticising or of finding fault with the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. Samuel), but as I listened to it I must confess that I was carried back to the days before the War. I was reminded a little of the kind of speeches to which we were accustomed then, and I was reminded of it all the more because I remember myself using the same illustration which my right hon. Friend has used, and saying to him that though he was engaged in performing the labours of Sisyphus, he was rolling the stone up and finding it coming down. I regret that the stone does always come tumbling down. It was only last Friday that we had unexpectedly a discussion on this subject, and I cannot say that I desired Another this afternoon, but I am glad that the House and the country has had an opportunity, the House of listening to, and the country of judging the tone of the Debate within these walls. Last Friday I endeavoured to make a speech suitable to the atmosphere of this afternoon and suitable to my own feelings. I find that that speech was understood in a sense in which I certainly did not mean it. A great man who once stood very often, and for many years, against both these boxes on this Table, once said, "Never apologise and never explain." I have not acted on that principle. When I have done anything that needed it I have been, and always shall be, ready to apologise, but I have avoided explaining. There is one interpretation which was put upon what I said last Friday, to which I wish to refer, because I cannot allow it to remain. I suggested that the result of certain action in this House might be that an election would take place in which the inevitable issue would be raised that the Nationalist Members were hampering us in the War. It was suggested that I desired that issue. There is nothing that I should more detest. I am not talking at all of party advantage, or of the chance of winning elections. I realise that it is not the desire of one party or the other, but it is the desire of this whole nation, that we should live at peace and in friendship with our friends in the south and west of Ireland, if it can be done.
    My right hon. Friend said truly, that without atmosphere, without a suitable atmosphere, a settlement was not possible.
    2134
    That is true. But atmosphere alone is not enough. Nobody put more clearly to the House of Commons than the right hon. Gentleman himself the dilemma in which we are placed by this question, and the difficulty which has to be overcome. It is not a question of convincing the people of this country. The difficulty is in Ireland itself. One hon. Member said that what was wanted was for my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Irish party to come down to the floor of this House and shake hands. Either of them, I am certain, would like a settlement, either of them would be ready to do that to-morrow, but the power which has got to be brought into operation is not the power of the Leader of a party; you have got to convince the men behind them, or their leadership ceases. That is the difficulty, and it is there, in my opinion, that atmosphere comes in quite as much as in the House of Commons. I think, at least I hope, the feeling in Ulster has been changed a little, and will be found not so adamant, by the simple fact that all parties, all British parties, have openly stated that there can be no question of imposing a settlement of this kind upon them by force. I think with that it becomes easier. Things have shifted so much during the War that we are all in danger of being told that we have changed our views. That is very likely true in a sense. We have changed our sense of values. I never believed that the attempt on the part of Ulster to make some kind of arrangement to come in gradually, or quickly with the rest of Ireland, would be so bad as they thought it would; but I felt at the time of this controversy, and I feel it as strongly now, that that is not the question, but that so long as they feel they will not submit to it, we have no right whatever to impose it upon them. I say this, that if the Nationalist party themselves could openly avow that they are prepared to act in the same spirit as British parties, then I think it would be found far easier to make an arrangement with Ulster which would be possible with the rest of Ireland.
    7.0 P.M.
    I said that we are all, or many of us, accused of changing our views. Nothing shows the change more completely than that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Major Hills) was arguing with the Prime Minister and trying to convince him that his Unionism was too deep-seated. He was dealing with the question of Poland,

    2135
    and he actually said the Prime Minister would have some difficulty in making a good case in regard to Ireland as compared with Poland. All that kind of talk, in my opinion, does not help but hinders the prospects of settlement. I know what the views of Nationalist Members are, and I do not agree with my Noble Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil) that the only thing you have to think of in the government of Ireland is to set up a Government that will govern in the best way. I do not think so at all. I think that very often a very bad form of government, if it is with the consent and good will of the people governed, will work infinitely better than a much better system without that consent and good will. I would beg of the Nationalist Members, or those who support them, not to put everything out of perspective. I quite admit that the whole history of Ireland in its relationship with Great Britain and its present position now is a blemish—to put it very mildly—upon our statesmanship. Yes, but it is not all our fault. I would wish that that could sometimes be recognised a little more fully.
    This at least may be said, that during nearly the whole of my life, and certainly during the whole of my political life, the people of this country have desired to act towards Ireland not only justly but generously. If the form of self-government which they ask for, which I confess I would like to see them get, in the parts of Ireland which unmistakably demand it, were in force, of course they would have a government that would suit them. But meantime how can you compare Ireland with a country that is subject to the most intensely autocratic government, when we know that she has in reality precisely the same rights and liberties as are enjoyed by the rest of us, that she has received a large measure of local self-government, and—I hope hon. Gentlemen will not object to my stating my point of view in this matter—that she has a representation which gives her an influence in proportion to her population enormously greater than that which is possessed by any other portion of the United Kingdom. That does not alter, in my mind, the need for some change.
    Suppose the Prime Minister has to go to this Peace Conference, and is taunted, let us imagine, with the position of Ireland, this is the answer which we are
    2136
    ready to give: We are prepared to give Ireland self-government to-morrow where they distinctly demand it. In Poland, in my belief—I am not quite sure of my facts, but I believe that they are correct— in the old kingdom of Poland there is now a large section where the population, to the extent of something like 80 per cent., is Russian. Suppose it were said, "We will give you self-government where the Poles are in an overwhelming majority, but we will not give it in those parts of Poland where the Russians are in an overwhelming majority," would anybody contend for a moment that these people were an oppressed nationality who had the right to say that they were oppressed? I really do not want to raise these controversies. We want a settlement. But the sacrifice must be on all sides if we are to get a settlement. I do not agree either with my Noble Friend that there is no advantage in trying to settle now, if it can be done. I do believe that this Irish question does act as a handicap upon us in carrying on this War, and I do not agree that perhaps we would do it better when the War is over. I am not sure.
    I know this at least, that in this House I myself—and I think that it is true of many others—have had a different feeling towards the Gentlemen who sit on those benches because of the attitude taken by the Leader of their party, and by other members of that party who are risking their lives. It has made a great difference, and, if I may say so, even in the kind of speech which we have heard in the last two or three days from the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin), who reminded me this afternoon, though it was quite unnecessary, that he is quite able to fight when he wants to, even in the speeches which he made during the last few days, I felt—I will not say grateful, that is not the feeling—but I felt very pleased to find, when we received the news of what had happened in Russia, that he expressed the feeling which we all have that it would not hinder the conduct of the War; and to-day, in the attitude taken by him on behalf of his party, he again showed that they are with us, and heartily with us. My right hon. Friend, in proposing his Motion, spoke of me in a way which I am afraid will make me suspect to some of my friends. I hope not, but he said something which is more important. He has put down a Motion which urges the supreme importance

    2137
    of a settlement of this question. But it also urges the Government to take steps necessary for that purpose. I wish to Heaven he would tell us what those steps are! He said himself that he quite recognised the difficulties, and he was not very sanguine of anything resulting. Well, that is what has been weighing with us. I agree with my Noble Friend that if we make the attempt and again fail the position will be worse, as it was after the last attempt. That makes us hesitate. Well—we have decided that, in spite of the risks, it is worth while for us, on our own responsibility, in some way or another to make another attempt. The House knows what the difficulties are. I hope that it will not press us to say more than that now, and that it will give us a little time. We do think that it is worth making the attempt. Whether it succeeds or fails, I think that it is right to make it.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I only rise to say a couple of sentences, not in reply to my right hon. Friend or to comment on what he has said. But I desire to express, I think I may say on behalf of the whole House, certainly the vast majority of Gentlemen sitting in every quarter of the House, the satisfaction with which they have heard the announcement which he has just made. Personally, I think that it is better to make the attempt and fail than not to make it at all. But we are all, I am sure, profoundly gratified to know that the Government are making the attempt. What I rose to say is this, that in making that attempt, whatever form it may take, the Government may rely upon the sympathy and active co-operation of all of us here.
    Mr. GINNELL: For the second time to-day the two Front Benches have conspired to induce the House not to talk about the business for which the House exists. If it exists for any business at all. it should be for settling what is considered to be a most urgent question, a question of war. Before I go further I should like to make an acknowledgment of the fine manly expression of the hon. Member who seconded the Motion before the House. He, like other Gentlemen who spoke on this Motion, emphasised the urgency of the Irish question. He had the grace to say that the House would be well advised to approach it on the basis of not losing the ideal which will appeal to the sympathy and the imagination of the Irish
    2138
    people. Although that may be sentimental it was the wisest remark made in this Debate. If the Irish question were capable of settlement by this House at all it should necessarily be on those lines. I know of no reason why any attempt should be made on any other lines, but the hon. Member, like all the other speakers, treated the matter as a domestic question.
    Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—
    Mr. GINNELL: I was lamenting the fact that all the hon. Members who spoke referred to this Irish controversy as a domestic question, and treating it on that basis their common remedy was partition. The Mover of the Resolution also emphasised the fact that it is no longer a party question. The reason for that is that all the English parties are quite ready to partition Ireland, just as Russia and Austria were quite ready to partition Poland, but they lost sight of the historic fact that the partition of Poland did not satisfy the Poles, and they omitted to tell us why it should satisfy Ireland. It would be a strange cure were the surgeon to suggest to his patient that what was essential to his restoration to good health was the cutting out of his heart. It is equally difficult to convince Ireland that a similar remedy would be a cure for her ills. Why do Gentlemen who, in September, 1914, got their Home Rule Act placed on the shelf, treat this same question as so urgent to-day? Does anyone suppose that it is due to any Parliamentary action? No. Does anyone suppose that it is due to military tactics or military expenditure? No. Will hon. Members of this House even now realise the fact that the urgency of this Irish problem to-day-is due to the men of Easter week in Dublin, and to the fact that the majority of the Irish people to-day ratify that action. What does that mean? It means that Nationalist Ireland looked to this House long enough, too long in my opinion, and has ceased to look to it any more. Not only has it raised this problem above being a party question, but it has raised it above being a domestic question; that is, it has raised it above being a British domestic question. Britain has had the problem long enough in its hands

    2139
    with all powers, and bad use it has made of its opportunities and of its powers. It is now taken out of their hands.
    Nationalist Ireland no longer looks to this House to remedy this urgent problem. That is precisely why they consider it urgent. If Nationalist Ireland could come to the bar, and, on bended knees, petition for something, it would be scoffed at. Nationalist Ireland has, on the contrary, turned its back on you and your House, and looks to itself and to itself alone. and it will continue to do so, dislike it how the Chief Secretary may. Nationalist Ireland looks to itself for its redress, in the first place, and, in a secondary sense, to the Peace Conference. Members of the Government talk about an International Peace Conference, as if they were entitled and able to determine its constitution. They are nothing of the kind, and we know it. They say that Ireland will not be represented at all at the Peace Conference. We know it is not so. Ireland will go to the Peace Conference, and will be admitted to it because it no longer admits that its inalienable right to absolute and exclusive independence is a domestic question for any country but itself. We could not go to the Peace Conference, as was pointed out by the Noble Lord on the other side, to discuss the Home Rule Act or any other measure of this Parliament. You put your Home Rule Act on the Statute Book after spending three Sessions over it, and you had not the honesty or courage to put it into operation. No; in the hurry of your lives, you sacrificed the men whose souls you then thought were chained to your tail. The Noble Lord also admitted the fact that the Sinn Feiners have logic on their side. They have more than logic. They have on their side the spirit generated by deceitful Governments and by betrayal of pledges. The late Prime Minister was maintained in office through promising repeatedly self-government to Ireland, and he proposed a Colonial Conference here in London, in 1911, taking that opportunity of saying that the thing called freedom that did not give control of a country's finances was a mockery. yet he himself, in drafting this measure of self-government for Ireland, withheld control of Ireland's finances from the Parliament he proposed to set up; withheld control of the land, withheld control of all that is essential to the making of a nation, retained power in this House to continue taxing Ireland,
    2140
    gathering in taxes to the Imperial Treasury, imposed not only by this Parliament, but by the sham Parliament to be set up in Ireland, and paying back to Ireland a yearly dole out of our money, without making any provision whatever for the payment of the debt of this country to-Ireland.
    Twenty years ago a Royal Commission was appointed to estimate the nature and amount of that debt. It found that Ireland had been overtaxed annually since the Union to the amount of two and three-quarter million pounds. That continued, and was exaggerated from that day to this, till it amounts to the gross sum, at the present time, of over £400,000,000. Yet hon. Members in this House talk about their great desire to be just to Ireland. I wonder do they ever think of paying their debt. There are many forms of tyranny, and it was very truly said by a previous speaker that if Ireland were better governed from outside than from within, she should not, and ought not, and would not, be content But, at the same time, everbody recognises, especially in this commercial country, that excessive taxation is at least one of the forms of tyranny, and that form of tyranny having been investigated by financial experts, not appointed by us, but by the British Parliament experts, the majority of whom were not Irish but British, they have found that this form of tyranny has prevailed, and still prevails, and is being intensified. especially by the War. Where, I should like to know, is the mystery about Ireland and this debt, and about the remedy so far as material advantage is concerned. What the British Government have got to do in Ireland, whether they recognise it soon or late, is to clear out of that country. They are there only for the purpose of fleecing the people.
    It rests no longer with them to talk about good intentions, about honesty, and still less about pledges. They are too late now for settling this question themselves. They have been tinkering with it long enough. They need not trouble to appoint any Commission, or ask any Colonial statesman, for those statesmen in Australia and in Canada who are intended to take part in this settlement, as they intended to distinguish themselves in connection with the War, have found their occupations in clearing their character of the charges of corruption made against them by those who knew them best. Those statesmen are detained at home.

    2141
    Surely 110 Imperial Conference would be complete without them. The prospect before this Empire is not improving and has not improved since the 3rd August, 1914. Time is against this Empire, and it may last long enough to learn that despised Ireland, if not given the freedom to which it is entitled, if not allowed to rule itself in absolute and exclusive independence, may prove an instrument of the destruction of this Empire. At all events, we in Ireland no longer look to this Parliament for the goal at which we are aiming. Therefore I have prepared an Amendment to the Motion before the House, which is to leave out all the words after the word "that," and insert "this House, having legislated for Ire land during the last 116 years with callous tyranny, part of which, that of excessive taxation, was revealed by the finding of the Royal Commission that Ireland had been excessively taxed to the extent of £2,750,000 per year, creating a debt of over £400,000,000 now due by this country to Ireland, common honesty and the inalienable rights of the Irish nation demand that we nay this debt forthwith and leave Ireland in absolute and exclusive control of herself, her own property, and her own affairs."
    Amendment negatived.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

  GRAND JURIES (SUSPENSION) BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  WAR PENSIONS (CONTRIBUTIONS AND REPAYMENTS).
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the repayment to local authorities, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of part of such expenses of local and district committees established under the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, as under any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the administrative expenses of the Statutory Committee and of local and district committees as aforesaid, or any enactment repealed by that Act, may be or have been defrayed by local authorities."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. HOGGE: Supposing on Monday we move to put the whole expenses of the administration of these committees on the Treasury, would we be in order if we agree to this Resolution?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot do so without the consent of the Crown.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  ECCLESIASTICAL SERVICES (OMISSION ON ACCOUNT OF WAR) BILL.— [Lords.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This Bill is really an urgent measure. As the House will know many clergymen have been serving as Army chaplains, and there are vacancies in the ranks of the clergy. Apart from that there is great need for the assistance of some of them in hospitals and in camps and schools and munition areas and places of that kind. There is great willingness to give this service among the younger clergy, and, indeed, among all the clergy, but there is a, legal difficulty in the way. As the House will know, certain services must be held in the churches, and there is no power to suspend them at will. The Bill has two objects: The firs tis to enable certain services to be suspended from time to time. It is not, I think, intended by the church authorities entirely to close the churches, but it is hoped there will be provision under which services will be taken alternately in one church or another. That is the object of the first Clause. Then there are certain difficulties about the publication of banns. For that purpose it is proposed to use the machinery of the Marriage Act of 1854, which applies when a church or chapel is under repair, and with the use of that machinery, to enable churches to be used for marriages in the same way. I do not think there is any opposition to the Bill. I have heard of none. I hope the House will allow us to-have all the stages on this urgent-measure.
  Mr. HOGGE: May I ask why the necessity for a Bill in this case? Could you not do this under the Defence of the Realm Acts?
  Sir G. CAVE: There is a difficulty in doing that. I know that a similar Bill is needed for other churches.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—[Sir. G. Care]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  COAL MINES REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1,—(Extension of Section 4 of the Act of 1908 to Mines other than Coal Mines.)
  Section four of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, which authorises the suspension of that Act as respects coal mines in the event of war and other emergencies, shall extend to all mines to which the other provisions of that Act apply in like manner as it extends to coal mines, and accordingly in that Section after the words "demand for coal" there shall be inserted the words "or for the product of any other mines to which this Act applies" and for the words "coal mines" wherever they occur there shall be substituted the word "mines."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I desire to ask the Home Secretary one question. The Mines Eight Hours Act provides that in time of national emergency it may be suspended by the Government. That, however, applies only to coal mines and not to other mines, although those mines are included in the scope of the Coal Mines Regulation Act. I have the honour to represent in this House a district in which important ironstone mines are situated. The right hon. Gentleman and this Bill takes power to apply to all mines the provisions with regard to the suspension of the Mines Eight Hours Act to be found in that Act. The purpose, so he
  2144
  informs us in the Memorandum, of taking this step at the present time is with regard to shale, in view of the necessity of increasing the output of shale oil. What I want to ask him is, whether before he takes any steps to apply this new provision to ironstone mines, he will give the interests affected the opportunity of making representation on the matter, just as no doubt he would do if he found it necessary to suspend the Eight Hours Act with regard to coal mines?
  Sir G. CAVE: The effect of the Bill is as my right hon. Friend has said, to extend the provisions of Section 4 of the Eight Hours Act to mines other than coal mines, so that, if necessary, the suspension of that Act may be adopted in regard to these other mines. It is only in respect of shale that the question has in practice arisen. There we have consulted the persons interested in both sides of the industry, the employers and the men, and an agreement has been come to, and the intention is to use this measure as regards shale at once. As regards stratified ironstone, I quite agree that we should not, and we do not propose to, use the dispensing power in respect of those mines without giving those who are concerned, both employers and men, the fullest opportunity of being heard. We should certainly consult them before any step was taken to suspend the existing Act.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed

  COMPANIES (FOREIGN INTERESTS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition of Alteration of Articles Restricting Foreign Interests in Companies except with Consent of Board of Trade.)
  (1) Where any provision in the articles of association of a registered company is designed to restrict or limit, or has the effect of restricting or limiting, the proportions or amounts of the share capital of the company or of the voting power of the company which may be held or exercised by or on behalf of foreigners, or is other-

  2145
  wise designed to restrict, or has the effect of restricting, the interests of foreigners in the company or the control of the company by foreigners, an alteration of that provision shall not be of any effect, notwithstanding anything in any other Act, until it has received the written consent of the Board of Trade.
  (2) The decision of the Board of Trade as to whether an alteration of a provision requires the consent of the Board under this Act or not shall be final and conclusive.
  (3) This Act shall apply to any regulations or provisions in the nature of regulations affecting a company, not being a registered company, which can be altered by the company, in the same manner as it applies to the articles of association of a registered company.
  (4) In this Act the expression "registered company" means a company as defined by the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 190S, and the expression "foreigners" includes any class of foreigners.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to omit the word "foreigners"["exercised by or on behalf of foreigners"], and to insert instead thereof the words "alien enemies."
  In order to check the unseemly haste with which the Bills are passing through this evening, I feel it my duty to move this Amendment. This Bill, as was explained on Second Reading, is intended to restrict foreign interests in companies. It arises, I believe, out of the policy pursued by the Board of Trade in relation to the sale of alien enemy interests in certain British companies. In connection with these sales, apparently, the Board of Trade have made Regulations restricting the amount of the share capital and of the voting power which may be exercised by or on behalf of foreigners generally. The Amendment proposes to substitute for the word "foreigners" the words "alien enemies." I submit that it is not in the national interest that we should have a general restriction against all foreigners in relation to interests which they may hold in British companies. On the Second Reading of the Bill this question was raised, and on the general question of principle I do not think the representative of the Board of Trade had a satisfactory answer to give to us. Under this provision, interests in these companies can only be held by British subjects. All foreigners,
  2146
  not only alien enemies, but subjects of Allied countries and friendly neutrals, are equally excluded from placing their capital in these companies. That seems to be a very exclusive provision and a provision which is not calculated to benefit British industries. Apparently our doctrines as to the desirability of attracting foreign capital to this country have been altogether modified by the War. Before the War we understood it was advisable to get as much capital into the country as possible. It is true the War has shown that it has been necessary to deal with the capital invested here by alien enemies, but I do not think any case has been made out for checking the investments either of Allied capital or of neutral capital here. Consequently, I think the Board of Trade will be well advised to accept this Amendment.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has approached this subject, and I hope to be able to persuade him to withdraw his Amendment, or at any rate not to pursue it. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that the firms dealt with under this Bill are those that have been dealt with under the Trading With the Enemy Act, and it provides that where shares previously held by enemy subjects have been sold to British subjects provision should be made in order to prevent the relapse of those shares under enemy control. It may be, of course, that my hon. Friend is not aware of this further fact. This Bill does not exclude entirely foreign interests in these companies. It is a restrictive and not merely an exclusive proposal. When these companies are dealt with under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the Board has required to be inserted in the articles of association of these companies provisions whereby the control shall be retained as British, and the holdings that can be held by foreigners are limited to 25 per cent. I take it that after that explanation my hon. Friend's objection will be at least modified, and that it will not be necessary to pursue the subject further.
  Mr. WATT: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has disposed very satisfactorily of this Amendment. This Bill puts foreigners at a great disadvantage in respect to holding shares in British companies, and the idea which my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) and myself had in proposing

  2147
  this Amendment was that that disadvantage should be limited to our enemies, and that those foreigners who are our Allies or neutrals should not be so disadvantaged. I do not think the observations of the Under-Secretary have in any way clearly shown why these Allies of ours and neutrals like America should be placed in the same category as our enemies in this respect. He said the measure dealt only with companies that have come under the Trading With the Enemy Act, and that it was with a view to preventing the control of these concerns again getting into German hands; but may I point out that there is quite a possibility that the German control could be rehabilitated by means of British holders, and that therefore his measure does not prevent that? Still, I think he ought not to make his Bill in this particular so sweeping that all foreigners should suffer this disadvantage. Will he explain why Frenchmen and Russians and other Allies should be put to this disadvantage? I hope he will reconsider the question. While the Bill was before the House on Second Reading there was a widespread feeling that our Allies should not be treated in this way, and, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) has
  2148
  said, the idea of all parties, and particularly of the Tariff Reformers, has been to bring capital into this country, but by this. measure foreigners will be precluded from doing that. I think the trading community of the country will suffer considerably unless our Amendment is. inserted.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill
  Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes before-Eight o'clock till to-morrow (Friday), pursuant: to the Resolution of this House this day.

WAR.
  TAXATION (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  TAXATION (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
  GERMAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT ON LAND).
  GERMAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT ON LAND).
  IRISH FOOD COMMITTEE.
  IRISH FOOD COMMITTEE.
  WAR OFFICE SUPPLIES (IRELAND).
  WAR OFFICE SUPPLIES (IRELAND).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  SKILLED MECHANICS.
  SKILLED MECHANICS.
  MEN OVER THIRTY-EIGHT (TRAINING).
  MEN OVER THIRTY-EIGHT (TRAINING).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (LLANELLY).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (LLANELLY).
  SANDHURST COLLEGE (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).
  SANDHURST COLLEGE (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).
  HAND GRENADES (ACCIDENTS).
  HAND GRENADES (ACCIDENTS).
  LABOUR BATTALIONS.
  LABOUR BATTALIONS.
  WATER POISONING (WESTERN FRONT).
  WATER POISONING (WESTERN FRONT).
  MILITARY CAMPS (ILLNESS).
  MILITARY CAMPS (ILLNESS).
  HORSE-SHOES FOR ARMY (INSPECTORS).
  HORSE-SHOES FOR ARMY (INSPECTORS).
  WOOL PURCHASES (IRELAND).
  WOOL PURCHASES (IRELAND).
  CONSTRUCTIONAL WORK (CONCRETE).
  CONSTRUCTIONAL WORK (CONCRETE).
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY SALE).
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY SALE).
AIR SERVICES.
  AEROPLANES (SALE).
  AEROPLANES (SALE).
  MR. C. BRIGHT'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
  MR. C. BRIGHT'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
  COTTON IMPORT DUTIES (INDIA).
  COTTON IMPORT DUTIES (INDIA).
  MR. ARNOLD LUPTON.
  MR. ARNOLD LUPTON.
  ADVERTISEMENT CHARGES.
  ADVERTISEMENT CHARGES.
  TELEPHONISTS (LEAVING CERTIFICATES).
  TELEPHONISTS (LEAVING CERTIFICATES).
  AFFORESTATION.
  AFFORESTATION.
  RUSSIAN JEWS.
  RUSSIAN JEWS.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  School of Oriental Studies.
  School of Oriental Studies.
  Post Office Employes (Pay).
  Post Office Employes (Pay).
  Indian Rupee.
  Indian Rupee.
  Hops (Acreage).
  Hops (Acreage).