Sitting of 5 November 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
Copy presented of Fourth Annual Report of the Medical Research Committee, 1917–18 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
WORKING CLASSES, COST OF LIVING COMMITTEE, 1918.
Copy presented of Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into and report upon (1) the actual increase since June, 1914, in the cost of Living to the Working Classes, and (2) any counterbalancing factors (apart from increases of Wages) which may have arisen under War Conditions [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
Account presented for 1917, showing the Interest accrued in respect of the Securities standing in the names of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to the credit of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund and of the Fund for the Banks for Savings for the year ended 20th November, 1917, and the Fund for Friendly Societies for the year ended 30th November, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Closing Order made by the Council of the county borough of Limerick [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of a Licence granted to Patrick Higgins, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    TERRITORIAL FORCE.

      SENIORITY.
      Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the uncertainty existing on the point, he could state whether those units of the Territorial Force of approximately ten years' standing ranked senior to the units of the New Army raised during the War and serving under temporary commissions and attestations for the period of the War only, though now embodied with and described as the Regular Forces of the Crown?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): New Army units are treated as Regulars, but I would point out that seniority in commissioned or non-commissioned rank depends primarily on the date of appointment or promotion.

      IMPERIAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.
      Sir R. NEWMANasked the Under-secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the fact that no recognition has yet been granted to those officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who were serving in the Territorial Force at the out-break of war and who then undertook or had previously undertaken the imperial service obligation, thereby enabling the State to utilise their services outside the United Kingdom, he will reconsider the desirability of their being awarded some special distinction, especially in view of the fact that these officers, non-commissioned officers, and men are entitled to special recognition as, though not called upon, they were ready and willing to join that portion of His Majesty's forces, Regular and Territorial, which served in France and Belgium prior to the 22nd November, 1914, thus becoming eligible for the award of the 1914 star?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: It has been decided that members of the Territorial Force who were embodied under Army Order 281 of 1914 and who either before or after the date of embodiment, signed an agreement to serve outside the United Kingdom, shall be allowed to count embodied service two-fold as qualifying

      1901
      service for the Territorial Officers' Decoration and the Territorial Force Efficiency Medal. The necessary directions in the case of the Efficiency Medal have already been issued and the necessary amendments to the Royal Warrant governing the Territorial Officers' Decoration are now in preparation.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      SURVIVING SONS (HOME SERVICE).
      Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-secretary of State for War whether he is aware that three sons of Mr. J. Matthews have been killed in the War, two this year, particulars of which have been given him; that he has declined to request that the two remainings sons now fighting should be transferred to Home service; that he has since declined a request that one of these two sons, aged thirty-seven, who has been in active fighting since July, 1916, and was gassed at Passchaendaele in October, 1917, and who is now training as an Infantry cadet, should be transferred either to the Army Service Corps or to the Railway Transport Section; and will he reconsider this case?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Certain definite limitations governing the transfer of men to Home service have been laid down and, as I have already explained to my hon. Friend, this case does not come within those limits. I very much regret that in the circumstances I can take no special action.
      Mr. RENDALL: Does my right hon. Friend think that when the father of a family has given three sons who have been killed, in regard to the two others—one a man of 37 years—he ought not to have some small consideration?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Most certainly I am anxious to meet such cases. We have laid down a rule that in the case of an only surviving son, that son is kept for Home service.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if he will say why G. Butler, conscientious objector, No. 3341, has not yet been released for work under the exceptional employment scheme, his twelve months' approved sentence having expired last September, and he having submitted suitable employment for approval more than a month ago?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): This man was authorised on the 29th October to take up the employment which he had submitted for the Committee's approval.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that Arthur Gregson, a conscientious objector in Liverpool civil prison, has been in hospital since 24th July of this year; and if he will take steps to authorise his release on health grounds?
      Sir G. CAVE: This man was discharged from hospital on the 30th September, but was again admitted to hospital on the 23rd October. The condition of his health does not afford a sufficient reason for authorising his release at the present time, but I shall ask shortly for another report.

      EVASION OF SERVICE (ARTHUR KUHL).
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary if he will say whether his attention has been called to the case of Arthur Kuhl, a clerk in the Civil Service, British born, the son of naturalised German parents, who was recently fined at the North London Police Court for evading military service and handed over to the military authority; and, if so, whether this gentleman's place is being kept open for him in the Civil Service?
      Sir G. CAVE: This is not a case in which I have any jurisdiction, but I am informed that Arthur Kuhl was employed in the service of the General Post Office, and I will bring the hon. Member's question to the notice of the Postmaster-General.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

      DISCHARGE BONUS.
      Mr. COTTONasked the Under-secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the hardship that is caused by the delay which takes place in the payment of bonus and other moneys due to a soldier on discharge; and whether he will arrange that these payments shall be made in future at the time of discharge?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The procedure for dealing with discharged soldiers

      1903
      has been revised recently, and cases of delay in the settlement of soldiers' accounts should now be rare. If the hon. Member will bring any specific cases to my notice I will have them investigated.

      EX-SERVICE MEN (ASSISTANCE).
      Major NEWMANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will say what funds or powers are at the disposal of local war pensions committees to render assistance to ex-Service men who may be in need of help, and who apply to them for temporary assistance?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): I have been asked to reply to this question. Local war pensions committees are empowered to make a grant, not exceeding £5, to a disabled man to meet expenses not provided by the Royal Warrant incidental to his taking up employment. Apart from this provision the financial assistance which local committees can give lies in the direction of recoverable advances where for any reason there has been delay or break in payment of pension or where the pension is found to be inadequate to the degree of disablement.
      Major NEWMAN: Does that mean that the local war pensions committee cannot temporarily increase pensions in cases of urgent necessity?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No; they have no power to do that. If they think a pension is insufficient, having regard to the degree of disablement, the man can be sent to a medical referee, and if he assesses that the pension should be higher they can advance to the man.
      Major NEWMAN: In the case of an ordinary pensioner, not a disabled man, can they increase a small pension if necessary?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We have nothing to do with cases of Service pensions, but only with disablement pensions.

      PENSION INCREASES.
      Major NEWMANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is able to say that the service and campaign pensions of our veteran sailors and soldiers have been increased; is this increase as far as possible now in operation, and does this increase mean that no
      1904
      veteran entitled to such pension, and who has attained the age of seventy years, is in receipt of less than 15s. a week?
      Mr. FORSTER: Campaign pensioners have received the same advance of 2s. 6d. as old age pensioners. The minimum payment to a campaign pensioner of seventy or over, including old age pension, is now 12s. 9d. As regards increase of Service pensions, I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool on 22nd October.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister to state what increases he proposes on pensions; and whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing such increases before or after they are determined?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

      MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (FUNCTIONS).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister how many of the functions of the Ministry have been devolved on other Departments; and whether he has taken the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown on the legality of such derogation?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: None of the functions of my Department has been devolved on other Departments. The latter part of the question does not therefore arise.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the case that the Local Government Board have control of tuberculosis cases, and the Ministry of Labour of the employment of discharged men?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No; that is not the case. What happens is that we have utilised the machinery of other Departments, and have made arrangements with them as to the men. It would be very unwise for us to set up new machinery when there is machinery in existence, but we have not devolved any of our powers. We have merely made arrangements for other Departments to deal with the men according to our arrangements.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Ministry of Pensions controls those Departments or are the Ministers of those Departments responsible for the control?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We see that the treatment or training, as the case may be, is properly done, and if it is not we take steps to supplement the machinery or set up complete machinery.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say in the two cases mentioned, that of the Local Government Board and the Ministry of Pensions, and the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Pensions, who is responsible to this House for the action that was taken?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We are responsible.
      Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Why was there a delay of six months in taking action for the care of tuberculosis patients, and is that the fault of the Local Government Board or of the Insurance Commissioners?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am not aware that there was any such delay.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: A statement was made the other day to that effect.

      PENSION SCALES (BONUS).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister whether he can now state what the war bonus on existing pension scales is to be?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The answer is in the negative.

      SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister whether he can state the number of the staff of the Special Grants Committee; how many cases per week are brought before the Committee; how often the Committee meets; and how many cases are pending decisions at date?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The number of the present staff of the Special Grants Committee is 154. Taking the figures for last week, 2,692 cases were brought before the Committee for decision, and at the close of the week 4,908 cases were in action but were not ripe for decision. A further 760 cases had been received too recently for action. Sections of the Committee dealing with individual cases meet daily, and the full Committee once a fortnight.
      Mr. HOGGE: Do I understand that there are at least 4,000 cases outstanding?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not quite know what the hon. Member means by outstanding.
      Mr. HOGGE: Not decided.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: These cases require a great deal of investigation. There are about 4,000 cases, as I have said, in action.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I stated it last week it was denied?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am not aware of that.

      ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister whether, in view of the fact that special steps were taken to advise the discharged soldiers of their right to apply for an alternative pension, he will adopt similar means to advise the ex-officers and the widows of officers of their right to apply for an alternative pension?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: As my Noble Friend is aware, a booklet is in course of preparation for the information of ex-officers and officers' widows, and in that booklet attention will be drawn to the alternative pension. Reference will also be made to it in the Memorandum which is sent to every widow when her flat-rate pension is awarded.

      APPEALS.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister whether he has taken any steps to bring to the notice of officers who have been accorded a gratuity on the grounds that their disability has neither been caused nor aggravated by war service the fact that they are entitled to apply to an Appeal Tribunal; how many of such appeals have been lodged and what percentage of those lodged have been heard; and what is the percentage of the reversals of the original award?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Statements were made in this House on 15th May and 5th July last, and were published in the Press, and in several cases officers have been incited to refer their cases to the board. Nineteen appeals have been made to the Appeal Board, of which fourteen have been heard. Of the fourteen, seven have been allowed and seven rejected.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      ARMY RATIONS (DESTRUCTION).
      Mr. COTTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether quantities of biscuits, oats, blown milk, and other articles of food are being still regularly destroyed at military centres in this country and in France, on the ground that they have become unfit for human consumption; what was the amount so destroyed during the month of September; whether he is satisfied that in all these cases the waste was unavoidable, and why steps are not being taken to utilise these foodstuffs for other purposes?
      Mr. FORSTER: A report has been received from France that no foodstuffs under the control of the Army Service Corps or which are condemned within units are destroyed when unfit for human consumption unless so ordered by medical authority or where putrefaction is such as to render it useless for fat factories, piggeries, etc. The same policy is followed at home, and the local military authorities report that they are satisfied that no articles of food have been unavoidably destroyed. If the hon. Member would furnish me with any information in his possession I shall be glad to have further inquiry made.

      MACHINERY AND STORES.
      Colonel COLLINSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the approximate cost of the machinery and stores purchased during the War to carry out the land policy of the Government; and does he propose eventually to sell such stores, etc., to the farming industry?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The approximate cost of machinery and stores purchased up to 30th September, 1918, may be taken at £3,000,000. Sales to the amount of £500,000 had been effected up to the date mentioned, leaving a net cost as at that date of approximately £2,500,000. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the affirmative.

      FEEDING-STUFFS.
      Mr. CAUTLEYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Grinstead;
      1908
      whether he has received a petition signed by over 150 Members of the House of Commons calling attention to the serious shortage of feeding-stuffs and discontent caused to farmers by the action of grading and live-stock officers; and whether he can allot a day for the discussion of these matters?—["That, in the opinion of this House, the regulation of imports and exports and the system of administration of the feeding, grading, and sale of cattle, sheep, and pigs are vitally affecting the flocks and herds of the country and require immediate attention."]
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am afraid that it will not be possible to give a day for this subject, but I hope that it can be discussed on the Vote of Credit.

      LINCOLNSHIRE MARKETS.
      Colonel WEIGALL (by Private Notice)asked whether all the Lincolnshire markets are to be closed against the sale of cattle and sheep, and whether this action is contrary to the advice of the local Live Stock Commissioners?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): I have not received notice of this question.

    PRINCE OF WALES'S HOSPITAL, MARYLEBONE.
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked he Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that dissatisfaction still exists with regard to the treatment of officer patients at the Prince of Wales' Hospital, Great Central Hotel, Marylebone; whether he will state how many patients there are at present in the hospital; what is the size of the staff of Army sisters and orderlies; how often an official inspection is made; whether any inspections are made without previous notice being given; whether the meals of the patients are inspected; whether electric bells have been installed in all the patients' rooms; and, if not, what is the reason for this delay?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware that any dissatisfaction exists, and from a report which I have obtained it is clear that the officers are very well looked after. The number of patients is 780, and the number of nurses is forty-three, nursing orderlies thirty, and in addition there

    1909
    are twenty Voluntary Aid Detachment orderlies. The officer in charge makes frequent inspections without notice, and official inspections are made from time to time by the Deputy-Director of Medical Services and other officers of the London district. The meals are regularly inspected by the officer in charge and the matron. The electric bells, which were installed in April last, have recently got out of order but are now being put right.
    Captain CARR-GOMM: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that for all that number of 780 patients the staff he has just mentioned is adequate? Is he aware that complaints were brought to his notice early in the year—in the spring—and that complaints have been brought by other persons connected with the place?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have had no complaints since the spring, and I have just informed my hon. and gallant Friend that my report is a very recent report.
    Captain CARR-GOMM: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries into a case where an officer, whose heart had been recently very seriously injured owing to his wounds having been allowed to remain in a small room with another officer patient suffering from influenza, and no attempt made to remove the officer—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice.

    HORSE GUARDS MESSENGERS (PAY).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the question of wages and overtime conditions has been brought to a position of agreement between the messengers and the authorities at the Horse Guards and that the whole matter has been in a state of suspense since December, 1917; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter and thus allay the present condition of affairs?
    Mr. FORSTER: A number of messengers other than those at the Horse Guards are concerned. The investigation of the matter has necessarily taken some time, but I hope a decision will soon be arrived at.

    ARMY RANK (OFFICERS).
    General McCALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether all officers who are permitted voluntarily to resign their commissions are entitled to retain the rank held on retirement, or whether the Army Council is allowed to exercise discretion in the matter; whether regimental officers who hold temporary acting rank for the command of troops, but who subsequently revert through no fault of their own on the arrival of a senior officer, will be granted the higher rank on retirement; and whether such instructions will be issued as will prevent gentlemen, who for various reasons are granted higher ranks than those for which their military service and experience fit them, from being granted on retirement the same privileges as are conferred on those who have earned their rank by military merit and service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: All officers on ceasing to hold their commissions will be granted permission to retain their rank provided they have held such rank for six months and that their services have been satisfactory throughout the time they were in the Army. It is not proposed to make any distinction such as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend in the last part of his question. Acting rank will count if it has been held for six months.
    General McCALMONT: Is the Army Council deliberately going to benefit the non-fighting officer against the fighting officer owing to the fact that the fighting, officer loses his rank very often through wounds?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend can think that because we only give appointments to non-fighting officers who are thoroughly efficient at their work.
    General McCALMONT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the fighting officer very often loses rank through fighting, and the non-fighting officer does not?—It is so.

    MESOPOTAMIA EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (PAY).
    Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that at some of the depots in Mesopotamia the married soldiers have not yet

    1911
    been paid their compulsory allotment of 6d. per day, nor have any men received their service money if entitled to it; and will he take any steps to have this remedied?
    Mr. FORSTER: This question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, who, I understand, will be in a position to reply tomorrow.

    RUSSIA.

      BOLSHEVIST PROPAGANDA (DEPORTATION OF HENRY GOGOL).
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is by his orders that Henry Gogol, of 21a, St. James Road, Higher Broughton, Manchester, has been arrested; whether any reason can be given for the arrest; and whether any charge will be made against him?
      Sir G. CAVE: This man was arrested for the purpose of deportation, in pursuance of an Order which I made on advice that he was a Russian concerned with Bolshevist propaganda whom it was desirable, in the interests of this country, to deport. He left en route for Russia on the 27th October.

      Mr. D. CHRYSIN.
      Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he has now investigated the reason for the inaccurate statement made on 17th October concerning Mr. D. Chrysin; whether the official responsible has been cautioned; who that official was; and whether Mr. Chrysin, who is honourably known in connection with the cooperative movement, will be informed that regret is felt for the mistake?
      Sir G. CAVE: I regret that I have nothing more to say on this case at present. The officer specially concerned with it is at present off duty, somewhat seriously ill with influenza.
      Mr. KING: Will the Home Secretary promise that this matter will not be dropped, even if a General Election comes and he is very busy?
      Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir; it will not be dropped.

    GERMAN PRISONERS.
    General McCALMONTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case in which a party of German prisoners were found stealing potatoes from fields at night; whether these prisoners were supposed to be under military guard, and what steps have been taken to deal with those responsible and to prevent the recurrence of such an incident?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Chief Constable reports that two of the men concerned have been summoned and will be dealt with by the Civil Court. A third man could not be identified. All three men were combatant prisoners of war, and the question of their safe custody and supervision while at work is a matter for the War Office.
    General McCALMONT: Are we not to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for all arrangements in connection with these prisoners?
    Sir G. CAVE: No; not in connection with prisoners of war camps—they are still under the War Office.
    General McCALMONTasked the Home Secretary whether a farmer's son was recently fined for giving a shot-gun to German prisoners; what form of supervision was being exercised over these prisoners at the time; and what action has been taken in the matter?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have not heard of any such case. If the question relates to combatant prisoners of war it should be addressed to the War Office, which has the sole charge of these prisoners.
    General McCALMONT: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has no control at all of this matter?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee over which I preside, but of course we could make representations on the subject.
    General McCALMONTasked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement with regard to the non-employment of German prisoners in coal mines; and whether, in view of the shortage of coal and labour, the possibility of temporarily taking over certain pits for work entirely by prisoner labour under the supervision of soldier ex-miners who are unfit for work has been considered?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Coal Controller is in communication with the War Office on this subject, but a decision has not yet been taken.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      CRUELTY CASES (EVIDENCE).
      Mr. PETO:asked the Home Secretary whether he will issue in the form of a White Paper the evidence of returned prisoners of war of the cruelty, tortures, and murders inflicted on British prisoners of war, without omissions of any of the facts disclosed?
      Sir G. CAVE: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch on the 17th October.

      CAMP COMMANDANTS.
      Mr. PETOasked the Home Secretary (1) Whether, as in Germany camp commandants are directly and only subject to the army corps commanders of the areas in which they are situated, such army corps commanders are not responsible for the condition of camps in their area; if so, whether the names of all such army corps commanders are included in the list of persons whose trial and punishment will be demanded by the Allied Governments where cruelty has been practised on British prisoners of war within their area; (2) whether, as in the case of one party of 900 British prisoners of war employed behind the German lines this year, 134 died in the month of July after reaching camp besides those who were killed or died before they reached camp, and as this employment, contrary to international law, continued under the direct personal responsibility of General Ludendorff after he had given undertakings that it would be discontinued, it is to be understood that the name of Ludendorff is included in the list of the persons whose trial and punishment will be demanded by the Allies.
      Sir G. CAVE: The names of all army corps commanders or other persons who are known to have been guilty of or to have encouraged cruelty to our prisoners of war, or to have acquiesced in acts of cruelty by persons under their authority, will be included in the list referred to. It is considered at present inadvisable for reasons already given to state the names of any persons appearing on this list.

      PHILIPPOPOLIS CAMP.
      Mr. PETOasked the Home Secretary whether he can state if the Bulgarians accused of cruelty to British prisoners of war have been tried, and by what tribunal; and whether any and, if so, what punishment has been awarded?
      Sir G. CAVE: The French Government have been requested to cause all possible steps to be taken to bring to account the late commandant of the internment camp at Philippopolis, who was distinguished for his ill-treatment of British prisoners of war. It is not yet known what steps it has been possible to take in this direction.

      GERMAN RATIFICATION OF TREATY.
      Colonel C. LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister, in view of the dissatisfaction witih Lord Newton and General Belfield expressed from all quarters of the House during the British prisoners Debate and the reiterated demand that the future of our gallant prisoners should be entrusted to negotiators of proved ability, whether he will immediately relieve these two gentlemen of all further duties relating to prisoners of war, and replace them by men fully qualified to handle questions of such supreme importance?
      Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer is in the negative.
      I take this opportunity of informing the House that the German Government have now agreed to ratify the agreement as to the exchange and treatment of prisoners concluded by Lord Newton and General Belfield at the Hague, and have abandoned the condition which they sought to impose as to the internment or deportation of Germans in China.
      Mr. KING: Is the Home Secretary not aware that there are many people who have the greatest satisfaction in the work of General Belfield, and Lord Newton, and that this question does not represent the general feeling of the country?
      Sir G. CAVE: I believe that to be so, and I should be extremely sorry to lose the benefit of their services.
      Colonel LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the suggestion that our prisoners can be in no better hands than a peer who treated the tortures of our prisoners with levity, and of a general who only left his watertight

      1915
      compartment in Whitehall, in order to proceed on a matter of supreme importance, for which he has no qualifications?
      Sir G. CAVE: I entirely dissent from the charges made by the hon. Member against these two gentleman, and I may add that the interests of the prisoners are in the charge of the whole of the Committee, over which I have the honour to preside.

      TURKEY.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK (by Private Notice)asked the Home Secretary whether in view of the public anxiety as to the destitute condition of the British and Indian prisoners of War in Turkey, he can give assurances that the promptest possible measures will be taken to afford them relief and obtain their release?
      Sir G. CAVE: The Government is in constant communication with the British naval and military authorities on the spot and immediate steps are being taken to secure the return of British and Indian prisoners as early as possible. Supplies of food and clothing which had already been arranged for are being placed at the disposal of the British Admiral in the Eastern Mediterranean for use in such manner as he thinks best.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (TRAINING).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister whether he can give the number of men trained to date by the Ministry; whether he can state how many have been trained by other Government Departments; and whether he can state how many have been trained at St. Dunstan's, Newington House, Lord Roberts' Memorial Homes, and other voluntary agencies?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The total number of men who have been, or are being, trained under arrangements recognised by the Ministry of Pensions is 18,271. Of this number 5,260 have been specially trained in the production of munitions of war in the training centres set up by the Ministry of Munitions, 1,191 have been trained at St. Dunstan's or Newington House, 1,560 in the Lord Roberts' Memorial Workshops, and the remainder—10,260—in technical institutes and workshops throughout the country.
    Mr. HOGGE: Are those 10,000 directly under the control of the Ministry of Pensions?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Ministry of Pensions is responsible for all of them.
    Mr. HOGGE: I quite understand, but what I want to know is can he say how many of the remaining 10,000 he has mentioned are directly supervised by the Ministry?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Certainly, they are all under our control. We pay the training fees, we pay the allowances, and if the training is not properly done we are responsible.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say which Department appoints the inspectors who report as to the adequacy of the technical training?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That is a question of which the hon. Member should give notice.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister how many discharged officers have been placed in training for employment?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Fifty disabled officers have been trained, and about twelve more will join courses in the next fortnight.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: How many discharged officers are there?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I must ask for notice of that.

    MERCANTILE MARINE.

      SUBMARINE WARFARE.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether he is now aware that the convoy which included the Liverpool liners A and B, loaded with general cargoes for Liverpool, did not proceed in its entirety to that port, the steamer B being diverted to an outport although there was included in her cargo a quantity of 1,660 tons of salted hides; and can he now state why Liverpool liners, loaded for Liverpool, are diverted to outports instead of sending tramp steamers to these outports?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): If I am correct in my assumption as to the particular case to

      1917
      which my hon. Friend refers, the vessel in question, in addition to 1,660 tons of hides, carried 2,894 tons of wheat and other cargo. There was no question of breaking up a convoy The vessel sailed in a mixed convoy—that is to say, in a convoy containing steamers for various destinations, and while on passage was directed to the port of Avonmouth. Such diversions have been frequently necessary in the interests of safety, economy, and efficiency, and the action taken in this instance, after full consideration of all the relevant facts as to safety, port congestion, class of cargo, etc., involved no departure from the normal course of procedure.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Then may I ask the hon. Member if he can explain why he wrote me an absurdly inaccurate statement about one convoy going north to Liverpool and the other convoy going up south when, as a matter of fact, those ships were in the same convoy; and can he explain why he is invariably inaccurate when he answers my questions?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: My hon. Friend, I think, has arrived at his own conclusion on that matter, and I need not make any comment on it.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Naturally!
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: With regard to the letter I wrote to the hon. Member, it was quite in conformity with the answer I have given him.

      SHIPS FOR SALE.
      Mr. WILLIAM ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether it is the intention of his Department to offer for sale publicly-owned ships to private shipowners; and if he will state the reasons which have led to this decision and the terms on which the ships will be sold?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: It has been deided to offer a limited number of Government-owned merchant vessels to shipowners who have lost vessels through enemy action in replacement of those losses which, as my hon. Friend knows, are very serious. The main ground for this decision is the fact that since about the end of 1916 shipowners have, in the national interest, been precluded from building tonnage for themselves, all the slips having been reserved for the Government shipbuilding programme. The vessels will be sold on the basis of current
      1918
      market value. The decision will not in any way affect the use of the vessls, which, during the war emergency, will be employed as the national interests may require, on the same terms as other privately-owned tonnage.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he can get any shipowners to buy these ships?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: One shipowner has already made a purchase, and there are several other cases under consideration.

      WEST AFRICAN TRADE.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether he is aware that Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, of Port Sunlight, promoted or formed the Bromport Steamship Company, Limited, which, since the beginning of the War, has bought a number of steamers; whether this company still has three steamers running in the West Coast of Africa trade, carrying its own goods and produce; and whether the steamers belonging to Messrs. John Holt and Company, Limited, of Liverpool, African merchants, which were engaged in this trade, have been entirely withdrawn from the trade?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The Bromport Steamship Company, which is connected with Messrs. Lever Brothers, have three steamers running under liner requisition in the West African trade. One of their steamers has been requisitioned for special Government service, and the remainder of their fleet (four vessels) has been lost. Messrs. John Holt and Company have also lost two steamers, and of the three remaining vessels belonging or chartered to them, as I explained to the hon. Member on the 2nd October, one was withdrawn from the West African trade on the ground that she could not maintain the sea speed necessary for convoy requirements, while the other two were requisitioned for employment in trades in which they could be more advantageously employed. It is not the case that the steamers of the Bromport Steamship Company necessarily carry their own goods and produce. The steamers in the West African trade are pooled under the direction of the West African Steamship Conference, which consists of Messrs. Elder, Dempster and Company, the Bromport Steamship Company, and Messrs. John

      1919
      Holt and Company. The Ministry of Shipping, while giving general instructions to the conference as to the materials to be carried, leaves to the discretion of the conference the arrangements for the allocation of the shipments as between the various merchants, Messrs. John Holt and Company being one of those.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Bromport Company have been only about two years or a little longer in existence, and that John Holt and Company have been in existence fifty years; and does he really contend that Lever Brothers have not had more favourable treatment than Holt and Company?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: In each case the use of the vessels was dictated by only one consideration, and that consideration the national interest.
      Mr. HOUSTON: But is the hon. Member not aware that his statements are inaccurate here?
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping, if he will state in definite terms the promise made by the Shipping Controller to Mr. Robert Holt, of Messrs. John Holt and Company, Limited, of Liverpool, at the interview on 22nd October?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The promise made by the Shipping Controller was that as soon as the exigencies of the War permitted the tonnage in question would be released.
      Mr. HOUSTON: That means after the War, I suppose.

      MANNING.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether he is aware that it was found impossible to obtain a white British crew for a steamer which recently sailed from Cardiff; and if, in view of the effect of this upon British merchant shipping, he proposes to taken any action in the matter?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: It is, I regret to say, not infrequently necessary to utilise men other than white British seamen to complete the crews of British ships. The fact that white British crews are not always available for British ships is largely due to the extensive employment by British shipowners of foreign seamen prior to the War. The question of the
      1920
      adequacy of the supply of British seamen has been receiving the close attention of the Ministry. A test scheme was recently initiated in London of training youths with a view solely to their suitability for immediate employment in merchant shipping. This shows signs of complete success, and when it is clearly established, no time will be lost in extending it to other ports. This training takes about two months. Steps are also being taken to obtain the services of seamen employed ashore who are prepared to go to sea again. The registration of seamen now in progress has already resulted in a number of such men coming forward for employment. An employment organisation is also being set up which will facilitate the transfer of available men to the ports at which they are required.

      SHIPBUILDING (SHANGHAI).
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the questions which have been raised concerning the building of merchant ships in Shanghai, he will forthwith appoint a competent tribunal, consisting of at least one judge of His Majesty's High Court of Justice and several independent members, to investigate this matter and the action of the representative in China of Messrs. Vickers, Limited, in connection with the Kiangnan yard and the building of vessels for American interests?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government is not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the alleged scandal which underlies this question in connection with the loss of British shipping to this country, and that it requires not a departmental inquiry but an independent inquiry?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware from the hon. Member's question that he suggests there has been some slackness on the part of the Shipping Controller. That is the point of the question. I do not share the hon. Member's view, nor does the Government.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman read some correspondence which I should be pleased to submit to him?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have looked into the matter.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Not through me.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have looked into the matter sufficiently to satisfy myself, and I believe the Government, that there is absolutely no occasion for such an inquiry.
      Mr. HOUSTON: But will the right hon. Gentleman promise to read the correspondence which I will put before him, and also promise to see a gentleman who is coming from Shanghai this month?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I will promise to look at the correspondence if it is not long. I will undertake nothing more.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Major PEELasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will consider the desirability of circularising colleges, charities, and similar public bodies with a view to ascertaining whether they are willing to lease suitable land to the Board for the purposes of land settlement under the Small Holdings Colonies Acts; whether, in view of the difficulties in the way of obtaining land for small holdings under the Small Holdings Acts, he will consider the desirability of asking these institutions whether they have suitable land available; and whether, on the occasion of any change of tenancy, they will communicate with the Board, with a view to the land being offered to the county councils on lease under the Small Holdings Acts?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The action which my hon. and gallant Friend suggests has already been taken, and I will send him a copy of the Board's circular letter of the 13th September last on the subject.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES.
    Colonel BURNasked the Prime Minister if he will consider changing the style of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Secretary for the British Overseas Dominions, in view of the great part played by the latter in the European War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think the proposed change would be desired by the Dominions.

    WOMEN'S WAGES.
    Mr. W. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet
    1922
    have issued instructions to the Arbitration and Conciliation Board for Government employés forbidding them to award the same wages to women as to men in cases where equal work is performed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The War Cabinet decided in March last that the question whether women should be paid the same remuneration as men engaged on similar duties is one of policy which is not within the competence of the Board for decision by way of conciliation or arbitration. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, this question has since been referred to a. Committee specially set up for the purpose under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Atkin.

    STREET NAMES (GERMAN).
    Colonel LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the countless acts of brutality perpetrated by the German people during the War, the Government will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to require the re-naming of all streets in this country at present bearing German names?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This matter can, I think, be left with the local authorities, which have the power to deal with it.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Will the Government consider the advisability of changing the names of Coburg and Brunswick to Cavell, Fryatt, or Cornwell?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should not like to make any promise about that. We are engaged, I think, in matters more important.
    Mr. KING: Will Peers like Lord Denbigh, who have German names, be compelled to change them?

    LAND SALES.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the amount of land now being offered for sale; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation, other than under the Defence of the Realm Act, to prevent such land passing into the hands of undesirable interests, whether alien or cosmopolitan?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. This question has been

    1923
    considered, but I am not in a position to make any statement as to legislation at present.

    LAND SETTLEMENT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether a comprehensive policy for the settlement on the land, whether in the United Kingdom or in the Overseas Dominions, of officers and men on demobilisation has been evolved by the War Cabinet and the Imperial War Conference; and will he make an early statement on the subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This question, so far as it relates to the settlement of ex-Service men on the land in this country, was referred to a Special Committee who have now reported to the War Cabinet, and I hope that a statement will shortly be made. As far as the Dominions are concerned, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Report of the Proceedings of the Imperial War Cabinet (Cd. 9177).

    AVIATION (INTERNATIONAL LAW).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of approaching our Allies with a view to an immediate conference to settle international law on the subject of aviation, so that when the War is over there may be no obstacle to free civilian transport between the Allied countries?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This matter is engaging attention, and the Foreign Secretary hopes shortly to be in a position to lay proposals before our Allies.

    ARMISTICE WITH TURKEY (RETURN OF TROOPS).
    Mr. KINGasked whether, as a result of the end of the War against Turkey, he can hold out the prospect of the return of the troops at an early date from the Eastern Fronts; and whether orders have been given that officers and men at home on leave need not return to those fronts?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I understood the War Office were going to answer this question. What happens will depend upon the use that is to be made of these men.
    Mr. KING: Will every effort be made to bring back as soon as possible many men who have been there two, three, or four years? Will their cases especially be considered, and may we say that it is now being considered with a view to their early return?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure the hon. Member that he is not more sympathetic in this matter than the Government. Obviously no answer can be given until we know whether the War will be prolonged, and whether these troops are to be used in any other theatre of the War. The fact that many of them have been away so long is regarded by the War Office as a reason for giving them leave as soon as possible.

    DEMOBILISATION.

      MINISTER OF LABOUR.
      Colonel GODFREY COLLINSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the recent speeches by the Minister of Labour on demobilisation; and will he publish, for the information of men and women serving in the Army, Navy, and Air Force and their families, such particulars as have already been decided by His Majesty's Government?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part, I can add nothing to the previous replies I have given on the subject.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to convey by this reply that he does not read the speeches of the Minister of Labour?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a charge which I think the hon. Member should not make against me without complete knowledge.

      GOVERNMENT STORES.
      Colonel COLLINSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the large sums of public money involved in the disposal on demobilisation of Government stores; whether a uniform policy in regard to such stores has been adopted by the various Government Departments; and can he state what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham.

      SAILORS.
      Colonel COLLINSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in drafting their regulations in regard to the demobilisation of sailors, the Admiralty will grant sailors of long service priority in discharge?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): When the time comes we shall certainly do our best to release first those officers and men who, having joined for hostilities, have served longest. We shall also do our best to give early release to time-expired active service ratings and other men with longest war service. My hon. and gallant Friend will, of course, understand that these undertakings are subject to the exigencies of the Service.
      Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will the Admiralty at the earliest possible moment release fishermen who have been withdrawn from their own means of livelihood for the purpose of serving the Navy?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly, as soon as we can; on the same ground as the others—length of service.

      MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION (POWERS).
      Colonel GODFREY COLLINSasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether, in view of the present communications with the enemy and the plight of Germany's allies tending towards peace, his Department have sufficient powers to co-ordinate and enforce the demobilisation plans drawn up in conjunction with other Departments?
      The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): The proposals of my Department in connection with demobilisation and resettlement questions, in so far as they require co-ordination and War Cabinet approval, are now being dealt with by a Committee of the War Cabinet which is sitting from day to day. As parts of the work are entrusted to different executive Departments, the Ministers concerned become responsible for carrying it out.

    CURRENCY PROBLEMS.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the House will be
    1926
    afforded an opportunity to discuss the proposals suggested by the Committee appointed last January on currency problems after the War; and whether it is intended to adopt a gold-standard money trust system upon an insufficient supply of gold or whether it will be expedient to continue the issue of paper money guaranteed by the different nations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by such a discussion at present.
    Mr. FIELD: Is the House to understand that the whole question of currency will be left in the hands of gentlemen who have an immediate interest in the money and in gold?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, no! If the hon. Member refers to the members of that Committee he will find they have no powers; they were only appointed to give advice.
    Mr. FIELD: Will that advice be considered by the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Undoubtedly. I think it is a question the House will have to consider at some time, but I do not think this is the proper time.

    COMMERCIAL UNDERTAKINGS.

      MESSRS. LUDWIG KRUMM.
      Colonel BURNasked the President of the Hoard of Trade whether he will take immediate steps to close the business of Messrs. Ludwig Krumm, of Offenbach O/M, who are trading at 8, Fell Street, City?
      Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): At the outbreak of War both partners in the business referred to by the hon. and gallant Member were naturalised British subjects, and while this status is maintained the Board have no power under the Trading with the Enemy Acts to order the business to be wound-up or discontinued. The Board of Trade are, however in correspondence with the Home Office as to whether the case of the senior partner falls within the recent British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, and in the event of his certificate being revoked, the question of winding-up the business will be further considered.

    GENERAL ELECTION.

      PETROL ALLOWANCES.
      Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether candidates at the forthcoming election who have already had a monthly allowance of petrol allotted to them will be allowed to draw the whole or some considerable portion of it in addition to the special election allowance if the latter proves to be insufficient for their reasonable requirements?
      Mr. PARKER: It will be permissible for candidates who hold special permits for use during a Parliamentary election, to use petrol which they have obtained under ordinary full-duty motor spirit licences.

    COAL SUPPLIES.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will inquire into the action of the local fuel controller in refusing to issue certificates for the whole of the members of the Carlton and Netherfield Independent Labour Party Coal Club; and if he will give instructions that this club is allotted its proportionate amount of coal for each of its registered members?
    Mr. PARKER: The question raised shall be the subject of inquiry, and the hon. Member shall be informed of the result.

    HOUSING (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES).
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the President of the Local Government Board how many local authorities have since the 18th March, 1918, undertaken to build houses for the working classes immediately after the War, distinguishing between urban and rural and classifying the urban authorities under the various types, county, borough, etc.; what is the total number of houses covered by the above undertakings under the different heads above mentioned; and within what periods such local authorities have undertaken to build such houses?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Stephen Walsh): The following local
    1928
    authorities have undertaken to build approximately the number of houses specified, namely—

    Houses.

    41

    County Borough Councils

    35,256

    70

    Non-County Borough Councils

    16,304

    150

    Urban District Councils

    34,306

    93

    Rural District Councils

    13,822

    Making a total of

    99,688

    In addition

    7

    County Borough Councils,

    18

    Non-County Borough Councils,

    51

    Urban District Councils, and

    59

    Rural District Councils

    have undertaken to build houses, but the number of houses is not determined. The local authorities mentioned have not undertaken to build within a specified period.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: In view of the comparatively small number of houses suggested, can the hon. Gentleman say that the problem of housing is likely to come under the review of the President of the Local Government Board?
    Mr. WALSH: That is a matter of policy on which I am not entitled to speak.

    CIVILIAN TRADE INSTRUCTORS (ROYAL NAVY).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he is aware that the civilian trade instructors (pensioned chief E. R. As.) employed on H.M.S. "Fisgard," and at the Royal Naval College, Osborne, have not been paid the 12½ per cent. bonus as from the 14th October, 1917, to the 24th March, 1918; whereas the civilan trade instructors employed on H.M.S. "Indus" have been paid this bonus as between the dates referred to; and will he state why differentiation has taken place on the establishments mentioned.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The 12½ per cent. was payable to the mechanic instructors in question as from 24th March, 1918, in accordance with the award of the Committee on Production dated 25th April, 1918. The trade instructors of the "Indus" were incorrectly paid the 12½ per cent. bonus as from the 14th October, 1917, but the Admiralty decided in their discretion to waive recovery of the overpayments.

    ADMIRALTY TELEGRAPHIC DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the naval authorities admit the right of the Post Office to control the telegraphic arrangements at the Admiralty; whether he is aware that the Post Office have superseded the officer in charge of the Admiralty telegraph department, although he has given every satisfaction to the Admiralty and has performed his duties with great credit; and whether, seeing that the successor has no experience of the special duties at the Admiralty and is not even acquainted with the special signals required, he will cause the fullest inquiry to be made in order that the efficiency of the Services may be safeguarded and injustice may be avoided?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Postmaster-General is administratively responsible for the efficiency of the telegraph office at the Admiralty, and as regards any questions relating to its personnel I must refer my hon. Friend to him. As regards the second and third parts of the question, my hon. Friend should see the answer given by the Postmaster-General to the hon. Member for North Somerset on 24th October.
    Mr. DUNCANasked the Postmaster-General whether it was with his authority that the assistant superintendent in charge of the telegraphs at the Admiralty has been superseded by a man who has no experience of the special naval work; whether the man superseded has given every satisfaction to the Admiralty for many years and has been replaced on the recommendation of an official from the Post Office who is specially interested in the substitution of men from the Central Telegraph Office for controlling officers in the Metropolitan districts?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Devonport on the 24th ultimo.

    EDINBURGH POST OFFICE.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make further inquiry into the case of Mr. J. S. Simpson, of Edinburgh, who was detained on Post
    1930
    Office premises to assist in tracing a letter which had been mislaid; whether he will state the authority for the Post Office practice of calling for extra attendance without pay; whether it was possible for Mr. Simpson to leave the building to obtain food without being charged with insubordination; and whether, seeing that the subsequent general rearrangement of the registered letter office was planned several years ago in view of the admittedly inadequate accommodation, he will explain why the accommodation was alleged to be adequate on the date in question?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I cannot add anything to the answer given to a similar question by the hon. Member on the 3rd June last.

    MUSEUMS (ATTENDANTS' SALARIES).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to reply to the request for higher scales of pay made by the attendants employed in some of the museums controlled by the Board of Education on the 20th April last?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The application of the museum attendants raised issues which required careful and detailed investigation. My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to reply to the petition very shortly.

    MUNITIONS.

      WALTHAM ABBEY POWDER MILLS.
      Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that there has been a rearrangement of the working hours at the Waltham Abbey Powder Mills, which rearrangement was introduced on the understanding with the workpeople concerned that the new scheme should be subject to a month's trial and if, after this trial period had expired, the workeople were not satisfied with the change, then the old hours of labour would be reverted to; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction has been expressed by the workpeople, who desire to go back to the former arrangement; and whether he will make inquriy into this matter?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): After consultation with representatives of the workpeople, concerned, a new arrangement of shift hours was tentatively introduced with effect from 1st July, 1918, on the understanding that if after a month's trial they wished to suggest any alternative arrangement that would give the same number of productive hours each week at no greater expense, the matter would be reconsidered. As no such alternative has been suggested, the new arrangement, which is much less costly than the former, and appears to involve no loss of earnings, is being continued; but the offer to consider an alternative suggestion still remains open. Reversion to the former hours, if the workpeople were dissatisfied after the month's experience of the new system, was not promised.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

      MESSRS. JACOB THOMLINSON AND COMPANY, MARYPORT.
      Colonel GRETTONasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) has purchased the business of Messrs. Jacob Thomlinson and Company, wine and spirit merchant, Maryport; if so, on what grounds was this purchase made; what was the price paid for this business; and from what source was the money provided?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: The Board have decided to acquire under their statutory powers the business of Messrs. Jacob Thomlinson and Company, of Maryport, for the purpose of the proper control of the liquor supply in this part of the Carlisle and District Direct Control area, but the transaction has not yet been completed.

    WAR AIMS COMMITTEE.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that a speaker in the employment of the War Aims Committee was dismissed because he denounced pacifists and others who are opposing the war aims of the country; and what action he proposes to take?
    The JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Guest): As the National War Aims Committee has not dismissed any of its speakers for the reasons stated in the question, the need for any action does not arise.

    WAR SAVINGS COMMITTEE (EXPENSES).
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Secretary to the Treasury what has been the cost to date of the War Savings Department under the head of salaries and under the head of advertisements and publications?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The salaries and wages paid by the National War Savings committee, since its inception in February, 1916, amount to approximately £62,000 and the cost of advertisements to £270,000. The above figures do not include the expenditure of the Scottish War Savings Committee. The cost of publications cannot be given without very considerable labour.

    IRELAND.

      COAL BORING.
      Mr. DILLONasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether boring for coal is being made in Ireland in accordance with his directions; and, if so, whether he can give any information on the subject?
      Dr. ADDISON: I have arranged, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that boring for coal in the Loch Neagh district in Ireland shall be carried out under the supervision of the Mineral Resources Branch of the Ministry of Munitions. Operations will commence as soon as the requisite tubing can be obtained.

      TILLAGE ORDERS.
      Mr. REDDYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the Rev. W. H. Sheppard, who holds 350 acres of land at Tubrid, Shinrone, King's County, complied with the Tillage Orders made by the Department; whether the small landholders of the district were able and willing to till any portions of such land that might be let to them for the purpose at a reasonable

      1933
      rent; and if he will say what steps the Department have taken or propose to take with reference to the Rev. Mr. Sheppard's failure to till any portion of his farm?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): For the purposes of the compulsory Tillage Orders the holding in question was aggregated with other holdings and accordingly the requisite cultivation in respect of the lands at Tubrid could be carried out elsewhere. On these aggregated holdings the cultivation necessary to comply with the Orders was carried out in 1917.
      The Department understand that the small holders of the district have intimated their willingness to take portion of the lands for cultivation at a requisite rent. As regards the present year it has not been feasible as yet to make an inspection of the aggregated holdings referred to, to ascertain the actual area cultivated, but the Department have no reason to doubt that an area at least equal to the total required under the Tillage Orders has been cultivated in respect of these holdings.
      Mr. REDDY: Why does the Department of Agriculture connive at this man not tilling the land?
      Mr. SHORTT: I do not follow the question.
      Mr. REDDY: I will give him plenty of cases.

      MILITARY AREAS.
      Mr. O'LEARYasked the Chief Secretary (1) whether the local magistrates who are responsible for the peace of the county were consulted before proclaiming the West Riding of the county of Cork a special military area; if not, on whose advice was the riding so proclaimed; and whether the riding has been for years practically free from crime and one of the most peaceable in Ireland?
      (2) Whether he can state the reasons for prohibiting fairs and markets being held in the Bantry and Castletown Bere districts; whether he is aware that the consequence will be that thousands of farmers cannot dispose of their surplus produce and stock before the winter, and that they will thus suffer a financial loss; and that valuable foodstuff will deteriorate and be perhaps atogether lost to the public during a time of great scarcity?
      Mr. SHORTT: The local magistrates were not consulted. The action was taken by the competent military autho-
      1934
      rities under the Defence of the Realm Regulations because of frequent acts of intimidation and outrages in the district.
      Mr. O'LEARY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the local magistrates were not consulted; and can he say whether the Ministry of Food was consulted before the fair was prohibited?
      Mr. SHORTT: It was not necessary.

      LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
      Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the South Dublin Union requesting that the law of settlement should be extended to Ireland; and whether he is aware that the existing practice operates injuriously against Irish interests?
      Mr. SHORTT: I have received the resolution referred to. As there does not appeal to be any general desire for the extension of the law of settlement to Ireland, I do not propose to take any action in the matter.
      Mr. FIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that paupers can be dumped into Ireland from other parts of Great Britain, and that the law does not extend to Great Britain as it does to Ireland?
      Mr. SHORTT: I must ask for notice of that question.

      PLOT-HOLDERS (SECURITY OF TENURE).
      Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he will introduce the promised Bill to give security of tenure to plot-holders in Ireland, in order to ensure a continuance of increased food production?
      Mr. SHORTT: I am not aware of any such promise, and I would again refer the hon. Member to the replies given to his previous questions on the subject.
      Mr. FIELD: Arising out of that unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I will bring up the question on the Adjournment to-night.

      DRAINAGE WORKS (COUNTY SLIGO).
      Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when the drainage works on the Owenmore River, co. Sligo, suspended some years ago, may be resumed?
      Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to his previous question on the subject, to which there is nothing at present to add.

      COALFIELDS (RAILWAYS).
      Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, seeing that the Government have given free Grants towards the construction of railway lines connecting the Wolfhill and Castlecomer collieries with the Great Southern and Western system, he will consider the advisability of giving a similar Grant towards the construction of a line from the Arigna coalfields to Collooney on the Midland and Great Southern railways?
      Mr. SHORTT: The Board of Trade have exercised their powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations for the construction of colliery railways at Wolfhill and Castlecomer and also at Arigna, but it is not considered practicable to undertake the extension to Collooney referred to in the last part of the question.
      Mr. HOLT: Do I understand that the Government has given gratuitous Grants to the railways because of these collieries, and the owners of the collieries get the advantage?
      Mr. SHORTTmade a reply which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
      Mr. O'DOWD: Is it not a fact that Arigna is completely cut off from access to the mines, and if a company be established contributed to by the rates, will the Government consider giving it a free Grant to help the people of Arigna, who are cut off from fuel supply?
      Mr. SHORTT: The Government will consider any application. This railway covers a much bigger population in wartime than in peace time.
      Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that in 1903 a Treasury expert who visited the Arigna coalfields, situate in the counties of Sligo, Leitrim, and Roscommon, reported that the undeveloped portion of this region, situated in Geevagh, county Sligo, could alone produce 4,650,000 tons of coal besides millions of tons of iron; and, if so, whether, seeing that the counties of Sligo and Mayo are shut out from communication with these mines by want of railway facilities, he will devise some means by which the people of these counties may be facilitated in the matter of getting fuel?
      Mr. SHORTT: The figures quoted represent Mr Rankin's estimate of the total quantity of unworked coal in the whole Arigna mining field, only a small portion
      1936
      of which is county Sligo. Mr. Rankin gave estimate of the amount of iron in the Arigna field, but he came to the conclusion that the iron ore in the district could not then (1903) be worked at a profit. So far as can be seen, the line at present under construction from Arigna will be capable of carrying much more than any output of coal immediately probable for some time to come from the district served by it, which includes the chief mine, actually beng worked.
      Mr. O'DOWD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 3 miles of railway in course of construction is calculated to serve the northern counties, and places like Newcastle only, and not the people of Sligo, who are in need of it?
      Mr. SHORTT: I am not aware of that at all.
      Mr. O'DOWD: It is so.

      ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
      Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary has recently made two separate demands on the Sligo County Council, the one for £170 15s. and the other for £116 6s. 3d., both amounts said to be due on account of extra police stationed in the county, for the half-years ending the 31st March and 30th September, 1918, respectively; that in the particulars of demand it is stated that, with the exception of one head constable and 22 constables stationed in the borough of Sligo from 27th February to 31st March, 1918, the others stationed in Tubbercurry and Ballymote were in those places for one day only; and whether, in view of the fact that his predecessor in office, the late Mr. Wyndham, in 1903 wiped out a similar tax of £3,000, he will consider the advisability of having these claims withdrawn?
      Mr. SHORTT: The demands made on the County Council of Sligo for payment for extra forces of police are correctly stated, but the details of the forces charged for are not correct. In the half-year ended 31st March, 1918, the account included a charge for sixteen men at Ballymote from the 28th February to 31st March, and for sixteen men at Tubbercurry from 28th February to 16th March, in addition to charges for the period stated by the hon. Member. The account for the September, 1918, half-year include charges for sixteen men at Ballymote from the

      1937
      1st to the 18th April, and for fifteen men from the 18th to the 30th April, in addition to a charge for one man for eight days in April, at Tubbercurry. These men were brought into the county in connection with a serious outbreak of cattle-driving, and there is no reason why their services should not be paid for as provided for by the Statutes.
      Mr. O'DOWD: Is it not a fact that these extra police ostensibly brought into the county of Sligo to prevent cattle-driving and land commandeering did nothing of the kind?

      CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.
      Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Lieutenant-Commander Leslie Edmunds, senior inspector to the Congested Districts Board for most parts of Galway and Clare counties, is discharging Admiralty duties over the same area; if so, whether he receives a separate salary and allowances from each Department; whether, while discharging Admiralty duties, he is paid £1 per night subsistence allowance and, if so, by which Department; and if he will consider the desirability of this officer devoting his whole time either to Admiralty work or the work of the Board?
      Mr. SHORTT: Mr. Leslie Edmunds, senior inspector of the Congested Districts Board, is, with the sanction of the Board, discharging certain duties for the Admiralty on the coast of Galway and Clare counties. He receives from the Board, in addition to his salary, £1 1s. per night when absent from his home in Galway town on the business of the Board, but no subsistence allowance is paid to him by the Board when he is doing work for the Admiralty. Mr. Edmunds discharges his duties under the Board to their satisfaction, and they have no objection to a continuance of the present arrangement. I am not aware what allowances Mr. Edmunds gets from the Admiralty.

    DISCHARGED OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Labour how many discharged disabled officers are on the live list of the appointments branch of the Ministry of Labour; how many of these have not been placed in employment owing to their disability; and how many owing to their lack of the necessary experience?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): There are at present 1,130 ex-officers registered with the Appointments Department of the Ministry, who are available for immediate employment. The great majority of these have been put into communication with employers at least once, many of them more than once; and it is probable that some of them have obtained employment, as it frequently happens that successful applicants do not notify the Department. It is impossible to say how many have failed through disability and how many through of qualifications; but 570 cases are known in which employers have rejected ex-officer applicants and 656 cases in which the applicant has refused the post offered, usually on the ground of salary. There is no doubt that disability and lack of qualifications both contribute to the difficulty of finding employment in a large number of cases, and the experience of the Department shews clearly the value of a regular course of training or instruction in overcoming both these obstacles.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: In view of the fact that there are only fifty disabled officers on the list, does he not think the position profoundly unsatisfactory?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is under the pensions scheme. There are a great many more under the Ministry of Labour scheme.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE.

      DECORATIONS AND CHEVRONS.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry (1) On what date and by whose authority the order declining to allow members of the Royal Air Force to wear chevrons was issued; (2) whether a number of officers and men who, while in His Majesty's Army, earned and wore chevrons by reason of fighting at the front, now that they have transferred to the Royal Air Force have been ordered to remove such chevrons; and, if so, will he say by what authority the Air Council or any officer orders badges of honour awarded by His Majesty to be removed; and (3) whether officers and men of the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service, since transferred to the

      1939
      Royal Air Force, having earned and worn chevrons for work in France are now ordered to take them off?
      The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Wellington Division of Shropshire, of which I am sending him a copy.

    CIVILIAN AERIAL TRANSPORT
    Mr. JOYNSON-KICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether the Air Council has taken into consideration the Report of the Civilian Aerial Transport Committee; and whether they are in a position, when the War comes to an end, to enable civilian transport to at once commence?
    Major BAIRD: Yes, Sir; the Report has been considered by the Air Council. Action is being taken with a view to forwarding legislation, international agreements, and other measures requisite in connection with civil aerial transport at home and abroad at the end of the War.

    CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS.
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any consideration has been given to the position of the Civil Service and other pensioners whose pensions, being on a pre-war basis, are inadequate to meet the present cost of living; and whether, in view of the hardship now being suffered, he will appoint a Committee to inquire into this matter and make recommendations at an early date?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I regret that, for reasons which have been frequently stated in the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, I am unable to accept this suggestion.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has considered the application for an old age pension by M. A. M., No. 1406, the decision of the Skipton Pensions Com-
    1940
    mittee to grant this old woman the full pension of 5s. a week, and the appeal of the local pension officer that this claim cannot properly be allowed because in his opinion the yearly means exceed £31 10s., which debars the grant of any pension at all; whether he is aware that this applicant has been a widow for thirty years, is penniless, and is physically unfit to perform the lightest household duties, but, as she lives with her two daughters, the pension officer calculates that she is receiving for rent, coal, gas, and sundries 3s. 6d. per week, for clothing 1s. per week, and for food 8s. 6d. per week, or a total of 13s. per week; whether he has decided to uphold the decision of the local committee or to confirm the findings of the pension officer; and whether, in the event of his confirmation of the pension officer's report, he will explain how any applicant for an old age pension who happens to be provided with a shelter and with the bare necessaries of life at present-day prices can, under the Schedule of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, succeed in being awarded the full pension of 5s. per week?
    Mr. WALSH: The claimant in this case is being maintained by two daughters, with whom she lives, and the pension subcommittee held that her yearly means were nil. The Local Government Board have been advised, however, that in estimating the means of a claimant to a pension account must be taken, under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, of the value of free board and lodging when received. The Board have decided that the value of the claimant's maintenance should be taken at 10s. a week, and have accordingly awarded an old age pension at the rate of 3s. a week, which will be payable from early in September last. The claimant will also receive an allowance of 2s. 6d. a week, in addition to the pension, under the scheme of the Treasury.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the President of the Locol Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the cost of the four-pound loaf has gone up from 5½d. in July, 1914, to 9¾d. in July, 1918, he can see his way to substitute £36 10s., £41 5s., £46, £50 15s., and £55 10s. for the £21, £23 12s. 6d., £26 5s., £28 17s. 6d., and £31 10s. in the Schedule of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908; whether he can do this administratively or will it require legislation; and whether, if it requires legislation, he will forthwith introduce the measure necessary?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have been asked to reply to these questions. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 22nd ultimo to the Member for the Dublin Harbour Division.

    INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC.

      RESEARCH WORK.
      Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether the Medical Research Committee of the National Insurance Com missioners has for some time past been undertaking important research work in connection with influenza; whether the results of the research have been made public; and, if so, whether a full use is being made of the knowledge they have acquired?
      Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Comptroller Of the Household): In view of the public importance of the subject-matter of the three parts of my hon. Friend's question, my reply is necessarily of some length, and I would therefore ask him to let me circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT instead of reading it now.
      The following is the reply circulated:
      The Medical Research Committee have been continuously engaged, since the beginning of the first wave of the epidemic last spring, upon special efforts in regard to the etiology and the prevention of influenza and its complications. They have collected and periodically published expert reports of observations from all quarters, and have organised special researches in regard to it. These efforts have been more restricted than would otherwise have been the case owing to the urgent needs of the Army for pathological and other investigations into numerous kinds of diseases and wound problems, in which the Committee have also been heavily engaged from the outbreak of war until now. The Committee's activities in all these fields are fully set out in their Annual Reports to me, which are presented to Parliament, and have a wide distribution amongst experts and the profession, for whom they are, of course, from their nature, mainly useful. Their Fourth Report, which is now before me, will be published in a few days.
      In reply to the second part of the question, I may say that in the first week of
      1942
      last August the Committee sent to the medical newspapers, for the information of the medical and health authorities, a résumé of various important communications on the subject of influenza, including an indication of the likelihood of the onset of secondary waves of the epidemic in the autumn, which their inquiries led them to expect would be more severe in character than the primary wave of last spring. For that reason the Committee on that date publicly invited observations from experts at various centres with a view to the further organisation of co-ordinated work in the study of those secondary waves. The severity of the present epidemic now shows that that anticipation on the part of the Committee, which can be read in the "British Medical Journal," of 10th August, was all too fully correct, and that the Committee did its duty in giving the warning beforehand to the expert authorities.
      As regards the actual epidemic itself, the Committee have been continuously collecting expert information, likely to be useful to the health authorities and the medical profession, as to its nature and progress in Europe, from the chief foreign sources, including much important work done during these months in Germany and Austria. This the Committee have periodically published in English, combined with the results of British observations, in their Monthly Medical Supplements, of which several thousand copies are regularly distributed amongst professional experts and put on sale, early copies being sent to the Medical Department of the Local Government Board and other Government Departments concerned. My hon. Friend should see specially the September, October, and November issues, of which I am sending him copies.
      With reference to the practical side of the problem, I should state that the Committee were strongly represented at the important conference of bacteriologists, held at the War Office some weeks ago on the possibilities of utilising vaccines for the prevention or treatment of the prevailing forms of influenza amongst the troops, under the chairmanship of Sir William Leishman, Adviser in Pathology to the Army Medical Department, and also a member of the Medical Research Committee. The outcome of that discussion was issued to the medical Press by Sir William Leishman, and it also appeared in the pamphlet issued by the

      1943
      Local Government Board on the subject. In addition to this, the Committee's Bacteriological Department have been giving aid to the War Office in the steps which have been taken to prepare and provide protective vaccines against the dangerous complications of secondary infections amongst the troops; and the Committee's Secretary concurrently made suggestions to the medical officer of the Local Government Board for analogous steps to be taken by that Board for the benefit of the civil population.
      In this connection, and in reply to the third paragraph of the question, I must remind my hon. Friend that it is not the duty of the Medical Research Committee to carry out the actual treatment or prevention of this disease, which is the province of the public health authorities, local and central, but to obtain new knowledge and valuable information in regard to it by special researches and otherwise, and to have this readily available to those health authorities, for them to put to its proper practical uses for the benefit of the civil population. The earlier paragraphs of this reply will have shown, I hope, that the Committee has carried out its proper functions in this respect with considerable effectiveness, especially in view of the difficulties occasioned by the constant loss of trained researchers claimed for military service.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Joseph Havelock Wilson, Esquire, for the Borough of South Shields.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what business will be taken to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The only change in business is that the Tithe Bill, which was not taken yesterday, will be the second Order to-morrow.

  AUSTRIA (SURRENDER).
    ARMISTICE TERMS.

      STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): With the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement. I think the House would desire to have such information as I am in a position to give it in regard to the Conferences of the Allies which have been meeting at Versailles, and about the important events of last week.
      The Conferences were attended by Ministers representative of France, Italy, and Great Britain, by Colonel House, as representing the President of the United States, by the naval and military advisers of the Allied Governments, and by representatives of Japan, Belgium, Serbia, Greece, and Portugal, and also of the Czecho-Slovaks.
      The first matter to which the Supreme War Council gave its attention was the final elimination of Turkey from the War. The terms of the Armistice with Turkey and the conditions under which it was signed have already been made public, and I need say litle more on that subject. The conditions of the Armistice not only deprived Germany of her Eastern Ally, but give to the Allied Governments the command of the Black Sea—a matter of great importance, from the point of view of the future conduct of the War. Last week, whilst the Conference was sitting, we heard that the Commander-in-Chief of the Austro-Hungarian Army had sent a parlementaire across the lines to General Diaz, asking for the conditions upon which the Allies would grant an armistice. After the fullest consultation, both with their naval and military advisers, the Supreme War Council agreed upon the conditions, and they were
      1956
      immediately dispatched to General Diaz, for transmission to the Austro-Hungarian Commander-in-Chief and Government. The terms as communicated to Austria Hungary were as follow:

      I. MILITARY CLAUSES.
      "1. The immediate cessation of hostilities by land, sea, and air.
      "2. Total demobilisation of the Austro-Hungarian Army, and immediate withdrawal of all Austro-Hungarian forces operating on the front from the North Sea to Switzerland.
      "Within Austro-Hungarian territory, limited as in Clause 3 below, there shall only be maintained as an organised military force a maximum of twenty divisions reduced to pre-war peace effectives.
      "Half the divisional corps and army artillery and equipment shall be collected at points to be indicated by the Allies and United States of America for delivery to them, beginning with all such material as exists in the territories to be evacuated by the Austro-Hungarian forces.
      "3. Evacuation of all territories invaded by Austria-Hungary since the beginning of war. Withdrawal within such periods as shall be determined by the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied forces on each front of the Austro-Hungarian Armies behind a line fixed as follows":
      Here is a very long list of names which make very little impression unless one has a map in front of him. So I have asked the War Office to summarise the meaning of these geographical terms, and I will read that summary to the House, because it will be more intelligible in the absence of the map:
      The Austro-Hungarian Armies have to retire behind a line which affords a strategic safeguard for Italy's Alpine frontier.
      From the Swiss frontier this line follows the watershed of the Rhætian, Carnic, and Julian Alps to the Gulf of Fiume (excluding the port of that name).
      It compels Austria-Hungary to evacuate all the Tyrol south of the Brenner Pass, and also to evacuate the Carso Plateau and the Istrian Peninsula. (That, of course, includes Trieste.)
      Further south, the Austro-Hungarian forces have to evacuate the Province of Dalmatian and the Dalmatian Islands, with the exception of the islands in the Gulf of Spalato.
      [The Military boundaries to which in the foregoing summary the Prime Minister referred are, by the terms of the Armistice, described as follows:—
      From Piz Umbrail to the North of the Stelvio it will follow the crest of the Rhætian Alps up to the sources of the Adige and the Eisach, passing thence by Mounts Reschen and Brenner and the heights of Oetz and Ziller; the line thence turns south crossing Mount Toblach and meeting the present frontier of the Carnic Alps. It follows this frontier up to Mount Tarvis, and after Mount Tarvis the watershed of the Julian Alps by the Col of Predil, Mount Mangart, the Tricorno (Terglou), and the watershed of the Cols di Podberdo, Podlaniscam, and Idria. From this point the line turns south-east towards the Schneeberg, excluding the whole basin of the Save and its tributaries; from the Sehneeberg it goes down towards the coast in such a way as to include Castua, Mattuglia, and Volosca in the evacuated territories.
      It will also follow the administrative limits of the present Province of Dalmatia, including to the north Lisarica and Trivania, and, to the south, territory limited by a line from the shore of Cape Planca to the summits of the watershed eastwards, so as to include in the evacuated area all the valleys and watercourse flowing towards Sebenico, such as the Cicola, Kerka, Butisnica, and their tributaries. It will also include all the islands in the north and west of Dalmatia from Premuda, Selve, Ulbo, Scherda, Maon, Pago, and Patadura in the north up to Meleda in the south, embracing Sant Andrea, Busi, Lissa, Lesina, Tercola, Curzola, Caza, and Lagosta, as well as the neighbouring rocks and islets and Pelagosa, only excepting the islands of Great and Small Zirona, Bua, Solta, and Brazza.]
      "All territories thus evacuated will be occupied by the troops of the Allies and of the United States of America.
      "All military and railway equipment of all kinds (including coal), belonging to or within these territories, to be left in situ, and surrendered to the Allies according to special orders given by the Commanders-in-Chief of the forces of the Associated Powers on the different fronts. No new destruction, pillage or requisition to be done by enemy troops in the
      1958
      territories to be evacuated by them, and occupied by the forces of the Associated Powers.
      "4. The Allies shall have the right of free movement over all road and rail and waterways in Austro-Hungarian territory, and of the use of the necessary Austrian and Hungarian means of transportation.
      "The Armies of the Associated Powers shall occupy such strategic points in Austria-Hungary at such times as they may deem necessary to enable them to conduct military operations or to maintain order.
      "They shall have the right of requisition on payment for the troops of the Associated Powers wherever they may be.
      "5. Complete evacuation of all German troops within fifteen days, not only from the Italian and Balkan Fronts, but from all Austro-Hungarian territory.
      "Internment of all German troops who have not left Austria-Hungary within that date.
      "6. The administration of the evacuated territories of Austria-Hungary will be entrusted to the local authorities under the control of the Allied and Associated Armies of occupation.
      "7. The immediate repatriation, without reciprocity, of all Allied prisoners of war and interned subjects, and of civil populations evacuated from their homes, on conditions to be laid down by the Commanders-in-Chief of the forces of the Associated Powers on the various fronts.
      "8. Sick and wounded who cannot be removed from evacuated territory will be cared for by Austro-Hungarian personnel who will be left on the spot, with the medical material required."

      II. NAVAL CONDITIONS.
      I now come to the naval conditions.
      "I. Immediate cessation of all hostilities at sea, and definite information to be given as to the location and movements of all Austro-Hungarian ships.
      "Notification to be made to neutrals that freedom of navigation in all territorial waters is given to the Naval and Mercantile Marines of the Allied and Associated Powers, all questions of neutrality being waived.
      "II. Surrender to the Allies and the United States of America of fifteen Austro-Hungarian submarines, completed between the years 1910 and 1918, and

      1959
      of all German submarines which are in or may hereafter enter Austro-Hungarian territorial waters. All other Austro-Hungarian submarines to be paid off, and completely disarmed, and to remain under the supervision of the Allies and United States of America.
      "III. Surrender to the Allies and United States of America, with their complete armament and equipment, of

      3

      Battleships,

      3

      Light Cruisers,

      9

      Destroyers,

      12

      Torpedo Boats,

      1

      Minelayer,

      6

      Danube Monitors,

      to be designated by the Allies and the United States of America. All other surface warships (including river craft) are to be concentrated in Austro-Hungarian naval bases to be designated by the Allies and the United States of America, and are to be paid off and completely disarmed, and placed under the supervision of the Allies and the United States of America."
      As a matter of fact the whole of the Austrian Fleet is, I believe, under the Yugo-Slav flag.
      "IV. Freedom of navigation to all warships and merchant ships of the Allied and Associated Powers to be given in the Adriatic and up the River Danube and its tributaries in the territorial waters and territory of Austria-Hungary."
      That is a very important provision.
      "The Allies and Associated Powers shall have the right to sweep up all minefields and obstructions, and the positions of these are to be indicated.
      "In order to ensure the freedom of navigation on the Danube, the Allies and the United States of America shall be empowered to occupy, or to dismantle, all fortifications or defence works.
      "V. The existing blockade conditions set up by the Allied and Associated Powers are to remain unchanged, and all Austro-Hungarian merchant ships found at sea are to remain liable to capture, save exceptions which may be made by a Commission nominated by the Allies and United States of America.
      "VI. All naval aircraft are to be concentrated, and immobilised in Austro-Hungarian bases to be designated by the Allies and United States of America.
      "VII. Evacuation of all the Italian coasts and of all ports occupied by Austria-Hungary outside their national territory, and the abandonment of all floating craft, naval materials, equipment, and materials for inland navigation of all kinds.
      "VIII. Occupation by the Allies and the United States of America of the land and sea fortifications and the islands which form the defences and of the dockyards and arsenal at Pola.
      "IX. All merchant vessels held by Austria-Hungary belonging to the Allies and Associated Powers to be returned.
      "X. No destruction of ships or of materials to be permitted before evacuation, surrender, or restoration.
      "XI. All naval and mercantile marine prisoners of war of the Allied and Associated Powers in Austro-Hungarian hands to be returned without reciprocity."
      We gave the Austro-Hungarian Government until twelve midnight on Sunday to accept these terms. On Sunday afternoon, we received the news that all these conditions had been accepted, and that General Diaz had signed an Armistice, which was to come into operation on Monday at 3 p.m.
      The most important point about these terms is that they give to the Allies the free use of Austro-Hungarian territory and communications, for the purpose of operations of war. When we consider that the events of the past few weeks have liberated all the Allied forces which have hitherto been operating against Turkey, against Bulgaria, and against Austria-Hungary, to be used for the great converging final attack upon Germany, the full significance of the terms which I have just read will be apparent to all.
      I am glad to be able to announce that, by the unanimous decision of the Governments concerned, Marshal Foch has been placed in supreme strategic direction of all forces operating against Germany on all fronts in this the last and decisive phase of the War.
      There are two other remarks which I should like to make on this subject. In the first place, I think we ought all to recognise the great debt of gratitude we owe to the Italian Army and to General Diaz for the great victory they have won. This victory means the final removal of the danger which has threatened Italian liberty and Italian security for many centuries. I would, therefore, ask the House to join the Government in expressing their

      1961
      heartfelt admiration and gratitude to the Italian Army and people for the great and invaluable triumph which they have just gained.
      4.0 P.M.
      I should also like to pay a tribute to the very real part which has been taken in achieving this victory by the British troops, under the command of Lord Cavan. They have played a röle in this battle fully worthy of the unforgettable achievements of their compatriots on the Western Front. The other thing I would like to do is to offer our congratulations to the Czechoslovak and Jugo-Slav peoples, who have thrown off the yoke of their oppressors, and joined themselves openly with the Allies. These little nations, which have stood out so long and with such heroism against Germanic domination, may rest assured that the Allies intend to come to their aid as fast as they possibly can.
      After thus disposing of the questions of the terms of the Armistice with Turkey and with Austro-Hungary, the Supreme War Council proceeded to consider the answer which they should make to the dispatch of the President of the United States, covering his correspondence from the German Government which has been made public, and the reply they should give to the German request for an Armistice
      I am unable to give the House any information on this subject further than to say that, after the fullest deliberation with their naval and military advisers, complete agreement was reached among the Allies. Their conclusions have been transmitted to the President of the United States, with the request that he should inform the German Government that, if they wish to know the conditions of Armistice upon which the Allies are agreed, they should make the application to Marshal Foch in the usual military form. If an application be made, a British Naval representative will be Associated with Marshal Foch. Whatever the reply, the associated Powers await the issue with perfect confidence.
      Mr. ASQUITH: I should like, if I may, by the indulgence of the House, to say with how much satisfaction we have listened to the statement of the Prime Minister. The terms of the Armistice with Austria which he has announced will, I think, give a universal sense of security, and none more than the fact that Austro-Hungarian territory is now open for the
      1962
      operations of the Allied forces. There is one other thing—though this is not the occasion on which to make an extended review of the situation—I should like to be permitted to do, and that is to associate the whole House with what the Prime Minister said as to our heartfelt congratulations to the Italian Army and the Italian people on the brilliant and decisive results which they have achieved, after three and a half years of most strenuous fighting. They have not only driven the enemy from their own territory, but have planted their flag on soil where the people have long been waiting reunion—political reunion—with their own kindred. They have, at the same time, joined hands with the gallant Jugo-Slavs in their great work of emancipation. I am sure that this House and the whole country will wish to offer its respectful felicitations to His Majesty the King of Italy—the Commander-in-Chief of the Italian Army, an old and tried friend of this country, and a worthy descendant of the great King-Liberator of Italy.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to move:
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is essential that, before the British Government takes part in any proceeding for the resettlement of Europe on the conclusion of peace, the Irish question should be settled in accordance with the principles laid down by President Wilson, that all nations, large and small, should have free self-determination as to their form of government, and that no people should be ruled and dominated even in their own internal affairs by arbitrary and irresponsible force instead of by their own will and choice, principles for which, in the words of the Prime Minister, the Allies are ostensibly fighting in every other country; and that by the application of these principles the system of coercion and military rule, under which Ireland is at present governed, should be brought to an end."
  I dare say the House may consider at first sight that the passage from the epoch-making announcement of the Prime Minister to the case of Ireland is something like an emotional descent. But I do not know of any moment which could be more appropriate for the introduction of this Motion than the moment following the speech of the Prime Minister. I observe that the right hon. Gentleman, among the items in the great programme he laid before the House, took special care to mention the case of the Czecho-Slovaks and the Jugo-Slavs, and to congratulate those small peoples on their liberation

  1963
  from their German oppressors. I ask this House to follow the example of the Prime Minister and to help another small nation—another small oppressed nation—to be congratulated on its early liberation from another form of oppression. I cannot understand if this House were free to give its decision without pressure from any quarter except its own conscience and its own opinions—I cannot understand how, outside a few of my hon. Friends from the North of Ireland, this Motion of mine could be met with a single dissentient voice. As a matter of fact, what is the Motion? I might describe it as a series of axioms. A severe critic might describe it as a series of platitudes. It is simply putting again the statements of principles with regard to Ireland which have been the common utterances of nearly every leader of every political party in this House, and not the least of them, the present Prime Minister. Why do I bring forward this Motion at this moment? I bring it forward to enable the Government to complete the cycle of the liberation of Europe. I am sure it would be a matter of gratification to the Prime Minister, after his well-deserved eulogy of the Jugo-Slavs for the successful end of their gallant fight for liberation, to have an opportunity of adding the same congratulations to those people of whose liberties in the past he has been the champion.
  The time is opportune for another reason. I understand we are to have an early appeal to the people. I do not think it unreasonable to inquire on what ground the Government and the different parties in this House will ask for the confidence of the people. Are they or are they not in favour of self-government for Ireland? If they are in favour of it, I cannot understand anyone opposing this Motion. This is, if I may say so, an acid test of the sincerity of every man and every party in this House and in this country. There are Labour Members of the Government. Everybody knows what the opinion of the Labour party of this country is on the Irish question; it has been expressed over and over again, and, so far as I know, from reading reports of their different conferences and meetings, self-government for Ireland has been accepted by them without a vote or even a dissentient voice. Those Gentlemen who at the present time represent Labour in the Government cannot, I should think,
  1964
  see their way to vote against this Resolution. If they do so, they may remain members of the Government, but they will cease to be representative of Labour. I make no complaint. Every man must be the judge of his own honour and his own consistency, but I cannot help thinking that the Labour Members of this Government would only be acting consistently with their principles if they offered the Government the choice between their resignation and the acceptance of this principle to which they, as individual members of the Labour party, are pledged.
  I do not know what the attitude of the Government will be, the only indication I have got points to a blank negative. We shall, I suppose, hear from the Chief Secretary what their intentions are. This Motion is brought forward at a time when practically one sees the end of the War, when only one enemy—the most powerful, it is true—still holds out. After the statement of the Prime Minister to-day everybody must feel that the surrender of Germany is close at hand. The bond which kept the men of different parties together in the common purpose of vigorously prosecuting this War to a successful end—a task with which I have been in active sympathy since the beginning of the War—that bond is now brought to an end, and every party and every Member of this House must take his own decision and act accordingly. The Peace Conference must soon follow, and the question I want to put to the House is this: This Peace Conference is to decide for what purpose this War was really fought, and what purposes it was really intended to achieve. Was the War fought for the possession of territory, was it fought for the suppression of liberty, or was this War fought by those who are now the successful and victorious belligerents, to establish in the world principles of liberty? I think I have a right to ask the Government whether, when they approach the Peace Conference, they are going there as the advocates or the opponents of liberty in Ireland. Is the Government of this country to appear at that Conference to demand the liberation of the small nations of the world, and at the same time refuse the demand of their own small nationality? I think we ought to know that before the Government go into the Peace Conference.
  I have founded my Motion on the words of President Wilson and of the Prime

  1965
  Minister, two very high authorities. In both cases my difficulty is the embarrassment of the riches of my material. There is not a single utterance made by the President of the United States since this War began which is not a plea for the liberation of Ireland—not one. I know there are some stray dissentient voices in the country which criticse in various particulars the utterances of the President of the United States. I observe from the papers that the right hon. Gentleman was present in Dublin with Lord French the other night and listened in silence—I suppose from politeness—to one of the most vulgar and stupid attacks upon the President of the United States. But the Provost of Trinity College, I am glad to say, is exceptional. What did the President say on 4th July:
  "On the one hand stand the peoples of the world, not only the peoples actually engaged, but many others also who suffer under mastery but cannot act."
  Can anybody doubt of what country the President was speaking? In New York the President said:
  "Shall the military power of any nation or group of nations be suffered to determine the fortunes of peoples over whom they have no right to rule except the right of force?"
  Does that apply to Ireland?
  "Shall strong nations be free to ruin weak nations and make them subjects of their purposes and interests? Shall peoples be ruled and dominated even in their own internal affairs by arbitrary and irresponsible force, or by their own will and choice?"
  I ask the Chief Secretary, does he accept these principles? If he accepts these principles as applicable, does he then take refuge in the extraordinary statement that they are applicable everywhere except in Ireland,
  "Shall there be a common standard of right and privilege for all peoples and nations, or shall the strong do as they will and the weak suffer without redress?"
  I could go on, but probably that is enough for the present. Nobody has any doubt as to where the President of the United States stands on the question of Ireland and of the other small nations who are about to get their redress. I come to the Prime Minister. I do not say that his language has such classic austerity as the language of the President of the United States; but, allowing for the difference of style, the idea is the same. The Prime Minister said:
  "I am certain of this: Nothing would help more in the present juncture to secure, I will not say the ready and enthusiastic aid, but to
  1966
  secure the full measure of American assistance than the determination of the British Parliament to tender to Ireland such a measure of self-government as would satisfy reasonable American opinion, and I believe we are going to do that."
  He has not done it yet. We are now in November, and are apparently going to have a General Election, and we do not know yet whether the Prime Minister and his Government mean to honour that promise to Ireland. The Prime Minister said:
  "Therefore we came to the conclusion, after considering the whole situation and considering it purely from the point of view of the best methods for the prosecution of the War, that Irish self-government, after this Convention had reported, was an essential war measure."
  It was to be pushed through the House during the War as a war measure. I should not be surprised to find that the Chief Secretary or some representative of the Government will now get up and say that, as the War is practically over, the necessity for Home Rule as a war measure has disappeared, and that will be given as another excuse for the further postponement of the settlement of this question. I am justified in relying upon the speeches of President Wilson. Far be it from me—Heaven forbid!—to underrate the great things done in this War by the troops of Great Britain and Ireland, or the troops of France or of Italy; but nobody can deny that the intervention of the forces of America, both moral and material, marked the beginning of the end of the German resistance. I am entitled to quote President Wilson, because, whatever criticisms or questionings may occur—I do not find fault with them if they are made in a proper spirit, not the Trinity College spirit—everybody knows that from the intervention of America in this War the President has spoken the right word and the just word, and has been what George Eliot called in one of her novels, "the external conscience" of mankind with regard to issues of the War. The second point of my Motion is that this question is urgent, that it should be dealt with immediately, and that it should be dealt with anyhow before the Peace Conference. On that point, I will not quote the Prime Minister any further, but I would like to quote a sentence from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I may say of the Liberal party, as of the Labour party, that at every single one of their conferences their inflexible adhesion to the principle of Home Rule for Ireland has been

  1967
  maintained. Here is what my right hon. Friend said at Manchester on 27th September:
  "I desire to insist upon that, which is fundamental and involves both the honour of our statesmen and the moral authority of this country as a partner in the Allied cause. We are pledged, all of us, to arrive without slackness or delay at a solution of the secular problem of the relations of these two islands. There is nothing in the whole sphere of our Imperial and domestic policy so immediate in its urgency and so far-reaching in its consequences as that we should be able to enter the council chamber of peace free from the reproach that the only part of our Empire to which we are afraid to grant self-government is that which lies nearest to our own shores."
  I wonder has the Chief Secretary any answer to that, or any objection to make to that statement! As regards the Irish claim, I wonder that anybody at this time of day thinks it wise to utter any criticism in principle of Home Rule for Ireland. If anybody does so, he is not up-to-date. As a matter of fact, Home Rule for Ireland is the law of the land. It has been the law of the land since September, 1914. An hon. Friend and colleague of mine in the representation of Liverpool has put down an Amendment. He divides Ireland into four parts. I am afraid my hon. Friend is under the impression that he is dealing with the constituencies of Liverpool under the new Reform Act. But let it be understood that our position as Irishmen is that we have always been a nation, almost from the beginning of history, that it is as a nation we make our demand, and that any settlement of the Irish question must be a recognition of Ireland as a nation. If anybody doubts that Ireland has ever been a nation, he must be ignorant of the history of Ireland. We had all the distinct marks of nationhood 2,000 years before the Norman barons came to Ireland. We had a Central Assembly at Tara before you had your Witanagamot. We had Christianity before you had it; we had culture before you had it. In the sixth and seventh centuries it was Irish teachers who brought culture, civilisation and Christianity to all the countries, courts and universities of Europe. We are proud of that great unbroken story of national existence and of national struggle. We are not North Britons, we are not West Britons; we have always been Irishmen, we always shall be Irishmen, and it is with us as an Irish nation that you have to deal.
  1968
  I will now deal with another argument that I have seen urged occasionally against our claims. I am not so much distressed by this argument because of its absurdity as because of its insincerity. I know there are some people even as far away as America who say: "England is quite ready to give Ireland anything she wants, only Ireland must tell us what she wants, and Ireland must be united." Everyone knows there is a faction in Ireland which is determined to stand out against the appeal of the whole world and against the recognition of Irish nationality. I would ask, if it is contended that any part of any people has a right to prevent or stand in the way of the liberation of a nation or race, what nation is going to be liberated, and what race is going to be liberated? I rejoice, no one more heartily, in the liberation of nations or races. I think I knew all about the Jugo-Slavs when the Prime Minister was in his perambulator. I was longing and praying for their liberation when he was learning his alphabet, or perhaps nourishing himself from the feeding bottle. But if you establish this principle, that a minority has a right to stand in the way of the liberation of a nation, I am afraid that the poor Jugo-Slavs, and still more the Czecho-Slovaks, would come out very badly. What are the facts? The Orangemen of Ireland who are opposed to Home Rule amount to no more than 18 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the population. Take Bohemia. Of course, I am delighted that Bohemia is getting her liberty. I have longed for it for forty-eight years. Does the House realise that while 65 per cent. of the population of Bohemia is Czech, 35 per cent. of the population of Bohemia is German—very German? Take the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Christians amount, roughly, to 1,000,000 and the Mahomedans to 500,000. Does anyone contend that because 50 per cent. are Mahomedans Bosnia and Herzegovina should not get their liberty? Take Alsace-Lorraine, the liberation of which I have prayed for since 1871, when pro-Frenchmen were a little less common than they are to-day, when all the rabble of Jingo writers preached the gospel of force and of Germany, headed by Carlyle and Froude and now represented by certain writers to-day. I take the figures from one of the many books given to me by the Alsatian League, which, of course, recognises me as a lifelong friend, and I find the population of Alsace-

  1969
  Lorraine was 1,900,000, and according to this brochure there are 350,000 German immigrants. Is it suggested that Alsace-Lorraine should not get her liberty because there happen to be immigrants from Germany there? Certainly not! Take the case even of Russian Poland, where 64 per cent. of the population is Polish, it is true, but 36 per cent. belong to other nationalities. You cannot lay down this doctrine that the minority should stand between a nation and its liberation without refusing liberation to every one of the countries whose liberation you have helped to bring about.
  I have spoken of Ulster standing between Ireland and her liberation. Of course she is. But Ulster does a little more than that. Ulster stands between this Empire and its honour and its security. That is the way it was put by Sir Horace Plunkett in a recent publication. No man is more entitled to be listened to on an Irish question than Sir Horace Plunkett, who was once a Unionist but had intelligence enough to allow his mind to be influenced by the spirit of the times and by the changed condition of things.
  Mr. BARRIE Mr. BARRIE made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Sir Horace Plunkett is an Irishman, and the gentleman who interrupted me is not. Anyone who opposes Home Rule for Ireland—I do not care whether it is an Orangeman or a Chief Secretary who once called himself a Liberal—stands between the British Empire and security. Why do I say that? Does anyone suppose that the fruits of this War will be safeguarded and maintained if there be not something like a League of Nations after the War, and can he exclude from it, if it is going to be effective, the United States of America? A League of Nations without the United States of America would not be a League of Nations at all. I make no apology whatever for alluding to the influence of my people and my race in the United States of America. If I needed an apology I should find it in the emphasis which over and over again the Prime Minister has laid upon the good will of America in the vigorous conduct of this War. Everyone knows the facts. We have in America 5,000,000 of our people, born on the soil of Ireland, driven out of Ireland in every circumstance of horror, brutality and savagery. We have a great
  1970
  many more who were not born in Ireland, and mark this, the Irish in America to-day are not the Irish of 1846! In 1846 they landed on the shores of America, flying from famine and plague. They landed in rags, hunger and poverty—those who did land. A great many were murdered, just as much as the people of the "Lusitania" were murdered, by the coffin ships into which they were put by ruthless shipowners and the cupidity of landlords. It is nearly three generations since 1846, and the Irish have had these three generations of the splendid and incalculable possibilities of American life, and the result of it is that they are more powerful to-day, not quantitatively, but qualitatively, than ever they were. Everywhere they fill great positions. They differ amongst themselves as we differ in Ireland. Irishmen may have one solution or another of the Irish question, but I have not met a single man of Irish blood in the United States who is not resolved to give all he can towards the liberation of the motherland of his race. I put this solemnly to the House: I have been in America many times, and I have recently spent thirteen months there. I have fought the battle of the Allied cause there against great obstacles and at the expense of the friendship of millions of my own race who believe every lie invented by my enemies among my own race with regard to me. I have got nearer to the heart of America during these thirteen months than ever I did before, and now I solemnly declare two things—first that good relations between England and America are of vital interest to the British Empire and are the only safeguard for maintaining the fruits of this War in a more peaceful and a happier world; and second, that you cannot get these good relations between England and America unless you reconcile the Irish race in America, and you will never reconcile the Irish race in America unless you give to Ireland her liberty.
  There is one more thing to be said about the opinion of America. Do not object that I am introducing the domestic polities of Ireland into America or the domestic politics of America into Ireland. That is academic nonsense. These are facts. The Prime Minister in his speech, impressing upon the House the necessity of carrying Home Rule as a war measure, alluded to the influence of the Irish in America. I

  1971
  want to read a quite recent cablegram that appeared in the correspondence of the "Times" from Washington:
  "Since the refusal of Ireland to have Conscription, the Irish extremist is less popular than he has been among Americans in general."
  That is perfectly true. I told my countrymen that when I came home. I have, never denied it. I think the blame cast upon Ireland for refusing Conscription was unjust, but I can quite realise how Americans, with Conscription among themselves of their own sons, should be unable to understand or sympathise with the position in Ireland. But does that alter the essential and permanent factors of the situation? The correspondent adds:
  "The Irish-Americans are strong in political circles and now, as always, one of the chief prayers of those who have the Anglo-American relationship at heart is for a prompt settlement of Irish affairs."
  I have a great many English friends in America. My truest and sincerest friend in America was an Englishman. I could not find a single Englishman in America, who has lived in America, who could be described as an intelligent man, that does not agree with the language of this cablegram and that does not beg and pray you to settle the Irish question and obtain good relations between England and the United States. I challenge the Government for a statement of their policy. I have a challenge of much more authority than mine. I suppose the House read with some interest the remarkable speech which the President made recently in New York:
  "The counsels of plain men have become on all hands more simple and straightforward and more unified than the counsels of sophisticated men of affairs who still retain the impression that they are playing a game of power and playing for high stakes."
  I do not suggest any personal allusion, though I might.
  "That is why I have said that this is a people's war and not a statesmen's war. Statesmen must follow in clarified thought or be broken. I take that to be the significance of the fact that assemblies and associations of many kinds, made up of plain workaday people, have demanded almost every time they came together, and are still demanding, that the leaders of their Governments declare to them plainly exactly what it is that they are seeking in this War and what they think the items of their final settlement should be."
  The President put that question and complained that he had got no answer.
  "They still seem to fear that they are getting what they ask for only in statesmen's terms, only in the terms of territorial arrangements and discussions of power and not in terms of broad-
  1972
  visioned justice, and mercy and peace, and the satisfaction of the deep-seated longings of oppressed and distracted men and women and enslaved peoples. That seems to them the only thing worth fighting the War for that engulfs the world. Perhaps statesmen have not always recognised this changed aspect of the whole world. Perhaps they have not always spoken in direct reply to the questions asked because they did not know how searching these questions were and what sort of answers they demanded. But I, for one, am glad to attempt the answer again and again, in the hope that I may make it clearer and clearer, that my one thought is to satisfy those who struggle in the ranks, and are, perhaps above all others, entitled to a reply whose meaning no one can have any excuse for misunderstanding, if he understands the language in which it is spoken, or can get someone to translate it correctly into his own. And I believe that the Leaders of the Governments with which we are associated will speak, as they have occasion, as plainly as I have tried to speak."
  "I believe that the Leaders of the Governments with which we are associated will speak, as they have on previous occasions, as plainly as I speak." But the Leaders have not yet spoken! We have never had anyone speak as plainly as the President has spoken. They have not spoken at all! They are about to approach the country and the Peace Conference with a policy yet undeveloped and yet undefined. The last objection to my Motion with which I will deal with is that Ireland cannot get Homo Rule because she is disturbed. Will the Chief Secretary drag out from the armoury of dead-and-forgotten things, killed in this War, such a plea as that? Is there a single country that has achieved its liberation to-day in which a similar plea could not be put forward? This is the vicious circle. There is the denial of liberty, the promise of liberty, then the breach of that promise, then repression and disorder, then more depression and still more disorder—is that the vicious circle to which you look forward with any satisfaction? There is not a single country in the world where liberty has been refused where disorder has not occurred. My fear—and I speak with some apprehension, and even with hesitation, but I am bound to say it—my fear is that the course of repression in Ireland will take the same course as in many other countries, and as it has frequently taken in Ireland, and that that repression will become more severe and that disorder will become more severs until you may have in Ireland something of the hideous phenomena that even in our hours of glory in connection with this War we see in the case of Russia Since Mr. Gladstone took up the policy of

  1973
  Home Rule, in 1885, there has never been a time like the present. There is, so far as I know, only one cure for the discontent and disorder of the country—that is, liberty and responsibility. If the Chief Secretary shall say anything to the contrary, I tell him that he may remain a Cabinet Minister, but he will cease to be Liberal.
  What kind of oppression have we in Ireland? You know more about Russia in this country than you do about Ireland. I read stories in the Irish papers every day that are so bad and incredible, that I really rub my eyes when reading them. A man gets two years' imprisonment for singing "The Felons of our Land." I have heard it since I was a baby. So far as I remember I believe it is a tribute, a well-deserved tribute, to the courage of the Emmets, the Fitzgeralds, and the other great Protestant Irish patriots. You might as well send a man to gaol for singing "The Last Rose of Summer." Was it not the other day that an old fiddler was sent to a gaol for a month for playing "The Wearing of the Green," a favourite tune of the late Queen Victoria, who could not accurately and historically be described as an Irish Nationalist? Boys and men are sent to gaol for possessing some wretched old pistols while 50,000 rifles, so far as we know, are still in the Lister armoury. These are the things that are maddening to the Irish people. I have not hesitated, in any part of the world, to express my entire dissent from the policy of some of the leaders of Irish thought today. I have taken risks in expressing those views. I am not going to change them. But, Sir, I still can understand that madness when I think of the action of a certain section with which is associated the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Trinity College, and the men of the English parties, men who encouraged the Curragh Camp mutiny. Some of these, I allege, are still in the War Office, and in some of the other Departments. To me the whole game goes on—of monotonous and wearisome revolt against monotonous and wearisome repression. The same tactics are shown by the reactionaries—first, to deny liberty, then to provoke resentment, then to drive resentment into rebellion, then to crush rebellion by further repression; and to put back again the chances of Ireland, not merely of her own liberation, but of her reconciliation with the English people, a reconciliation for which, I
  1974
  believe, the masses of the English people long. It is the old game—that of the Harry Wilsons of to-day. It is pushing the demand for Conscription in Ireland at a moment when the War is considered practically won, and when a single convoy—on which I was myself—brings over 40,000 troops from America. They demand Conscription for Ireland, not because the men are wanted, but with a view of driving Ireland into rebellion and to use the rebellion as a means of a denial of justice. We know this to be the case. We have seen it so often in our country.
  Finally, I would ask this question. I read the speech of a gentleman in Dublin the other day, who observed, "We will go into the Peace Conference with head erect." Ireland, he meant, would go into the Peace Conference. But the proposition that Ireland will find official recognition at the Peace Conference is founded on ignorance and on delusion. Ireland will be there all the same! During my nearly forty years' membership of this House I have seen different parties separately and conjointly agreeing to keep Ireland off the floor of this House, as many of them now would like to keep Ireland off the floor of this House. But the Irish Banshee walks this floor, and will continue to do so until you have satisfied and laid the soul of Ireland. Ireland will be at the Peace Conference, not in body perhaps, but in the spirit. If the case of the Jugo-Slavs comes up for discussion the English representatives will rise to their feet and demand that the Jugo-Slavs be given the very widest measure of liberty possible. If the Czecho-Slovaks come up, the, English representatives will almost shed tears of blood if there is any opposition to their demand. If the case of the Italia-Irredenta comes forward, the Englishman's voice will be raised in favour of the redemption of the Italian people. If the case of the Poles, the Englishman's voice will demand the liberation of the Poles, and I hope that of all the Poles those in Prussia especially will be liberated. But supposing some nasty, cynical follower of Germany turns to the Englishman and says, "We admire your enthusiasm for small nationalities and your zeal for the principle of nationality: Nothing can be more admirable than your statement in favour of the case of the Czecho-Slovaks and of the Jugo-Slavs. Your Prime Minister was almost the first in Europe to hail the liberation of the

  1975
  Jugo-Slavs. But what about Ireland?" Before the world you lay yourselves open at the Peace Conference to a charge of Phariseeism. Speaking for the honour of England as well as for the liberty and rights of Ireland in making this appeal to the House, I say that England, which demands the principle of the liberation of small nations and refuses it to her own, stands convicted before the world of Phariseeism.
  Look at it from another point of view. I do not know that those who have generous hearts have ever experienced a week of more glorious emotions than the week we have just passed through. Every hoary tyranny seems to be toppling to the earth. Every long oppressed nationality seems to be rising from the tomb, from the darkness and despair of centuries of servitude, and to be starting a new life under new conditions of liberty. Is there any one of us who does not feel his soul exalted and his heart rejoiced? When I read, for instance, of the Republican Flag of Independence of Croatia raised at Agram; when I read of the flag of Republican Independence raised at Prague, of the flag of Italy at Trieste, after all these centuries of oppression of the Italians, and when we hope that in a very few days we shall see the flag of France lifted once more over those cities, Strasburg and Metz, where I have been and for whose liberation I have prayed for nearly fifty years—when I say I read these things I do bless the fate that has spared my life to see all this conversion of the old world into a new world. Is not that the feeling of every decent lover of liberty all over the world? Is there any country in the world where that feeling is felt more profoundly than in this country which, except in the case of Ireland, has been so often the pioneer of the liberties and free institutions of the world? This is the world on which looks the Chief Secretary, a world surrounded by the young and joyous voices of the re-born nations. What has he to present to the world side by side with these things? In the name of a free England, in the name of liberty—in the face of all these glad young voices of re-born nations, chivalrous and hopeful, he presents the ragged and hideous hag of coercion to Ireland. With equal fervour and equal confidence I appeal to the Englishmen of this House, as well as to the Irishmen, to prevent their Government going into the Peace Conference with
  1976
  such hideous rags of the dead and buried past. When their nation appears at the Council Table of Europe let them see that it shall be with head erect, with a pure heart, and with clean hands.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. CLANCY: I desire to second the Motion moved by my hon. Friend, and will do so in a very few words. I shall not repeat anything that my hon. Friend has said but will allude only to one topic to which he has not alluded. My hon. Friend referred to what he thought might be one of the objections raised to the Motion, namely, the existence of insurrectionary movements and disorder in Ireland. I regret to say upon that subject that the statesmen belonging to both sides in this House are just as responsible as anyone on earth, and I will prove before I sit down, short though my speech may be, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Asquith) and all his fellow Ministers who have remained faithful to him, as well as all the Ministers at present in power, are responsible to a large extent for the events which have occurred in Ireland since 1916. Let me refer to the proofs. War was declared on the 4th of August, 1914. The Home Rule Bill of that year had been passed. It only awaited the assent of the King to its being put into immediate operation. The Government at that time had the command of a considerable majority of this House, and I am sure from my own personal knowledge that very many, if not the majority, of the Liberal party by which they were supported were anxiously expecting from day to day that that Bill would be presented for the Royal Assent. Everyone will recollect that for six or seven weeks nothing was done. Every fortnight the matter was postponed, until at last, after six or seven weeks' delay, the Home Rule Bill which had been passed a long time before was only presented for the assent of the King at the same time with a Bill suspending its operation practically indefinitely, at any rate for six months after the War. All I can say is, speaking for myself—and I fancy I express the feelings of most of my countrymen who believed in the sincerity of the Government of the day and of the majority of the Liberal party—I felt such a sickening of the heart as would dispose almost anyone to utter disbelief in any Ministerial promises.
  That was the first step, the first proof given by the Liberal party of the day of

  1977
  their sense of duty in regard to Ireland. The second was in May, 1915, when the right hon. Gentleman who was then Prime Minister determined to form a Coalition Government. There may have been great Imperial reasons for forming a Coalition Government, although, if I recollect aright, only a week had elapsed after the Prime Minister had said that such a thing as a Coalition Government was not contemplated, and, if it had not been contemplated, a week surely would not have been enough to change the deliberate opinion of the Government of the day. But there may have been great Imperial reasons for a change of Government such as was then effected, and but for one or two incidents I do not think that the Irish people or the Irish representatives would have been so very much concerned as they were. Rut there was one incident connected with the formation of that Coalition Government which, in my belief, was the greatest cause of all the distrust that was afterwards felt in the Government of the day and in the sincerity of their policy. I need hardly refer to the inclusion of the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) in the War Cabinet. What necessity was there for that? Was the right hon. Gentleman of such transcendent political ability, or of such transcendent administrative capacity as to justify his being put at the head of the British Admiralty? [HON. MEMBERS: "Attorney-General!"] I quite forgot—it was later that he was promoted from the Office of Attorney-General for England to be head of the Admiralty here.
  Mr. PRINGLE: He was out for a year.
  Mr. CLANCY: Was he a very appropriate or the most appropriate choice for the office of Attorney-General, a man who had been guilty of promoting a treasonable movement in Ireland, whose record in that capacity had been recent, who had boasted of the successful efforts which his section had made in tampering with the loyalty of the Army? I never could understand it. All I know was that it filled the mind of the people of Ireland with absolute distrust of the Coalition Government, and from that day to this I have never ceased to believe that it was the final and crowning effort on the part of the English Ministry to procure the insurrection of Easter week, 1916. Well, so far for the late Governments, both the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and of the Coalition
  1978
  Government which he subsequently formed. What of the present Government? I never heard of any Government whose record in regard to Ireland is so strewn over with broken promises and pledges. In July, 1916, the present Prime Minister was delegated to propose a settlement of the Irish Home Rule question. It is almost impossible to believe of respectable persons that the right hon. Gentleman, in his effort to, discharge the duty with which he was entrusted, actually proposed two different things, one to the late Member for Waterford and one to the present right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, without informing both of them of the fact. A printed document was published and laid on the Table of this House. It contained one set of terms bearing the interpretation put upon the offer of settlement by my late Leader (Mr. Redmond). In a private letter apparently, for it has never been published, but we have it on the authority, if my memory does not fail me, of the Member for Trinity College, on a vital point, the offer made to him was quite different. When that became clear did that tend or not to the creation of distrust and insurrection and disorder in Ireland?
  Then next, when the present Prime Minister was occupying not the position of a subordinate member of the War Cabinet, but of a Prime Minister possessing apparently exceptional power and authority—at any rate he wielded it and bent to his will a great party the chiefs of which had been pretending to despise him and for years had been contemplating his political ruin—he proposed to settle the Irish question. He called a Convention, and let me read a few words from the letters which have been published in connection with the proceedings of that Convention. The Convention, he said in his first letter on the subject, was to be a convention of Irishmen of all parties for the purpose of producing a scheme of Irish self-government. You will observe that there was no limitation, no condition attached, and that the proposal was that Irishmen should meet together and settle this question as they thought best. The Convention assembled, and in a second letter, which is dated 1st January, 1918, the Prime Minister said that the Government were agreed and determined that a solution—that is a solution of the Irish question—must be found. One would imagine that that was a plain intimation that

  1979
  legislation would follow. But he went on in a subsequent letter, the last letter wrote on the subject:
  "The Government have determined that so far as is in their power the labours of the Convention shall not be in vain. On receiving the Report of the Convention the Government will give it immediate attention and will proceed with the least possible delay to submit legislative proposals to Parliament. The Convention has been brought together to get a settlement by consent. If the Convention fails to secure a settlement of the question, a solution will be much more difficult, but it will be a task incumbent on the Government."
  Well, that is not all. I think the meaning of that is plain. We are promised immediate legislation, no matter whether the Convention fail to agree or not. But let me point this out, that although there was not a unanimous vote in the Convention, there was—and I challenge contradiction when I say it—substantial unanimity on the main question. Not only that, but actually the Unionist Members were isolated. The Ulster Unionists were absolutely isolated, and even there was at one time, it is on record, a committee called the Committee of Nine of Ulster Unionists who agreed and gave contingent assent to all the conclusions of the Committee, embracing the conclusions agreed to by the Nationalists of both sections, the condition being that they would not agree upon this question if there were not an agreement on one point, namely, a statement of the financial grievances. Now that is a most important thing. I myself regard, and always have regarded, the financial question as really most important. Some people regard it as the most important. For my own part, I regard the establishment of an Irish Parliament with full powers otherwise as the most important of all. And I repeat that so far as that is concerned, apart from the financial question, there was absolute unanimity among the members of the Convention. What have they done to redeem the promise of the Prime Minister in that event? I have not given all the promises that have been made. The present Chief Secretary is responsible for additions to the promises and pledges. I forget how many times, but certainly twice, the present Chief Secretary, who is sitting on the opposite bench now has declared that Home Rule has not been dropped, that he was going to introduce a Bill, and when he was asked whether his intention was to drop it before the House last reassembled he said, by no means.
  1980
  We all read in the papers that some scheme had been adopted at last by a Government Committee by which all parties would be satisfied. I doubted that, but at any rate the Chief Secretary pledged his honour, for I understand a man when he speaks here in this House does so on his honour and does not speak without meaning what he says. I expected that that Bill would have been laid on the Table of the House, and pushed through. And yet here we are within one week or ten days of the Dissolution of Parliament, or at any rate the end of this Session, and that Bill has not yet made its appearance in any shape or form, and I am almost certain it never will make its appearance in this House. All this seems to me not to make for belief in British Ministers, and I say however unpleasant it may be for Englishmen and English Members to hear it, it is my belief that at this moment nine-tenths or 90 per cent. of the people of Ireland, of every political party, have lost all belief in the bona fides of every British statesman. No sensible man, in my opinion, will put any faith in anything they say for the future. A thing must be done before we will believe it. And I say, therefore, they are going into the Peace Conference, if a Peace Conference takes place, and they give if they go there a crowning proof of British perfidy to Ireland if they do not carry out there or before they go there in this House their pledges and promises for the liberation of Ireland.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I will not detain the House for more than a very few moments, because my views on this matter are well known, have been often stated, and are not in the least changed. And I intervene at this early stage in the Debate, before my right hon. Friend who represents the Government makes his statement, with no kind of fore-knowledge of what lines he will proceed upon. I listened with great interest and sympathy—and in the concluding passages of his speech, if he will allow me to say so, with real admiration and emotion—to the address of the Mover, my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). He is one of the veterans of this House, and in his long and distinguished career here, if I may say so, I do not think he has ever presented the case of his country with more force or with stronger appeal to the legitimate sympathy of every Englishman in the House.

  1981
  My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Clancy) has pursued a somewhat different line. I am sorry to find he distrusts the honesty of all British statesmen to whatever party they belong. I will not go into any critical examination of the charges he has brought against the late Government, and myself in particular, except to say that, in passing the Home Rule Bill, and placing it on the Statute Book with a suspensory provision, I think I was exposed to much more severe animadversions from Gentlemen who were then my opponents, and afterwards became my colleagues, for a piece of the grossest trickery and treachery than even from my hon. Friend. Nor do I wish to go into the question whether I was right or wrong in the formation and in the composition of the Coalition Government. It was a very great source of regret to me, and, I think, a lasting loss to the country, that Mr. Redmond, the illustrious Leader of the Irish party—whose name will ever be held in this House in reverence as one of the greatest Parliamentary figures of our times, as one who for many years I am glad to say of unbroken personal friendship, sometimes of political co-operation and sometimes, though never of a hostility, of difference, I always felt was one of the most sagacious and most straightforward of politicians—it was a source of lasting regret to me that he did not feel himself able to respond to my invitation, and become a member of that Cabinet. I think that invitation, honestly and cordially offered, and by him cordially considered and entertained, is a, sufficient answer to the suggestion, if the suggestion be seriously put forward, that in including my right hon. Friend the Senior Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), there was any intention to load the dice, as it were, against Nationalist Ireland in the formation of the Cabinet.
  I do not want to go into these matters, because history will determine them in due course, and it is not of very much importance what verdict history will give one way or the other. The real question for us now, and the only one on which I want to say two or three words, is whether or not, in view of the past history of this question—in view particularly of what took place when the Convention was summoned and the pledges or assurances were given, and hopes at any rate universally entertained—we had not reason to believe, and good reason to believe, that we had opened a new chapter, which was
  1982
  something approaching general agreement in which we might have prepared ourselves for what everybody in every quarter of this House wants—a real settlement of one of the most difficult of all problems. I do not believe it is hopeless. No one knows the difficulties better than I do.
  It is quite true that the so-called revolutionary movement—the Sinn Fein movement—in Ireland has introduced into the matter a new element, which will further complicate its difficulties, and may seem to impede, and unfortunately to postpone, a settlement. I do not take that view. I cannot be suspected of sympathy with the Sinn Fein movement, but I wish to say I think there is a considerable tendency to exaggerate the bearing of it on the practical questions with which we are now dealing. The Irish people are a shrewd and longheaded people. They are at this moment enjoying a considerable measure of material prosperity. A large proportion of those who are engaged, as their fathers have been, in the occupation and cultivation of the soil, have advanced a long step on the road to complete proprietorship, and I do not believe there is any community in Europe in which the seeds of what is called revolution in the bad sense of the term, or what one of our poets calls "red ruin and the breaking up of laws"—I do not think there is any community in which those seeds would fall on a less fertile soil. On the contrary, serious as is the movement, I have profound confidence that those great, sound, and solid national aspirations and ambitions of which Mr. Parnell, Mr. Redmond, and the present Leader of the Nationalist party have been the spokesmen and expositors, and to which they have brought, by a solid process of argument and conviction the opinion and sympathy of the great mass of the English and Scottish people and the practically unbroken sympathy of our great Dominions—I believe that that great movement which they have organised and led within sight of victory is, in all its essentials, as strong to-day as it was five years ago.
  But what I want to ask the Government is, How do we stand to-day in this matter? A Resolution such as this would, I think, be passed with unanimity in every Parliament in every self-governing Dominion of this Empire. I am certain it would pass—of course it might be said it was outside their purview—in the Congress of the United States of America. I

  1983
  believe that, in its essence and spirit, it commends itself to the friends of liberty and justice throughout the civilised world. I am quite sure of the Chief Secretary, in so far as his sympathies go, that they are entirely with it.
  Happily, we are in sight of the opening of the Council Chamber of Peace, and I cannot help even now asking His Majesty's Government, in view particularly of the declarations which were made no later than spring of the present year, if they cannot give us, at this eleventh hour, some satisfying assurance that when we enter that Council Chamber, having done our share—perhaps one may say more than our share—in the assertion of the rights and liberties for the future of the smaller nationalities of the world, we may be able to go there, I will not say with a complete scheme ready for the Statute Book of this country, but with an assurance that here, in our own dominion and at our own doors, Ireland will not be behind any one of our own self-governing countries, and will not be a standing reproach, as it were, behind any of those new immature States which happily we are helping to bring to life, and to the enjoyment of the essential rights and privileges of freedom and self-government.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): While I agree with much that has been said by my right hon. Friend, I cannot for one moment agree with him in one statement he made, namely, that this Motion would be accepted in any Parliament in any part of the world, and I hope to be able to show that before I sit down. But with a great deal that my right hon. Friend said I am in perfect agreement. My right hon. Friend said that everybody in every quarter of this House wants a real settlement of this question. I entirely agree with him. I think everybody wants a real settlement of this question, and it is from that point of view that I approach the subject this afternoon. I agree also that the element of Sinn Fein, with all that it involves, is an added element and a disturbing element to arriving at some form of settlement. I agree that, while it is perhaps more serious even than my right hon. Friend himself realises, that it is by no means a permanent obstacle which cannot properly, and indeed expeditiously, be overcome. But there is no denying this fact, that one element in that obstacle is the
  1984
  fact that Sinn Fein to-day is allied with the physical force Irish Republican Brotherhood of Ireland, which are a source of danger not only to us but to our cousins in America. I know it is the habit, especially with hon. Members whose opinions are of the stamp of those of the hon. Member for North Somerset, to laugh at German plots, but there is not a man in Ireland who does not know perfectly well that the Germans from the beginning of this War have been as active plotting in Ireland as they have been in America, and in India and other parts of the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "And before it!"] I agree. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ulster rifles!"] And Ireland to-day, unfortunately, is able to secure help from those who are willing, whether they back Germany or not, to play the German game. There is the question, again, of the Irish Volunteers, who are dominated to-day by the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and the question of their activities has once more arisen. When I tell the House that they had made preparations for fresh acts of violence, violence of the most serious description, and that only last week at one of their headquarters there was seized sufficient of high explosives, with fuses all prepared—and the experts are examining to see where they were prepared—sufficient to have blown up the whole of Belfast and Dublin. That element is still there. I know perfectly well that those members of the Irish race who have to do with that particular political body are very, very small. I know that their activities would be repudiated, and indignantly repudiated, by 99 per cent. of the Irishmen of the South and West; but, small though their number may be, they are extremely dangerous, and they, unfortunately, do to a certain extent control the proceedings of the Sinn Fein party, and add to the distrust.
  I may say again that I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we all desire, if possible, to obtain a real settlement of this question. But when I come to the terms of the Motion which has been moved, and so eloquently and interestedly moved, by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor), then I must say that I listened to the speeches of the Mover and the Seconder with great curiosity to know if they would explain to the House what is the exact meaning of this Motion, and what is its exact purpose, and what really is the issue upon which they wish to challenge

  1985
  the opinion of the House. One thing this Motion certainly is not, and that is it is not a challenge on the question as to whether there ought to be a settlement or whether there ought not. That certainly this Motion does not challenge. What it does, as far as I can see, is to seek to impose upon the British Government the terms that until there is a settlement the British Government shall be excluded from any Peace Conference which is dealing with the settlement of Europe. It means that if it means nothing else, and that involves another point, namely, that the British Government is to be excluded until this settlement is made, and it must be that the Allies are to be asked to exclude it. Does my hon. Friend really mean that the party to which he belongs are going to President Wilson, or going to the French, or going to the Italians, to say to them "There is no settlement of the Irish question and therefore we ask you to exclude the British Government from the Peace Conference." If it does not mean that where is the efficacy and effect of this Motion?
  There is one thing which neither the Mover nor the Seconder have done, and which it appears to me in ordinary fairness they ought to have done. They ought to have shown to the House first of all what is the settlement which they say the British Government ought to arrive at before they are admitted to the Conference, and why it is that that settlement is not arrived at. It seems to me that those two things are absolutely essential when you approach this Motion for any vote which anyone can give upon it. In the first place, what is the settlement which they say ought to be arrived at before the British Government are to be admitted to the Peace Conference? We all know, everybody knows, that you can talk quite easily in wide generalities about self-determination, self-government, Home Rule, and all that sort of thing. But when you come to a Motion of this description, a Motion of this stringent character, the least you can do is to come down from generalities to concrete proposals and tell us what is the settlement which you say ought to be passed and why it has not passed. What is the settlement? May I remind the House of what the difficulties are in the way of any settlement of this Irish question! [An HON. MEMBER: "What about your pledge?"] Those difficulties were stated—and I know of no words in which
  1986
  they were stated better—by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. H. Samuel) exactly two years ago, when he himself was dealing with the very difficulty of arriving at a settlement of this question. He said:
  "I conclude with these few words: Are Irish Members prepared to leave out the six counties until they are ready to come in? No. If not, are they ready to wait for Home Rule until the six counties are willing to be included? No. If neither of these, are they prepared to coerce Ulster? The answer is, No. It has again and again been given by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and others of his colleagues that they are not prepared to contemplate armed coercion in Ireland. If they are not willing to leave Ulster out until she is ready to come in, and if they are not prepared to wait for Home Rule until Ulster is ready to come in, then what is their proposal? That is the difficulty which those of us in the Government, and in this House, who earnestly desire to secure a satisfactory settlement of the Irish question—that is the dilemma in which we are placed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1916, cols. 691 and 692, Vol. 86.]
  Those words are just as true to-day as they were when they were spoken by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: As I said on the last of many occasions when those words were quoted in this House, since then the Irish Convention has sat, and the Irish Convention has given an answer to those questions.
  Mr. SHORTT: The Irish Convention has sat. That makes those words all the stronger, because the Irish Convention has failed to agree. The Irish Convention has failed to obtain that which my right hon. Friend put in the then forefront of the difficulty—the acquiescence of Ulster in any form of settlement. We have not heard to-day what proposal the Members who sit below the Gangway have got for dealing with that portion of the question It is as true to-day as it was two years ago, I presume, that it is unthinkable to coerce Ulster by force. If that is so, what is their proposal with regard to Ulster Are they going to coerce Ulster by force, or are they not?
  Mr. DILLON: Are you going to coerce the rest of Ireland by force, or are you not? The right hon. Gentleman has put the question to me. He has challenged me, and I want to know why Ulster is to be put on a pinnacle, and why he puts that question with regard to Ulster. What about the rest of Ireland, which has been coerced for 200 years, and is coerced now?
  Mr. SHORTT: I am entitled to suppose that the hon. Member's interruption is his answer to my question. Will he coerce Ulster by force? Yes.
  Mr. DILLON: Let Ulster obey the law like every other part of Ireland.
  Mr. SHORTT: Are they prepared to go to the world and say, "We are ready to coerce Ulster by force?" Is that what they are ready to do? If they are going to coerce Ulster by force whenever they get a Home Rule Parliament, and they are the governors of Ireland, why do they complain of coercing them by force?
  Mr. LUNDON: You are putting your two feet into it now.
  Mr. SHORTT: If that is their position, will they to-day go to any Parliament in America, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, or any other part of the world and say to that Parliament, "We care nothing about these six counties or the Protestants of Ulster, but we will coerce them by bloodshed; we will have civil war to arrive at a settlement which suits us." Is that what he says? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Here is the proposal, that some settlement must be arrived at, and here is the old difficulty of Ulster. Either they are prepared to coerce Ulster, or they are not. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about your pledges?"] My pledges I am prepared to defend at any time. Will they to-day ask to have the Convention reassemble to get an Irish agreement? What does this Motion ask for? It asks for self-determination as to their form of government. They have had it. They got it in the Convention. The Convention was a convention of Irishmen of all shades of opinion, all religions. They were given a free hand to settle their own form of government. They had their self-determination, and they did not settle and agree upon it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Do you require unanimity?
  Mr. SHORTT: You require, at any rate, to deal with the Ulster question, which has always been pointed out by everybody as the crux of the whole question of settlement. Without the question of Ulster, the matter would have been arranged long, long ago. Every one knows that is the real difficulty. That is the question to which you have got to devote your attention. That has been admitted by everyone since this War began. So
  1988
  much with regard to that portion of the Motion which deals with the demand for a settlement. We say this is a demand which could not be passed in any Government, in any Parliament in any Dominion, or in the States. It is a demand that what has been a failure—which is, at any rate, as much a failure of the Irish as it is of the English—to arrive at a settlement, is to be used as an obstacle to the appearance of the British Government before a Peace Conference. I say that is a claim to which this House could not possibly accede. It is idle to suggest that this Motion is a Motion as to whether a settlement ought to be made or not. Everybody is agreed that it ought to be arrived at if possible. The Convention was proof of that. Everybody is agreed as to it, and if the Irish come forward and make a settlement to-morrow which deals with the Ulster question, then I am quite sure this House, this country, and everybody would accept it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Go back to school."] There would be no difficulty whatever of obtaining the acceptance of this House and country to any settlement which the Irishmen arrived at amongst themselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sit down."] There is another question which has been raised, and raised by my hon. Friend, namely, the question of the administration of Ireland. He quoted, apparently, the prosecution and conviction of someone—I forget whether it was for singing "The Wearing of the Green," or something of that sort; at any rate, some old Irish patriotic song. I do not know to what case he referred. I have great difficulty in believing any such conviction was ever obtained. I should like to see what else the person was doing besides singing "The Wearing of the Green." If a burglar happened to be whistling "Rule Britannia" when caught in the act, could it be said he was convicted of whistling a patriotic tune? I should like to know the whole of the facts, and I am quite sure that when the whole of the facts are known it will be found that the conviction was for something totally different from merely singing or whistling some old patriotic air. I do not know the circumstances, so that I cannot possibly say I know anything of the case. But with regard to the administration of Ireland, I say this: We have been able to avert—I say this with a full sense of responsibility—one rising, an armed rising, by the physical force party. [An HON. MEMBER:

  1989
  "It was never contemplated!"] It is all very well for the hon. Member to say that. They know very well in Ireland it was contemplated, and, what is more, it very nearly came off. For a long time the physical force party have been under, but they are now trying to come to the front again. I hope and believe we shall be able to avert anything like an armed rising, or armed disturbance, but there is the means of it there unless we do keep a very firm hold. Nobody in Ireland, nobody who is acquainted with what is being done in the way of raids, in the way of seizing explosives, the storing of explosives, the making of bombs, can doubt for one moment the seriousness of the danger. I would ask hon. Members below the Gangway this question: If they had Home Rule to-morrow, do they suppose that there would be no outcry in Ireland for an Irish Republic? Do they suppose that the physical force party who are in Ireland, the members of the Clan-na-Gael, who are in Ireland, the members of the other dangerous societies who are in Ireland, would cease their activities because Home Rule was granted? And if they did not, what would hon. Members do?
  Mr. HAZLETON: What did they do in South Africa?
  Mr. SHORTT: Would they allow them to blow up bridges and to make an armed rising against their Government? They would be forced to keep them down if they had Home Rule to-morrow, just as we have to do. They are an element of danger, and they would be forced, as I say, to keep them down. But I sincerely hope, and I believe, that it will not be necessary to keep on that form of government in Ireland for very long. I believe that those elements can be, and will be, crushed out, but they certainly will not be crushed out, at any rate not so soon or so quickly, if we do not get help from Irishmen themselves. To-day you get an outrage against members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in out-of-the-way places. They are grossly maltreated by armed bands of men, and you cannot get any help from the people in the neighbourhood in order to ascertain and prove who were the perpetrators of the outrage. You get policemen shot in the open streets in Tralee with, I suppose, a hundred people round who saw the act, many of whom would be able to identify the perpetrators, and not a witness dare, or would, come forward. Can you expect
  1990
  to put down the forces of disorder unless you get more help from the people? You ought to get more help, and not only in that respect, but in other respects, we ought to get more help in Ireland. It is so easy to come here and say, "Why do you not make some settlement of the Irish question?" Will they accept and work anything which will satisfy the members for Ulster?
  An HON. MEMBER: You have let the cat out of the bag.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. SHORTT: Will they do so? Will they agree to partition? We do not know. They will not tell us what it is they want. I do ask that they should approach this from the point of view of trying to tell us what settlement it is that they will accept, and try to give us some idea of what they will accept. They know the difficulties which faced the Liberal Government and my right hon. Friend. They know the difficulties which beset the first Coalition Government. They know the difficulties which beset the Convention, and to-day they know the difficulties which beset us and this Government equally well. I do ask the House, as there has been no possible reason shown why the British Government should not take its equal part in any Peace Conference, as it has taken its equal, or more than equal, part in the War—I do ask the House to say this is not a bonâ fide. Motion at all; it is not a Motion which raises the point of a Home Rule or no Home Rule settlement, or no settlement. It is not a Motion which will help the people of this country to know in the least what is the settlement that Ireland is asking for, or what is the settlement that Ireland will accept. This Motion will not help a single American, Australian, or New Zealander in this country to know what it is the Irishmen are asking for, and it will not tell the people of this country what they are asking for. It is no help to anybody of any sort or description. Therefore, I ask the House to reject it.
  Mr. HAZLETON: The Government began the sitting by declaring a triumph over beaten Austria. They have followed that up by declaring through the mouthpiece of the right hon. Gentleman a triumph over helpless Ireland. The one was an impressive evidence of British power while the other was a ludicrous evidence of British stupidity. I regret, and I think I may say the same for every-

  1991
  one who sits on these benches, to have to deal with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He is at once the most ludicrous and the most offensive Chief Secretary who has ever sat on that Bench, and I think there is not a Member of the House of Commons, in whatever quarter of the House he sits, who will not consider that the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just made in answer to the Mover of this Motion and in answer to the Leader of the Opposition is an insult to the intelligence of the House of Commons. I think there can be no doubt that after a speech of that kind it will be easy for this House and easier for the people of this country to understand how it is that the Government of Ireland is going from bad to worse under such an administration. As a so-called Liberal the right hon Gentleman is a joke. There never was a more reactionary Government towards Ireland than the present administration, and here we have this so-called Liberal coming forward and out-Heroding the worst of them. As Chief Secretary the right hon. Gentleman is a joke, for he is no more than a ministerial office boy, without a scrap of power or authority, who takes his orders from his Tory colleagues in the Cabinet, and the reactionary Prime Minister. He comes down here and poses as the Governor of Ireland and insults our country and those who represent it.
  What has the right hon. Gentleman's speech amounted to to-day? He has hurled at these benches a series first of all of stale and, secondly, of absurd questions. We heard all that stuff before the War. We were told about the great difference that the last four years is to make in the world. It has made no difference to those who sit upon that bench and govern Ireland to-day, and from his speech to-day it is apparent that if the country leaves it to them they will continue in future on the old evil road of coercion and repression which they have trodden in Ireland up to now. What is it that the right hon. Gentleman asks us? He asks us to explain our Motion. Our Motion is founded upon the words of President Wilson, and when President Wilson asked you to explain your attitude your answer was complete silence. You have never yet answered his speech of the 27th September. The right hon. Gentleman wants us to explain our proposals for the government of Ireland. Is the Irish party responsible for the government of Ireland?
  1992
  Why should we come forward with our proposals? If you clear your absurd, inefficient, and reactionary Government out of Ireland to-morrow and leave to Irishmen themselves the task of governing their own country, we will have proposals to make, but it is absurd to come down to this House and invite the Irish party or any other body of Irishmen such as those who assisted in the work of the late Convention to come forward with proposals when we know that the moment any proposals are made from Ireland they are flouted, ignored, and turned down by the Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary, and the members of the Government.
  The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Ulster. He has asked, What are we going to do about Ulster? Are we going to coerce Ulster? What are our proposals for Ulster? He asks, What will America think of our attitude towards Ulster? I was in America with the proposer of this Motion, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what America, without an exception, practically unanimously thinks about Ulster and thinks about the Leader of the Ulster party and about the attitude of this Government towards Ulster. From the Government downwards, in the United States of America, throughout the length and breadth of that great country, there is hardly a single man to be found who does not wonder why the right hon. Member for Trinity College was not put up against a wall and shot. America says—I am not now speaking about Irish America, but of all classes and sections of that great Republic—and says with scorn and indignation, that when the right hon. Member for Trinity College led a revolutionary movement in Ulster he was rewarded by being put into the Cabinet, although that movement was a movement against liberty, but when these dreamers, the Sinn Feiners, led a movement for liberty in Dublin, they were put up against the wall and shot. The Chief Secretary now asks whether we have any proposals for Ulster. Are we going to coerce Ulster? Are we going to give Ulster a separate Parliament? Instead of making progress the right hon. Gentleman has gone back upon anything that was ever previously said upon any previous attitude upon this question by any man or his Government. Has he forgotten the words of his own Prime Minister in his letter to the Irish Convention not so long ago? I should like the Prime Minister to have been here

  1993
  so that we might know whether he has changed his opinion upon this subject or not In an official hitter to the Irish Convention, dated 25th February of this year, the Prime Minister said:
  "At the same time it is clear to the Government, in view of previous attempts at settlement and of the deliberations of the Convention itself, that the only hope of agreement lies in a solution which on the one side, provides for the unity of Ireland under a single legislature, with adequate safeguards for the interests of Ulster and the Southern Unionists, and, on the other, preserves the well-being of the Empire and the fundamental unity of the United Kingdom."
  There is an answer to the right hon. Gentleman. Let him go to the Prime Minister, and ask the Prime Minister why that is not carried out, instead of hurling useless, ridiculous, and insulting questions at these benches. I want to know whether this policy of the Government on the Ulster question is to be confined to Ireland. Is the Prime Minister going to go to the Versailles Conference and to the Peace Conference and to ask the Jugo-Slavs what they are going to do about the Germans in their newly-liberated country? Is he going to ask similar questions of the other various nationalities which have their minorities, as every country in the world has its minority to-day? Our answer to the Chief Secretary is contained, not merely in the words I have quoted from the Prime Minister, but in the assurance which every member of the late Irish Convention was prepared to give, and did give, that there was no guarantee which the minority in the North-East of Ulster could ask for which was within and practically without reason which would not be given to them by the Irish people under an Irish Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman also talks about Sinn Feiners. He asks us if we had Home Rule in Ireland to-morrow what we would do about the physical force party. I say the reason that there is a physical force party in Ireland to-day is because the right hon. Gentleman, and the like of him and his Government are in power in Ireland. The reason there is a physical force party and Sinn Fein and revolutionary activity in Ireland to-day is because the sort of government you have maintained there has not one ounce of moral force or moral authority, and because you have not got the moral authority to enforce the laws, or to make the laws. If you did what this Motion asks for, what President Wilson asked for in his declaration, and what you profess
  1994
  to be in favour of at the Versailles Conference, and at the coming Peace Conference, namely, if you gave Ireland self-determination and allowed her in a Parliament of her own to manage her own affairs, that Parliament would have the moral authority and the power to make the law and to enforce the observance of the law throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, whether it be north, south, east or west.
  That is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman, and I tell him, and I tell hit Government, that he has done an ill-service to this country and an ill-service to the cause of liberty to-day by coming down and making the sort of speech to which we have just listened. I think it is rather ironical that when on the very occasion when this House rejoices, as it did rejoice, at the news that was given to it by the Prime Minister that we should be compelled upon these benches to open the cupboard and to drag out the skeleton in the cupboard—the skeleton of an unliberated Ireland. It is unfortunate that whilst the people of this country are getting ready for the celebrations which will, as is now assured, shortly evince the complete triumph of the cause of the Allies, that here again, at their feast of celebration, we shall be forced to bring out the spectre of an unliberated Ireland. But the speech of the right hon. Gentleman makes it necessary for us to do more than that in the House of Commons here to-day. It makes it necessary for us to say to him and to the Government that if this is the sort of answer they are to return to Ireland's plea for liberty and justice, that if they are to meet us with a sneer and a gibe, and a blank refusal of our claims, then we will be compelled, much against our will, to go from here, to go from this Government, to go from this House, over the heads of all bodies, to the Peace Conference, and to the High Court of the World which the conclusion of this War and the defeat of the Central Powers will set up. We have heard to-day from the Chief Secretary nothing but quibbles, nothing but useless questions; not one single word of statesmanship in his speech. We are not dealing with petty technicalities, we are not dealing with quibbles, we are dealing with the future of the nation. For 750 years, through the folly of its Ministers, this country has been prevented from having a reconciliation with Ireland, and to-day, unfortunately, that long story is to be continued, so far as we can gather. I say

  1995
  that it is an evil business for the name, for the honour, for the reputation, and for the position of this country and of the British Empire as a whole. But I do not believe that the sense of justice of the British people, that the sense of justice of the free nations which go to make up this Empire, will tolerate the attitude which the Government has announced to the House of Commons to-day. I believe that you will be compelled, in spite of your proposed snap election, in spite of the secure position in which you feel yourselves now, to come round to the only real thing that will settle this Irish question, and that is to extend to Ireland those terms and those principles of justice which have been set out in this Resolution and which, I believe, still command the support of a great majority of the people of this country.
  I have referred to the fact that I was in America with my hon. Friend who proposed this Motion. He has dealt with the position in America and I do not propose to go over that ground. But I say that the attempt which is being made now to represent America as being hostile to the claims of Ireland is false, that the insinuations which are being made, such, for instance, as that the American Representative at the Versailles Conference, Colonel House, is hostile to Ireland is false, and I hope that these insinuations will be taken note of in America, and that they will be resented there, as they ought to be. I have only this to say in conclusion. The centuries have marked the tragedy of the relations between Ireland and England. The whole world is now entering upon a new era. Is Ireland to be the only Lazarus amongst the nations; are all the subject nations of Austria, of Russia, of Germany to be liberated? Is the lesson that you would teach us, this, that they are to be liberated because their dominant Powers were beaten in this War, but that Ireland is not to be liberated because the side she took in this War was victorious? That would be a cruel and a bitter lesson to put before the Irish people. It would be a cruel thing, after all the sacrifices that Ireland has made—for, however some hon. Members may sneer at Ireland's efforts in this War, it has been a great one. Is that the return this Government will make for all that was done by the late leader of the Irish party, Mr. John Redmond, one, I venture to say, of the hero statesmen of this War, who will rank in history with the only other two great idealist states-
  1996
  men that this War has produced—M. Venizelos and President Wilson? No, it may not yet be too late for this Government to retrace its steps. There may yet be time. If they will not do it, I say again to the Chief Secretary, and to the Government, that there is a higher Court of Appeal than this Government, or even than this Empire. If we turn to the Peace Conference, he said, would we seek to have England kept out of the Peace Conference? No. But will you seek to have Ireland kept out of the Peace Conference? I say that you may be strong enough to do that, to shut the door of the Peace Conference in our face. But, if you do that, we will go on to the door of the League of Nations that will follow the Peace Conference; and, if you keep up your reactionary policy in Ireland we will hammer, and hammer, and hammer on the door of the League of Nations until you and your policy are shamed before the civilised world.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I desire to say a few words on this question, partly because I represent in this House a large number of Irishmen dwelling in this country, who have lived in this country in many cases for two or three generations; who have become in many ways very like Englishmen, but are still very keenly alive to their Irish patriotism; who are very loyal to this country and have done their utmost in the War, and who have sent their sons, before there was Conscription, freely to fight for the great cause for which we have stood. I represent also far more Englishmen. Therefore, I venture to say that I cannot be suspected of merely pandering to any particular vote in this matter, for I am certain that whichever side I take I shall please a good many and offend a good many of my Constituents. But I stand for what I am convinced are the interests of the country, and moreover for what I am convinced are realised as the interests of the country, not only by the Irishmen I represent, not only by the Liberals, but by a very large proportion of the Unionists in my Constituency. I have heard them say on the platform in war time how keenly they desire a settlement of this Irish question. Then, with those feelings and thoughts behind me, I come here and I hear my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, delivering a speech to-day which is a mere speech of despair, a mere speech of deadlock. He sets up Ulster and says to Ulster, practically, "If you persist in your opposition, if you persist in your refusal to listen to any settle-

  1997
  ment, we will give way to you. You shall have your own way." Is that the attitude to take up to a minority which is recalcitrant, and which threatens violence if it is not allowed to have its own way? For my part, I say there is no party, and there are no persons within this Realm who ought to be given the right to impose on the Government of this country failure and humiliation. That is what Ulster is doing, and is claiming to go on doing, and what the right hon. Gentleman tells her she may go on doing, and shall go on doing.
  He has not attempted to show us a statesmanlike view of the situation at all. He has taken many small points. The first point was, I think more worthy of a conveyancer than of a statesman. He took the word "essential," and tried to twist it into meaning that if the settlement was not arrived at that then we could not go into the Peace Conference at all. I will tell him in what sense it is essential to settle it before going to the Peace Conference. It is essential to the honour of this country that we should go into the Peace Conference holding up our heads, not hanging our heads and confessing with shame that we have failed again, and again and again to settle this problem at our very doors and that we have finally announced that we are not going to settle it, and that we give up the idea of settling it as long as a small minority of men in one particular part of Ireland refuse to allow us to settle it. Then he takes the next point, also a very familiar and very small point, one which has been used for meeting every criticism and every demand for reform on every subject, I should think, from time immemorial. He says "What is your settlement?" Always a clever point to make. But it is the Government of the country that has to bring forward a settlement of these matters. The business of those who complain is to put forward the evils of which they complain. It is the business of the responsible statesmen and of the responsible Government to find a solution of these evils. I will give another answer to him; I am not going to be content with following him and giving merely an answer by way of criticism. I will give him a positive answer, and I will say "Have His Majesty's Ministers never heard of the Convention and of the Report which they made? Do they not know that the settlement agreed to at the Convention represented a very large majority of the
  1998
  Convention and of the people of Ireland; and that though Ulster—at least, the more intensely Protestant part of Ulster—undoubtedly did not like it, there is every reason to believe that the whole of Ulster would have submitted to it with more or less good grace, and that the Sinn Feiners also—the great majority of them, at any rate—would have submitted to it with more or less good grace?"
  I say that the Government of this country will have to work out a settlement of the Irish question. I believe they may take as their basis the Report of the Irish Convention. I believe they have got to establish a form of local self-government, or Home Rule, or autonomy in Ireland very much on the lines of the Report of the Convention. I am not tying myself down to details. No one would tie himself down to details in such a matter. I believe that they have got, if necessary, to put troops into Ireland to impose that settlement on all recalcitrants, whether they are fanatics from the North or East of Ireland, whether they are fanatical Republicans, or whatever they are. I believe that it is for the Government of this country to say what the settlement is to be, a settlement in the form of Home Rule for Ireland, and then to impose it upon all recalcitrants. I say again I defend the word essential because I say it is essential for us ourselves to settle this question, and there is only a very short time for it. As soon as this War is over, if we have not settled it ourselves, a settlement will be imposed upon us by America, by the opinion of the democratic majority in France, by the public opinion of the world, and a settlement which will humiliate us in the pages of history for all time.
  Captain ESMONDE: I rise to address the House for the first time to-night because I have been engaged on work which in ordinary times is not associated with the duties of a Member of Parliament. I merely wish to bring to the notice of the House one or two observations to show why Ireland should be granted those principles which are part of the Allied War aims which are to be granted to every enemy country, and which evidently are to be denied to Ireland because they might either inconvenience or embarrass certain sections and influences in this so-called liberty-loving Empire. At the present moment the forces of Prussianism are being driven step by step from stricken France and

  1999
  Flanders by the united democracies of the Old and the New World. Austria is tottering, and has crumbled to its doom before the same influences, and every day brings us nearer the time when we shall see the final destruction of all the menaces which threaten to undermine the civilisation of the world. As a result of all this, we are to be faced with one of the greatest reconstructions of Europe that the world has ever seen. If we look at the history of European frontiers we find some great upheaval has taken place, frontiers being moved and boundaries fixed with a total disregard to racial sentiment or local feeling. The Great Powers arrange everything to their own advantage, and they deny the claims of nations smaller than themselves that national existence to which they are by language and boundary entitled.
  How different is the case to-day! Out of the chaos and the ruin of war, out of a fight in which every devilish device has been used against the cause of freedom, when hundreds and thousands of homes have been stricken by the loss of those who have fallen in the War, thank God there is rising a spirit of determination to banish for ever this curse which will create an atmosphere wherein all nations shall live at peace, and each nation shall have and retain the right to carve out its own destiny. If you shout for the end of Kaiserism and militarism and the destruction of oppression in every shape and form, if you proclaim your sympathy for the oppressed nations of Europe, surely your principle is undermined if you close your eyes to a most glaring case of misrule in your own Empire. If you are going to be a party to these principles you cannot and will not succeed if you do not grant to Ireland that place in the British Empire to which she is entitled. There are some people who hold that because Ireland did not consent to contribute her last man in this War her case for self-government has been weakened and, perhaps, has entirely disappeared. But that is a weak point of view.
  Our cause is not like so many others, for it is not the outcome of this War. For generation after generation my countrymen have pleaded in this House for the future welfare of our land. Young men have turned to old men on these benches, and young heads have turned to grey in the service of their country, and if you
  2000
  cannot and do not settle this question now on the lines laid down and on the principles of self-determination you will be opposed by a different spirit, a spirit of rising, in Ireland. This is your last and only opportunity when you will be able to deal with a united Ireland represented by a constitutional party. In the past your efforts and aim have been to sweep the constitutional party out of existence and destroy our cause in the face of the world. Then you approach your Allies and say this country is no good and we are not fit for self-government and that we are everything that is bad, but that is not the case.
  I have seen myself buried in one grave 400 hundred Irish Nationalist soldiers killed in one fight; I have seen the last resting place of a once distinguished Member of this House; and I ask you are all these lives, are all these Irishmen to lose their lives and shed their blood in order that every nation of Europe should be made free while Ireland is to be left under a system of coercion and oppression? I ask every fair-minded man, both friend and enemy of our cause, to support this Resolution, which is in entire conformity with the war aims of the Allies, and if they do so I say they will not get the gratitude of ourselves, because this is not a case of benevolence but of justice, but they will earn the self-respect of every Irishman throughout the world.
  Mr. HUGH LAW: It has been my habit in this House always to be very brief, and I can promise on this occasion that I shall be even more brief than usual. I came to this House sixteen or seventeen years ago with one aim, and that was to do what little I could to promote in the only way possible a better feeling and better relations between this country and my own. I came here full of hope and eagerness, thinking that this could be done, and I was encouraged in this view by one great party at least in the State, and by an increasing number of independent men belonging to the opposite party to believe that this must soon be accomplished. I have, however, been disappointed, and have seen my hopes blasted as so many better men than I have seen them blasted before. I believed then, and I believe now, that sooner or later you will have to take this course. I believe there is only one way and only one path whereby you can give to Ireland what a right hon. Friend of mine once called "the luxury of self-respect." I believe it is only by giving that luxury of self-respect to

  2001
  Ireland which can only come to a self-governing people that you can ever have real friends in the Irish people. I believe some day you will have to take that course.
  I know the Chief Secretary told us this afternoon of the dangers, and I do not in the least ignore them, that now lie in the path of self-government. Those dangers are not going to grow less by delay; in fact, they have grown greater by delay with every year that has passed. When my right hon. Friend talks as he did in his speech, when he says once more what has been so often said here, how can we really at this time bestow self-government on Ireland when we find such a sympathy with lawlessness amongst the people, when outrages occur and no one can be brought to justice because it is the law breaker and not the guardian of the law who finds sympathy among the people, I say the right hon. Gentleman must know very well that it is the fundamental principle of Liberalism that only when laws are made by the people themselves do those laws find respect.
  I saw in the newspapers that amid universal rejoicings some of those prisoners who had been implicated in the murder of the Archduke at Serajevo had been liberated. I observed in the same papers that Dr. Adler, the man who assassinated Count Stuergh, has been similarly released and similar rejoicings greeted the new regime which we all welcome. Do those incidents mean that in one case or the other the people approve of murder and outrage? No, Sir, I do not believe it means anything of the kind, but it means that so long as the law is identified with the dictates of a foreign Government, so long as it has not behind it the approval of the sentiments of the people, so long as they do not enjoy the luxury of self-respect, so long will you not find that support for the law which I agree you ought to find, and which some day, please God, I hope you will find! But you go on endlessly in a vicious circle, and so long as you maintain the present system so long you will have incidents which give plausible reasons for resistance.
  And so you go on and yet everybody knows that resist it as you may for a little while the light must make itself seen. Everyone knows that in this way only can the principles to which you yourselves are committed find application within your Empire, and only in this way can the
  2002
  better feeling which we all desire be created between these two countries. The right hon. Gentleman has challenged us to say how a settlement can be possible in Ireland so long as Ulster resists. He says, and says quite truly of course, that that is the real difficulty to a settlement, but the answer has already been given by my hon. Friend the Mover of this Resolution. If you put that forward, you simply say that liberty can never be given to any people in your own Empire so long as any minority is prepared to resist it. I am very glad that my hon. Friend has brought this Motion forward, because it does raise in the plainest mariner the question whether this country is going to be really faithful to the principles which it has professed in this War. It raises that question and it raises no other. I have found that some good Friends of ours in the past are disturbed in their minds because they think that in some way we have in this Motion enlarged our demands.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: The words "self-determination" are taken from a speech of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. HUGH LAW: I know. I say that it has been thought by some people that we have in some way enlarged our demands, but, as my hon. Friend points out, the words of his Motion are taken from the speech of the Prime Minister himself. Self-determination, according to the pronouncement of President Wilson, is the right of all peoples and all nations, but the manner in which that right is to be exercised may vary. In the case of the Czechoslovaks it leads to the creation of an independent State. In the case of the Italia-Irredenta it leads towards union with an existing State. In the case of Ireland ii will lead to the creation of a self-governing nation within the Empire. The Chief Secretary knows perfectly well that separation has never had any strength in Ireland except in those periods when the people have despaired of liberty within the Empire. He knows perfectly well that as certainly as the demands for self-government within the Empire—that is the demand which we have always steadily put forward—is refused, so certainly does the demand for separatism gather strength. He knows also that as certainly as that demand draws near to fruition, so certainly does the influence of the extremists decline. These are probably the last words that I shall speak in this House, and I do venture

  2003
  to beg those who have hitherto loyally supported the demand that we have made for the concession to our people of that by which alone better relations between our country and this can be brought about cot to fail us in this great hour.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: This Debate has served one useful purpose in that it has introduced into our discussions an hon. and gallant Member from Ireland (Captain Esmonde) who has seen much Army service during this War. He is the son of one of our oldest and most respected Members, and to-day, in a maiden speech, he has delivered an utterance, able, impressive, and eloquent. I am sure that the whole House will hope that he will often take part in our Debates. But for the rest, the Debate so far has been of little use. I can only describe the speech of the Chief Secretary as lamentable. It was wholly barren of any helpful suggestion. To the Motion itself he gave no answer of substance. The only reply which had in it any cogency was based upon nothing more than a verbal point, namely, the suggestion that if this House passed this Motion, then, unless a Home Rule Bill were passed within the next few days or weeks, this country would not be represented at the Peace Conference at all. Who can imagine that the framers of this Motion had any suggestion in their minds that in any circumstances, after the events of the last four years, a Peace Conference could be held to settle the future of Europe and the world with Great Britain absent from that Conference? I think the House can afford to brush aside sophistries of that kind. A Motion which declares that the Irish question should be settled
  "in accordance with the principles laid down by President Wilson, that all nations, large and email, should have free self-determination as to their form of government,"
  implies, and would be understood by every sensible man to imply, that it is essential for our self-respect and reputation that we should not go into a conference in which the freedom of all small nations throughout Europe is to be asserted without the nation at our doors receiving a full and proper measure of self-government. The Chief Secretary said that if only an agreement could be reached on the Ulster question the problem of Ireland could be settled to-morrow. Does he really mean that? Does he really mean, if by some happy chance the Nationalist Members and the Ulster Members were to arrive at
  2004
  a common solution, that then the Government would introduce a Bill and that that Bill would be passed into law? He asserted that in unqualified terms, and, if that is his view, and we must accept it as his view, because it was his statement, what then becomes of the impossibility of passing Home Rule on account of a German plot? His two arguments advanced against this Motion contradict one another. He emphasised the seizing and storing of explosives, the making of bombs by the revolutionary elements now at work in Ireland, and said, "In circumstances such as these how can we expect to establish Irish self-government?" Then in the next breath he asserted that if only the Ulster question were out of the way all these matters could be treated as subjects of indifference and straightway the Government would introduce and pass a Bill. I leave his second argument to answer his first argument. If any further reply is needed, then surely sufficient answer is found in this, that in these days, thanks to the heroism of our Armies and those of our Allies, our German enemies have plenty of other things to think about without fomenting disturbance in Ireland. My right hon. Friend's speech was delivered as though the Government had never given any pledge to introduce a Bill to establish Irish self-government. He forgets the clear declaration made by the present Prime Minister this very year in this House in the face of the country and of the world. I will venture to remind him of what was said on 9th April. It was the occasion when the Prime Minister had to announce the introduction of Conscription into Ireland, itself a lamentable blunder of policy which has resulted in throwing the whole country into turmoil, while it has not added a single man to our military forces. He said:—
  "Meanwhile, we intend to invite Parliament to pass a measure of self-government for Ireland…. Let there be no misapprehension. Both questions will not hang together. Each must be taken on its merits."
  Do not let it be said, therefore, that because there is no Conscription there can be no Home Rule. He mentioned in the same speech that the Convention had just terminated its labours:—
  "I understand that it reported by a majority, but I fear that the majority is not such as to justify the Government in saying that it represents substantial agreement. That means that the Government must accept the responsibility of submitting to Parliament, with such guidance

  2005
  as the Convention's Report affords, such proposals for the establishment of self-government in Ireland as they think just and as can, in their judgment, be carried without violent controversy. We propose, therefore, at an early date, to introduce such a measure into the House of Commons, and to invite the House to pass it into law with the least possible delay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1918, cols. 1362–64, Vol. 104.]
  Where is that Bill? That was in April, and from that day to this no such proposal has been laid before Parliament. Was there no Ulster question at that time? Had the Government forgotten Ulster? Had the Government no knowledge that there were revolutionary elements in Ireland which had been almost from the beginning of the War in correspondence with Germany? The right hon. Gentleman to-day says, "How can we be expected to deal with this matter? Who can tell us what is to be the solution of the Ulster question? The Convention did not come to a unanimous agreement. There are elements in Ireland which are treasonable, and which are more or less in open league with our enemies." All those elements were present on 9th April, every one of them. The Ulster question was there. Its difficulty was well known. The Prime Minister knew it well on account of the negotiations which he himself had conducted in 1916. Everyone knew that the Sinn Fein movement had been in touch with Germany. The Convention at that date had expressed its disagreement, and yet the Government came down to the House and promised the introduction of a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman to-day says that these three elements, all of which were present then, make any attempt at solution impossible. The conclusion is that either the Government at that date had not carefully considered all the aspects of the question or that they were playing with the House and the country when they came here and promised the immediate introduction of a Bill. A week later, still in April, the Prime Minister, in another speech, declared that he regarded the establishment of self-government in Ireland as "an essential war measure." Those were his words; and he spoke as the head of a Coalition Cabinet. He must have believed that it was an essential war measure, or he would not have said it. He must have had the authority of his Unionist colleagues, or he would not have ventured to make such a declaration. What excuse can the Government give now, after all these months, for not having even pro-
  2006
  posed to the House a measure which they declared was essential to the conduct of the War? I venture to suggest that it was an essential war measure and that our moral position in face of Europe and the world has been grievously impaired by our failure to establish that liberty in Ireland for which we are pleading for people among all the nations of mankind. If it was an essential war measure, it is to-day equally essential as a peace measure. We cannot with self-respect go to a Peace Conference, and, as I say, urge the right of self-determination of every small nationality in Europe while denying a similar right to our own sister island here. We are probably on the eve of a General Election. The country will wish to know what is the policy of the Government with regard to this urgent and grave question of Ireland. We have had to-day the answer of the Chief Secretary. They have no policy.
  7.0 P.M.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I had not expected to take part in this discussion to-day, because, when I found that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had been able to leave Paris sooner than I expected, I hoped that he would undertake this task; I am sure however that the House will understand that the burden on him at this time is almost intolerable, and the duties which he had to face immediately upon his arrival made it utterly impossible for him to come and spend the time in this House to-day. Therefore, I feel it necessary for a very few minutes to occupy the time of the House. My right hon. Friend who has just sat down described the speech of the Chief Secretary as "lamentable." I have no doubt that his comment upon mine will be "still more lamentable," for, judging from the tone of his own address, I should not be very pleased to find that I had satisfied him. There is, however, one consideration in connection with this Debate which is in the highest degree gratifying; the speech to which we have just listened is in itself proof. I give my right hon. Friend credit for possessing as keen an anxiety as ourselves to see the War carried to a proper end. The speech to which we have just listened, with its full-toned party vehemence, is itself the best proof that he at least thinks that the danger of the War is over. I hope so, but we have not yet got Peace, and until we have, those of us, at least, who are responsible—

  2007
  must consider that the War is still going on; and in everything we do we must still be influenced by that fact. I was much more interested in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith). I listened to it in part with pleasure, but in the main with something approaching extreme amazement. A large part of it consisted of the expression of desires of a general nature—desires which will be shared by all, and which, as always, were expressed by my right hon Friend in words which few can imitate. But these pious aspirations, these desires for a settlement to what do they amount? A great Irishman once said that "idle wishes are the most idle of all things." What I should have liked to have heard from my right hon. Friend, is not pious aspirations, but a clear expression of the course which is possible to any British Government.
  My right hon. Friend who has just spoken has told us that the criticism of the Chief Secretary was merely a verbal criticism of the Resolution. I wonder if my right hon. Friend will seriously maintain that. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife said that this Resolution would be carried almost unanimously in every self-governing Parliament of the Empire. That is an easy statement to make. I venture to say that at no time in the last twenty-five years would such a Resolution have been carried in any of the self-governing Dominions, and it would have less chance of being carried to-day in any of them than it will have of being carried in this House of Commons. What does it mean? This is not a mere verbal criticism of the Resolution. It lays down two propositions, to which the Government is utterly opposed, and to which I believe I am right in saying the great overwhelming majority of the people of this country are equally opposed. The first of these—and again I say this is not a verbal criticism—is preposterous. It makes the claim that we the British Empire are to take no part in the Peace Conference until we have settled the Irish question.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: No!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: What else does it mean? Let me read it:
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is essential that, before the British Government takes part in any proceedings for the resettlement of Europe on the conclusion of Peace, the Irish question should be settled."
  2008
  What does the Resolution mean? We can only take part when the Peace Conference is sitting, and this Resolution says that it is not to take part unless it has already settled the Irish question. I say that is an utterly preposterous phrase.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: It would be preposterous if that were what it meant, but it does not mean that.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Then if the hon. Member suggests it has any other meaning, let him put it in words. I say the meaning of this phrase is clear. It is that this is to be tied up with the Peace Conference. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you mean to settle the Irish question?"] I am sure, however unpleasant what I have to say may prove, hon. Members below the Gangway will, as always, listen to me fairly. I am afraid I shall have unpleasant things to say. I have said what I think the phrase means. I do not suggest for a moment that either the hon. Member who moved the Resolution or the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), the Leader of the party to which he belongs, mean by this statement that the Armies are to go on fighting till we have trodden again the old groove of trying to get a settlement of the Irish question. But whatever the Irish Members may state as to its meaning, I venture to say there is no constituency in England, Scotland, or Wales which would not resent to the utmost any attempt to treat the Irish question on that level.
  Then the Resolution makes another claim to which the Government, and I believe the country, are equally opposed. The very wording of it implies that this is a subject with which the Peace Conference has some right to deal. I deny it and I say more, I say this is a domestic question with which this British Empire is prepared, and this Government and this country, are prepared to deal not only fairly and justly, but in every sense generously with Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "When have they been?"] Always—always, at any rate, since I have been engaged in politics. I do not think there is any question about that. It is prepared, and for generations has been prepared, to deal in that way with Ireland, and I do not believe that one man in a hundred in any part of Great Britain would tolerate the idea that the settlement is to be dictated to us by anybody outside the British Empire. That is

  2009
  one ground on which I say that this Motion could not under any circumstances be accepted. I really do not think that this should be treated as a Home Rule Debate at all, although I am always ready to take part in such a Debate. One cannot get over the plain fact—explain it however hon. Members may—that this Resolution asks that we shall take no part in the Peace Conference until we have settled this Irish question, and that we must listen to the opinion and dictation of people outside the British Empire.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is not in the Resolution.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend is very fond of talking about "verbal distinctions." What is the use of going with Home Rule to a Peace Conference, unless it means that the Conference has some connection with the matter?
  Mr. SAMUEL: It has a connection with our moral position in a Peace Conference, but it does not imply that we think that the question of Ireland is a question which should be debated at the Peace Conference.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not agree with my right hon. Friend in his reading of the words of the Resolution. But he differs from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who have made that direct claim, and that is so much to the good. I have said I will not treat this as a Home Rule Debate. My right hon. Friend said that this Government had broken its pledges, because of some speech made by the Prime Minister in April of this year. In that speech the Prime Minister said that he did intend to try and proceed to a settlement of the question. My right hon. Friend read out the Prime Minister's words, but he did not lay emphasis on them, although he read them. He did not lay emphasis on the words that the Government were prepared to introduce a measure, if it had a chance of being carried without violent controversy. Those words were in the Prime Minister's statement.
  Mr. PRINGLE: He went further. He said he would resign if the Bill were not carried.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: And you said you would, too.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I certainly did not. The Prime Minister's pledge, if it was a
  2010
  pledge, was to the effect that the intention of the Government was—the Convention having failed—to try and carry through the House of Commons, without the Convention, a proposal for the settlement of the Irish question. But he added qualification "if it could be carried without violent controversy." Everybody in the House knows the changed conditions in Ireland which followed that speech. Is there a man in this House to-day who can possibly imagine that there has been any chance of any form of self-government for Ireland being carried without violent controversy through this House since that statement was made. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Prime Minister never used the words violent controversy.'"] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland read the words. With regard to the second part of the Resolution, the whole case which has been put is that we must make a settlement right away. In the Debate, so far as it has proceeded, not one of the speakers has touched the essence of this problem—not one of them.
  With all the talk about one nation ruling over and coercing another, one would never imagine for a moment, what everyone here knows to be true, that this difficulty is not a difficulty between Great Britain and Ireland, but a difficulty due to the differences between Irishmen themselves. My right hon. Friend was quite within his right in saying that it does not need the expression of the views of any particular Government. I am also right in saying that if there were a general desire, a general agreement in Ireland, it would not be long before Great Britain would accept a settlement on that basis. But what do the promoters of this Resolution meant They say "the right of self-determination" of all people. How are you to distinguish what the people want when you make that statement? Is it to be by the size of the body which makes the claim, or what is it? I can quite understand the attitude of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. They say, "We represent Ireland; we want it. It does not matter what another part of Ireland wishes; they have to submit to our desire." That is what they mean by "self-determination." These phrases are only generalities, which have actually no meaning. I think it was at the time of the French Revolution—I am not quite sure of the exact time at which it happened—that some speakers were eloquently ex-

  2011
  pressing these views about self-determination, and a member of the Chamber, with some common sense, got up and said,
  "Well, the Basques are really quite different from Frenchmen. They do not talk our language, they are in every sense a different nationality. If they ask for self-determination as against France, what would your answer be?"
  There was a universal shout, "They would be traitors!" That is what these hon. Gentlemen mean. If the community in Ulster does not agree with them, their self-determination means that the people of Ulster are traitors, and they have got to be made to agree with them.
  Mr. SCANLAN: No; it means that the majority have to rule in Ireland.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This is the real difficulty of the problem—and no amount of talking generalities will get over it. Is the British Government or are the British people prepared to compel Ulster to accept a settlement against her will? That is the question. Well, on that there is no difference of opinion between us who sit on this bench and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife. Let me read—I am sorry he is not here—some of the things that he said in this connection:
  "Speaking again on behalf of the Government, in our view, under the conditions which now exist, we must all recognise the atmosphere which this great patriotic spirit of union has created in the country, the employment of force of any kind for what you call the coercion of Ulster is an absolutely unthinkable thing."
  Again in 1916:
  "No one, so far as I know—I have said so repeatedly myself in the past—no one has ever desired or contemplated its coercive application by one set of Irishmen to another."
  Again in July of the same year—I will not read them all—
  "In order to relieve any possible doubt on that point—"
  This is my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife—
  "let me say, speaking for those who, like myself, look forward to and are anxious for a united Ireland, we recognise and agree in the fullest and sincerest sense that such union can never be brought about without the free will and assent of the excluded area."
  Now where are we? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife says the Government have got to get Home Rule at once. Is he prepared to face this problem, and to gay that to-day he will do what a few months ago he said he would not do? If he is not, what is the use of talking to the
  2012
  House of Commons of these generalities! Of one thing at least I am certain. If he were here, he would not take the method of getting out his speeches which was adopted by my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. Samuel). The case of my right hon. Friend was that you cannot have a settlement till Ulster agrees, but he says that was before the Convention. The Convention shows that Ulster did not agree, and therefore you are entitled to have it now. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife would not make that excuse, and for a very good reason. It is very simple. When my right hon. Friend spoke then, he was a member of a Government. He had the responsibility of a member of the Government. What has changed is not the conditions, but now that he is a member of the Opposition, and he is now prepared to make a settlement which before he would not have done. I wish to say before I sit down something in another sense. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway tell us constantly that all the unpleasing things which have happened in Ireland are due to the British Government—that it is all our fault.
  An HON. MEMBER: Absolutely true!
  Another HON. MEMBER: Carson!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Well, I do not think that is so. I am not going to deny the part which has been taken in this War by some of those who stand for Nationalist ideals, but I will express to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway my own opinion for what it is worth. The mistake has not been all ours. This War, with all the issues which are involved, has raised questions far above any of our own party fights—far above any question of the immediate grant of Home Rule to Ireland. What is the position of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway? Many of them, in their hearts, were as strongly on the side of right, as we believed it, as any who sit on these benches.
  Mr. DILLON: And are still!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is the point with which I am going to deal. I can assure hon. Members that when an issue of that kind is raised there can be no half measures. It must sink everything else into its proper place. I believe that if the Nationalist Members who, like the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), take our view about the justice of this

  2013
  War, if, instead of boasting, as he has done, that he took no part in any recruiting campaign—
  Mr. DILLON: That is an absolute misinterpretation of what I said. I have been grossly misrepresented.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the hon. Member used the words. At all events, what I am going to say, whether hon. Gentlemen like it or not, I am going to say—and I think they will allow me to do so—I say that if, instead of taking that attitude, they had boldly gone to their Irish fellow-countrymen and said, "Till this is settled, we care nothing for Home Rule or anything else. We ask our countrymen to put that aside until this world conflict between right and wrong is settled—"
  Mr. LUNDON: You would betray us again.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: —I think they would have had a larger following in Ireland than they have to-day. Or if, only at the eleventh hour, if, not out of malice, as my right hon. Friend suggested, but if, when at the time we believed that the vital safety of the nation required it, we suggested Conscription in Ireland, if then those hon. Members—
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I did not suggest that.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: "Wantonness" was the word you used.
  Mr. SCANLAN: What did you say in Belfast at the critical stage?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: —If at that eleventh hour, when we felt that we must get these men, if those hon. Members—let them say that they did not want Conscription, though I think they had no right to say it, I think it was going against their agreement at the time the Home Rule Bill was carried—had thrown themselves heart and soul into raising the men by voluntary means, I think they would have a larger following in Ireland than they have to-day.
  Let me say something more. You will never, so long as this Nation and Empire exists, get Home Rule except by convincing the people of the United Kingdom that it is just and right that you should get it. You will get it in no other way.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Axe you going to repeal the Home Rule Act?
  Mr BONAR LAW: I say to the House, and to hon. Gentlemen below the Gang-
  2014
  way, that if they had taken that attitude—if they had carried even a fair proportion of their people with them—they would have done more to make the success of their cause secure in Great Britain, and done more to win the acquiescence of Ulster than they will do by all the agitations and speeches. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway know it as well as I do that we have got to live together—Ireland and Great Britain. There never was a time, in my opinion, in the history of the relations between the two countries when the claims of Ireland had less of a response in the United Kingdom than they have to-day. How could it be otherwise?
  Throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain there is mourning to-day for the men who have gone, and who will never return. They look to Ireland and they say, "What share have they taken—[An HON. MEMBER: "A very big share!]—in this terrible struggle?" [An HON. MEMBER: "Far too much!"] I may be wrong, but I think that is the feeling in Great Britain to-day. [An HON. MEMBER: "And in America! "] Yes, and in America. But I do not want that feeling to grow. We have got to live together, as I said, and I think every Member of this House, when we resent, as I do, the small part which Nationalist Ireland as a whole has taken in this struggle—when we resent it, we still remember one familiar figure who used to sit on those benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whom you killed!" and "Hypocrisy!"] It is not hypocrisy! [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, it is!"] I think not. We do remember that figure, and will always recollect that, though I am sorry to say the majority of Nationalist Ireland has played a part in this War which they will not look back upon as long as any of those hon. Members are living with anything but something of a sense of shame—
  Mr. FITZGIBBON: That is a gross libel!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: —We still remember there are some Irishmen, who were our bitterest opponents in the past, who have done what men could to uphold the cause for which so many here have given their lives. I do not despair of a settlement. But I say that the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife are as true to-day as they were when he used them. You cannot have any

  2015
  form of self-government for the whole of Ireland which includes Ulster, without, in the main, getting the assent of Ulster. That is not impossible if you go about it in the right way. At any rate, that is my belief. Until you have got it, you will never convince the people of this country that self-determination means that one section of Irishmen are to impose their will by force upon another section, with an equal claim to justice. I say it is absurd to treat this as a Home Rule discussion on this Resolution.
  I come back now to where I began. I suppose it is a fair inference from what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) said that he is going to vote for this Resolution. He said in a speech in the country last week that what he thought would happen was that, as soon as the War was over, we should get back to our own party lines. I was doubtful about the wisdom of that, but if this is to be the way it is to be raised, and if my right hon. Friend and I are to be in opposite camps in this matter—however much I may be opposed to him, I shall always respect him and remember the part which he has played in this War—I would ask nothing better than that he and those who will be opposed to me should go into the Lobby in favour of a Resolution which asks that we shall take no part in the Conference till Home Rule is settled, and which implies that this is a question about which somebody or other outside the United Kingdom has a right to say one single word.
  Mr. SCANLAN: The speech to which we have just listened is very remarkable. The Leader of the House has lectured my leader and the representatives of Nationalist Ireland, and has told us that if, during the course of the War, we had paid attention to the issues involved in the War and had thought nothing of Home Rule, we should be stronger in Ireland than we are to-day. I ask him whether he is specially the gentleman who is entitled to lecture us in that sense. I would ask him if he is quite secure in his own mind and in his own conscience about his record in the War, and his position in regard to Home Rule for Ireland. At a time when this country had come to one of the most critical stages of the War and the fortunes of this country were very low, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, and he did not then preach the doctrine
  2016
  of no politics until the War is over. He did not say "let us have no talk about Home Rule until the War is over." He went with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) to a meeting in Belfast and declared that he would resist Home Rule. He would not only offer his moral support to the right hon. Gentleman, but he would join in physical resistance to the grant by this Government of a measure of Home Rule for Ireland. Is it fair to say to us, "You should never have spoken about Home Rule during the War"? What did he do to encourage Ireland to take a part in the War when he declared in Belfast, after the retreat from Mons, that never would he consent to the passage of Home Rule, and that he would not only give his moral support to the tragedian from Trinity College but that he would give physical opposition to the setting up of Home Rule in Ireland? In face of that position, are we entitled to be lectured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his position in regard to Home Rule for Ireland, or on ours? As to the Home Rule Bill, which is on the Statute Book, what is its position? Is he in face of the Peace Conference prepared to repeal that measure? Is he advocating this as the position of England before England goes into the Peace Conference? He has talked as a critic of the Motion and said it is not one which the House of Commons ought to be asked to accept, and he gave reasons.
  Before the House judges of that matter it is well to remind it of the terms of the Motion. The Motion is:
  "That, in the opinion of the House, it is essential that, before the British Government takes part in any proceeding for the resettlement of Europe on the conclusion of peace, the Irish question should be settled in accordance with the principles laid down by President Wilson."
  What is the objection to this House declaring that in its view the Irish question should be settled in accordance with the declaration of President Wilson? Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent to the House by the Prime Minister to say that the Prime Minister is not in favour of the declaration of President Wilson? Does the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer come to this, that he has been asked by the Prime Minister to say that Ireland must not have Home Rule and that Ireland shall only have Home Rule if Ulster consents to that proposition? No one knows better than he how easy it is to get Ulster to refuse to consent to a measure of Home Rule for Ireland. No

  2017
  one more than he, no one in the Government, no one in the House of Commons, no one associated with the politics of this country has played a more sinister part in regard to Irish self-government than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no one who could be sent by this country to represent the country at the Peace Conference who should more wear a look of shame on his face than the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of his conduct towards Ireland and in view of his attitude during the War. At present, plainly stated, this country is governed by the Tory party, and the Tory party in the old days or in the present day has never selected a more fitting tool to carry out its policy in Ireland than the present Chief Secretary. I have never heard more insults in this House. I have never heard anything more insulting in this House than the statements of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in regard to Home Rule and the attitude of the Nationalist party. I do not think since the days of Buckshot Forster we have had a more sinister tool to carry out British Government in Ireland than we have in the present Chief Secretary. I do not think we have ever had a less competent Chief Secretary than we have in the present representative of that office. He says there can be no Home Rule settlement—there can be no dealing with this question until the whole of Ulster agrees with the rest of Ireland. I ask him to remember what the Prime Minister said in 1912, when the question of Ulster and of Ulster's right to control Ireland was discussed in this House.
  The Prime Minister, who was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said it was absurd for Ulster to claim to take up the position that she could block for all time the right of Ireland to have control of her own affairs. Does anyone doubt that this is the attitude of Ulster? The attitude of Ulster has always been that if Ulster succeeded Home Rule for the rest of Ireland necessarily failed. On 13th June, 1912, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) said:
  "Ulster asks for no separate Parliament. She never has, in all the long controversy, taken that course. Ulster asks to remain in the Imperial Parliament, and that she means, if possible, to do, and you need fear no action of Ulster which would be in the nature of desertion of any of the Southern Provinces If Ulster succeeds, Home Rule is dead."
  And people to-day, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who say the Irish question
  2018
  cannot be settled so long as you have opposition to Home Rule in Ireland, mean that Ireland shall never have Home Rule. In face of that there is nothing but the most arrant dishonesty on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister in coming into the Peace Conference and saying they are in favour of self-determination for small nations, especially the small nations on the Continent. In April of this year the Prime Minister stated that Ireland must have Home Rule. I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of something which it is important for him to consider in dealing with that speech by the Prime Minister. He has thumped the dispatch box and told us that no country outside Great Britain has anything to say to the question of Home Rule for Ireland, but he heard the Prime Minister say that this country was determined to give Home Rule to Ireland, not as an act of justice to Ireland, not because Great Britain demanded it, but in order to satisfy an outside nation. Here is what the Prime Minister said on 16th April of this year:
  "I say the best way in which we can assure American opinion—"
  not British opinion, but American opinion—
  "that we are dealing fairly by Ireland is for the British Parliament to tender such a measure of self-government as will satisfy reasonable American opinion."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to be very much engaged with a colleague in matters connected with the War and of the utmost importance that he cannot, I suppose, for the moment, listen to a statement controverting what he has just said. But I think we are entitled to ask the House to consider whether there is any sincerity in the declarations of the Government in regard to Ireland, and especially whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has any claim to sincerity. He says he will never allow any country or any body outside Great Britain to have anything to say in regard to the settlement of the Irish question. Yet on 16th April, when he himself was present, he was a party to the declaration of the Prime Minister of this country—the great win-the-War Prime Minister—when he said—
  "We must give Home Rule to Ireland—"
  not because it is right for Ireland, not because the people of Great Britain want it. but—
  "in order to conciliate American opinion."

  2019
  I appeal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, and from the whole of the British Government to the President of the United States of America. I ask: Is it not the best way in which we can assure American opinion that we are dealing faithfully by Ireland by the British Parliament giving full self-government to Ireland? After all, America is not out of the War. It is quite true that Austria is out of the War, but not America. I am not sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not like it if America were out of the War. But American influence in the War is not dead. The President of the United States has given fourteen points in which lie the great hope of the world in future. Lord Northcliffe has given thirteen points. He likes the odd number, apparently. He believes that in his thirteen points rests the hope and security of the world in the future. Take President Wilson, or take Lord Northcliffe, and read alongside of their observations as to the principle of self-determination what the Prime Minister of this country declared—that Ireland's question must be settled on the principle of self-determination.
  With airy debating skill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks us to-night: "What do you mean by self-determination in Ireland?" I will tell him what he means by self-determination in any country in Europe, or in any country in the world, where to-day the principle is being applied; it is that you agree, as you are right in agreeing, that if the principle of self-determination should be applied, say, in Alsace-Lorraine, it means that the will of the majority of the people shall prevail. When the right hon. Gentleman's colleague the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) says, "You must have a free Arab State for Arabs," he means that the will of the Arab people must prevail. I ask the Prime Minister, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, does it never enter into their minds that in Ireland the will of the Irish people should prevail? [An HON MEMBER: "Ulster."] I tell the right hon. Gentleman frankly what we mean by self-determination is that the majority of the people of Ireland should determine the form of government under which Ireland is to live. In opposition to the principle of self-determination he says to us: "You can only have the government which the
  2020
  minority of the people of Ireland agree shall prevail." The right hon. Gentleman has supported the lost cause of oppression in this country for a long time. He is venturing to sustain it too long in view of the trend of events in Europe and in the world. The world to-day demands that every nation shall have the right to make its own laws and to determine its own constitution. You may be hypocrites, but you yourselves have said from the Treasury Bench that to Ireland this principle is to be applied. You said you would do it. You were afraid when the fortune of war hung in the balance, and you would do it—in deference to the wishes of America. I warn you that America is not yet out of the War, and that America will see if you are false to your promise to Ireland that Ireland is treated fairly and in accordance with the principle of self-determination laid down by President Wilson.
  Mr. JOHN: I would trespass upon the indulgence of the House because I am very anxious, on the present occasion, to express, as a Welsh Nationalist, my profound regret that during the long course of this international struggle, which is now happily coming to a close, the claim of Ireland for self-government—this acute question of self-government—thrice recognised by the House of Commons, should have been wholly unsatisfied. For my own part, I think an initial and grievous error of judgment was made in regard to the Home Rule Bill when the operation of that measure was postponed. I have no doubt the respected and revered late Leader of the Irish party, Mr. Redmond, was very unwilling, and very reluctantly agreed to that course; but that fact, and the further fact that the malignant ineptitude—I think it was some such phrase in which the Prime Minister described the position of the War Office towards recruiting in Ireland—these two facts, I say, really account for the very unsatisfactory condition of Ireland over the whole of the four years and for the unhappy Easter rebellion of that country, and also for the fact of the very unsatisfactory state of things to-day. We had a very large body of troops, popularly estimated at from 90,000 to 100,000 men, who were badly needed elsewhere. While that is the immediate cause of the very regrettable situation in which we find Ireland to-day, I think we really should have regard to some much more permanent factors in Ireland over, particularly, the last seventy

  2021
  years. I do not propose to review those years in detail, but I do want to recall the attention of the House to the fundamental state of Ireland as compared with that of Great Britain.
  The position here is that during the last seventy years the population of Great Britain has doubled. The population of Ireland has been halved. That in itself is an exceedingly sad state of affairs. Taking Scotland, I see the population from 1841 to 1911 increased 80 per cent. In England and Wales it increased 135 per cent. In Great Britain itself 120 per cent. If the population of Ireland had grown as the population of Great Britain has grown, to-day it would have been—take Scotland first—nearly 15,000,000; if it had grown as Great Britain as a whole has grown, 18,000,000; if as England and Wales has grown, 19,000,000. I ask hon. Members to endeavour to appreciate what that means, that the population of Ireland to-day is one-fourth of what it would have been if statesmanship in Ireland had been as successful as statesmanship in Great Britain. The hon. Friends who crowd the seats above the Gangway are, I am afraid, as a rule, somewhat lacking in imagination. I would ask them to imagine what the position of Great Britain would be to-day if from 16,000,000 in 1841 its population had been reduced to 8,000,000 to-day! They could then possibly appreciate the somewhat insignificant part Great Britain would have played in the struggle. That is not by any means the whole case. When we come to consider the unhappy remnant of the Irish race which to-day is located in Ireland, what do we find? The position is still more tragically unsatisfactory. If you have regard to the economic factors which are of maximum use to-day—I refer to the young men from twenty to thirty-five—in Ireland and, again, the dependants who are not of great economic utility, namely, those between sixty and eighty-five years of age, the position in England is that you have seven of the vigorous young manhood of the country to every two of the aged; in Ireland the proportion is only four to two. England and Wales could thus afford to lose three out of seven of their young men from twenty to thirty-five before reaching the position in which Ireland stood untouched by war. This, I submit, is a very unsatisfactory condition, and really accounts for the instinctive
  2022
  feeling in Ireland against the conception of Conscription at all. In Ireland it is known that the mass of the population is relatively decrepit and inefficient. I would urge that the inevitable hostile judgment passed on Ireland in this respect should in justice be clearly modified.
  8.0 P.M.
  I further desire to point out that, while parties are distributing blame for the present unhappy position of matters, Great Britain is likely to arrive at the Peace Conference shamefaced, with its oldest and most acute problem of national self-determination wholly unsolved. What, to my mind, is perhaps worse, is that we shall be sitting there without having taken any steps that will ensure that in the next Parliament the House of Commons will be in a position to deal with this question by what is, to my mind, the only satisfactory method. This failure to achieve success in the efforts that have been made to establish self-government in Ireland seems to me to be, in the main, attributable to the endeavour to establish self-government in Ireland on the basis of Dual Home Rule rather than on the basis of Federal Home Rule. In that respect we have been following the inauspicious precedents of Sweden and Norway and Austro-Hungary. The case of Austro-Hungary is the latest illustration of the failure of this effort. The leaders of the Liberal party, who, at the moment, are conspicuous by their absence, are going to the country again without any specific request or any clear suggestion as to any method of simultaneously dealing with the demand for self-government from Scotland and Wales, as well as from Ireland. Our belief is that by dealing simultaneously with this matter in England, Scotland and Wales, you would not only give with safety that which we contemplate granting to Ireland with much misgiving and trepidation, but you would do something considerable, enormously, to facilitate a settlement of this question, incidentally insuring to England that English self-government by which England would be able to see that her affairs are dealt with in accordance with English ideas. I am satisfied that the gross extravagance and inefficiency of a centralised bureaucracy during the past four years have been such as to make it absolutely essential that reconstruction, if it is to proceed on

  2023
  sagacious and satisfactory lines, must be arranged very largely on lines of drastic lecentralisation.
  I have for the moment waived entirely the paramount considerations of national feeling. To my mind the most obvious dictates of prudence and common sense suggest the advisability of remitting to Scottish, Irish, and Welsh Legislatures every phase of business which can be dealt with separately without manifest disadvantage to the general well-being. Undoubtedly it can be urged that Ireland would no longer be content with Federal Home Rule, and that she clamours for dominion status or independence. If that be really so, that, to my mind, is the measure of the incompetence of British statesmanship, and this coming General Election, if it will prove anything, will prove that Ireland is not being governed with her consent—a very disastrous verdict to invite from the people of Ireland. If there be any opposition in Ireland—I am not sure that there is—to the Federal solution, I think that it is based upon a misapprehension, for Federal Home Rule, as Scotland and Wales conceive it, certainly imply giving to Ireland not a smaller but a very much larger measure of self-government than is contained in the provisions of the Irish Bill. We would insist upon such powers being given to the Legislatures of Scotland and Wales as would cover the whole domestic affairs of these countries, apart from such matters as are better dealt with in unison by the four countries. There is one question on which some divergence of view arises. Some very distinguished spokesmen of the Nationalist party are anxious to obtain for Ireland the power of imposing protective duties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not necessarily!"] In this respect there is a rather curious contrast with what we are anxious for in Wales, which is to retain the power to refrain from imposing protective duties, so that we might be able to stand outside any misguided Protectionist system which England might be induced to adopt. In any case I respectfully submit to the representatives of Ireland that they are contending for a somewhat academic right in their national solution. It would be inconsistent with the fundamental principle of the League of Nations—the elimination of force in the settlement of international disputes—which, as President Wilson perceives and
  2024
  contends, contemplates no preferential tariffs—a League of Nations should be based on universal Free Trade.
  The Protectionist party are beginning dimly to perceive the incongruity of embarking on a war of tariffs directed against their present Allies, and they have frequently paid the tribute of economic vice to economic virtue by declaring themselves devoted to Free Trade within the Empire. Ireland really is following a pernicious will o' the wisp when it seeks to impose duties upon imports either from England or anywhere else. A settlement should be based largely upon general disarmament as the corollary of the elimination of force, and, with the general adoption of Free Trade, it really would become as safe to offer to Ireland, as to Scotland or Wales, the unqualified right of self-determination. I was rather staggered to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers self-determination to be an insoluble problem in Ireland, while he and his colleagues and the Allies generally apparently consider it to be a wholly soluble problem in Austro-Hungary. His position is really too ludicrous for words. But this unqualified right of self-determination which the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers inadmissible is really a right which England has no right to withhold except under the discredited Prussian doctrine that might is right. We must be prepared to concede fully the principle of government by consent not only to Poland, Bohemia, Serbia, and Montenegro, but to India, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and that forthwith. To my mind even the Ulster difficulty would probably disappear if the whole province were given the option, say, in five years' time, of obtaining a substantial measure of autonomy. Instead of precipitating an election which will inevitably—there is no avoiding that—be regarded as a piece of purely personal political profiteering, statesmen should surely endeavour to secure some agreed solution of the joint problems of Irish discontent, and of a derelict British Constitution, by creating Scottish, Irish, and Welsh Legislatures for the transaction of Irish, Scottish, and Welsh business, leaving this Chamber to the representatives of English constituencies for the transaction of English domestic business, and substituting in another place, for the anachronism of an hereditary Second Chamber, an elected body charged with all Imperial business and such domestic concerns as would be

  2025
  best dealt with by the nations jointly. Irish Members are undoubtedly dissatisfied with the outcome of their alliance with one great English party, and they are apparently somewhat dubious on the question of close co-operation with the Labour party, but I hope that they will get over their doubt and hesitation in that respect. However, I invite them to ascertain whether close co-operation is not possible with their fellow Nationalists in Scotland and Wales. I am told that in the coming Parliament there will be no place among the representatives of the Principality for men of independence of thought and character. If that be so, I would hasten to convey to this House the sentiments of the greatest Celt of modern times. It was in 1909 that George Meredith wrote of Ireland as,
  "A land distraught,
  Where bitterest rebel passions seethe."
  He urged—
  "May she not call herself her own?
  That is her cry—and hence her spits
  Of fury—thence her graceless tone
  At justice given in bits and bits.
  She, generous, craves your generous dole
  That will not Iouse the crack of doom,
  It ends the blundering past control
  Simply to give her elbow room.
  Her offspring feel they are a race
  To be a nation is their claim;
  A nation she, and formed to charm
  With heart for heart and hands all round,
  No longer England's broken arm.
  Would England know, where strength is found,
  And strength to-day is England's need.
  To-morrow it may be for both.
  Salvation—heed the portents, heed the warnings."
  That was George Meredith's counsel to British statesmen in 1909, and dearly has Britain paid for neglecting it.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I rise to support the Motion which has been moved with such eloquence by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. If there is one question on which the labour forces of this country are more united than on any other, it is the question of Home Rule for Ireland. The labour forces of this country desire that a generous measure of Home Rule should be granted, and so solve the centuries-old controversies that have existed between one section of the British and the other. We believe that this question is one which should have been settled long ago. It is one of the tragedies of British politics that this question is always cutting across every issue that is raised in this House and every question of importance that comes
  2026
  before this country. It is a question that could not have been raised at a more inconvenient time than the present, but labour believes that if it had been settled, as we think it should have been settled, long ago, the British people would have been in a better position to face the greatest crisis in their history. For they would have been facing it as a solid united body, instead of having at least part of one of the sections of the British race dissatisfied and entering at least not as fully into the struggle as the other sections have done. If we had been able to do this we could have applied our forces to the task that we have had in hand more effectively than we have been able to do for practically the last two years of this great struggle. Notwithstanding those divisions, however, the dark clouds of war which have been hanging so heavily over us for the last four and a-half years are beginning to break, and we can see the approaching dawn of peace and victory; a peace and a victory over the forces of militarism and autocracy and in favour of the sanctity of International law, and the independence and self-determination of small nations as well as of large nations. In this struggle no nation has played a worthier part than Britain, and the sons of all sections of the British race, including Ireland, have taken part in that struggle. In doing so they have won the undying gratitude of those small struggling peoples who, we were delighted to hear the Prime Minister say, are going to be able to follow out their own national ideals in the future to a far greater extent than they have been able to do in the past centuries. Labour, however, is strongly of the opinion that if the true value of the work and the effort which Britain has put into this struggle is not to be greatly diminished we must be prepared to apply the same principles to all the Nations that go to make up the British Empire itself.
  When he Peace Conference comes, our Government should and must be in the position to say that it has put its own House in order, in so far as the policy of self-determination is concerned, if the honour, the integrity, and the good intentions of the people of this country are to be upheld. Uuless we do so, I fear Britain's voice will not carry the same weight in the Peace negotiations as have her efforts in this struggle. We talk about making the world safe for democracy, and I am one of those who are very

  2027
  anxious that the world, in the coming days, should be much safer for democracy than ever it has been in the past. If that is to be so, are we to deny to part of our own people, who are living at the very centre of this Empire, the right of self-government which, by an overwhelming majority, they have been demanding for so long? We are a great and a mighty Empire, but we have our skeleton in the cupboard, and I fear, notwithstanding some of the very strong statements that have been made on behalf of the Government by the Chief Secretary for Ireland and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of this Debate, that even though Ireland may not be represented in the flesh yet that skeleton in the cupboard will be haunting the minds of the plenipotentiaries who go to represent Great Britain at the coming Peace Conference. I am not so very sure that even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is one of those plenipotentiaries that the spectre of Ireland will be far distant from him in that Peace Conference, even though Ireland be unrepresented in the flesh around that table. We are told that charity should begin at home. If that is so, how much more ought justice to begin at home? We are outraging that principle so long as we refuse to give to the Irish people the measure of Home Rule, which they have been demanding. This question, to my mind, should be settled at the very earliest possible date, if not by general agreement then by the Government taking its courage in its hands and making a settlement in accordance with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people.
  I was very much surprised to hear some of the questions that were put by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool when he was moving his Motion to-night. Among other things he asked "What about Ulster," and he followed that up by asking the hon. Member for the Scotland Division if he would coerce Ulster, and if he was prepared to propose to any Parliament in Europe or in America the coercion of Ulster? I would answer that series of questions put by the Chief Secretary to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division by asking, "What about the principle of governing by the majority of the people?" I would ask him what about the American people themselves? In the greatest testing time
  2028
  in the history of that democracy that was the very principle which the American people themselves put into operation. During the War of the Revolution did they impose the will of the majority over the minority? Of course they did. Further, I put this to him. When our plenipotentiaries go to the Peace Conference, are they going to ask the question as to what is to be done with the minority that they will find in every one of the countries which have been released in the course of this great struggle? Because I do not care which of them you single out, whether Poland, or Bohemia, or Alsace-Lorraine, you will find in each country a minority. Are you going to ask, "What is to be done with the minority in these countries unless coercion is applied to them?" We have been having a lot said about a League of Nations. I do not think it is possible for us to have a League of Nations, with that reduction in armaments which everyone who is talking about a League of Nations expects, without first settling the question of Home Rule for Ireland.
  Just imagine a League of Nations established, while at the same time you have an Army of occupation of 50,000 men required in order to keep peace in Ireland. The whole thing so far as we are concerned under conditions like that would be a pure farce Not only would it be a farce, but it would be a tragedy if after peace comes you required to keep an Army of occupation even of a much smaller number than I have named for the purpose of keeping peace in Ireland. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division, in moving his Resolution, spoke with great eloquence and power about the number of small nations who in the course of the past few weeks have been given rebirth. He pointed out with much force that the rebirth of those small nations would readjust the balance of power in Europe. I want to remind the members of the Government that in other respects the balance of power has been shifting in the course of the last few weeks. Not only have you had the balance of power shifting as between nation and nation, but inside the nations themselves you have had the balance of power shifting. You have had the balance of power going gradually from right to left, and you have had the Labour parties in the various countries assuming greater power than ever they have been able to do hitherto. If that is the position, I fear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was just a

  2029
  little bit too confident when he stated that Ireland would never get Home Rule until the two sections of the Irish people could agree about the matter themselves. I venture to suggest very respectfully to him that if the balance of power shifts to the extent in this country of putting Labour into power that he will have a very determined effort made in order to settle this century-old controversy between the two sections of the Irish people. I hope that the Government will face the situation and that, late though it is and though there is a short time at our disposal between now and the Peace Conference, and certainly we all hope that the time may be short, that they will have removed the difficulty that undoubtedly will stand in their way during these peace negotiations unless they settle this question and give to Ireland a generous and satisfactory measure of Home Rule.
  Mr. BOLAND: I think the House will have noticed that in the course of the Debate to-night that a great deal of objection was taken, particularly on the Front Government Bench, to the opening sentence of the Resolution. I have had the opportunity of consulting with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) who moved, and with the other hon. Members whose names are on the Order Paper, and I have their authority for proposing an alteration which I will now put forward with the consent of the House. My proposition is, after the word "House" to insert the words, "in view of the coming Peace Conference," and then to omit the words, "before the British Government takes part in any proceeding for the resettlement of Europe on the conclusion of peace," and after the word, "settled" ["should be settled"] to insert the words, "without further delay." The effect of these Amendments would be that the Motion would then read,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the coming Peace Conference, it is essential that the Irish question should be settled without farther delay in accordance with the principle laid down by President Wilson, that all nations, large and small, should have free self-determination as to their form of government, and that no people should be ruled and dominated even in their own internal affairs by arbitrary and irresponsible force instead of by their own will and choice, principles for which, in the words of the Prime Minister, the Allies are ostensibly fighting in every other country; and that by the application of these principles the system of coercion and military rule under which Ireland is at present governed, should be brought to an end."
  2030
  In my opinion the alteration in no way affects the main principle of our Motion, but we wish, however, to make it clear after the verbal objection, because it was purely a verbal objection which was taken by the Chief Secretary for Ireland and later by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to remove that objection now, while maintaining the Resolution in the form in which I now submit it to the House. I trust therefore that in its amended form the Motion will commend itself to the opinion of the House.
  I beg to move, after the word "House," to insert the words, "in view of the coming Peace Conference."
  Mr. SHEEHY: I beg to second the Amendment, and in doing so I may say that I do not think the little alteration in any way considerably changes the substance or purpose of the original Resolution. I consider that this Amendment meets the objection raised by the Chief Secretary and followed up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as that objection seemed to be the principal objection, I take it for granted that in accepting this Amendment, if they do that they will accept the Resolution itself.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "before the British Government takes part in any proceeding for the resettlement of Europe on the question of peace."
  After the word "settled" insert the words "without further delay."—[Mr. Boland.]
  Original Question, as amended, again proposed.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: In supporting the Resolution as it is now amended, I desire to refer back to some of the speeches which have been made in the course of the Debate. The speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has been characterised already as lamentable. I may add to that that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be said to be deplorable. Whilst the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland may be said to sound the death knell of constitutional agitation in Ireland, the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be said to have buried Home Rule in its grave. Not only that, but a portion of the speech of the Chancellor

  2031
  of the Exchequer was most ungracious and ungenerous. He said that it was present to the mind not only of the people of Great Britain but of America, that Ireland had not done its part in the present War. That is a most ungenerous expression on his part, and he must have forgotten that when our late leader the late Mr. Redmond, from his prominent position, ranged Ireland on the side of the Allies in this War, he made no bargain whatever. His act was an open, a generous offer, to which was attached no bargain, no haggling whatever. In response to the appeal made by the late Mr. Redmond, thousands of men joined the Colours. They have lost their lives in the cause of the Allies, and we are met here by the Leader of this House with the ungenerous speech uttered here this evening. It was most unworthy of him; it was most unworthy of the cause he seeks to advocate. I backed up my leader in those days. In order to give effect to his words, I went on the platform and appealed to my Constituents to join the Army, and to light the battles of the Allies, and they responded. They have paid the last penalty. The Chief Secretary says to us, why do we not assist him; why do we not come out and assist voluntary recruiting? I tell this House here to-day that I would cut my tongue out from the roots rather than respond to the demand made by the right hon. Gentleman to-night. When we were met with base treachery, when we were met by the neglect of our cause, when we were met by the non-fulfilment of every promise and every pledge, is it in human nature to respond again after betrayal? Is it in human nature to respond to these appeals? I say it is not.
  Apart from the quibbles about words here this evening; apart from the special pleading of the right hon. Gentleman—he well knows what special pleading is—and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—apart from that, the nature of their speeches to-night amounts to this, that Home Rule is abandoned, and they are ready to-morrow, if they have the power to repeal the Act of Parliament that is already on the Statute Book. The only logical conclusion that can be come to is that they have abandoned Home Rule and are prepared to repeal the Act of Parliament. I am not surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was declared lamentable, because we see that,
  2032
  whilst the whole world is advancing upon the lines of democracy, upon the lines of extending the liberties of peoples, the speeches of those two right hon. Gentlemen to-night were undoubtedly of a reactionary character. Now the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his justification alluded to the position of Ireland, and intimated that it was impossible—because it has been said also in another place that it was impossible—in the present condition of Ireland to give effect to the Home Rule Act. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Why is the Act not put into operation? Why are the pledges not fulfilled? Why are the promises broken? Now it is said that because of the disturbed state of the country, because there are people in it who express sentiments, because there are some people in it who sing patriotic songs, this Act of Parliament is not to be brought into operation. That did not apply in 1913 and 1914, when the Act was being passed through this House, because then there were such words as these I am going to read used in Ireland. Probably the right hon. Gentleman did not read these words at the time. When the Act of Parliament was being passed there were rebellious words spoken in Ireland and there were rebellious deeds done. Let me draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one of those speeches. It is as follows:
  "I hope in September to call together the whole of the Ulster Council, and I hope we shall sit in our own Parliament from day to day adopting all necessary means by committees, and by gaining information from the counties through the clubs—I hope we shall sit there from day to day until we have absolutely completed all our arrangements for taking over the government of ourselves upon the day Home Rule is put upon the Statute Book. It may be—I believe probably it will be—an illegal procedure. Well, if it is, we give a challenge to the Government to interefere with it if they dare. [Great cheering.] We make it clear to the Government that our object is to dispute the authority of any man or combination of men to take away from us the form of government under which we were born. But the Government won't interfere; they have not the courage."
  Now that was the language used when the Home Rule Act that is now on the Statute Book was being passed. Nevertheless this Parliament was not deterred by such language. The Government of the day was not deterred by such language. The Chief Secretary of the day was not deterred by such language. The Home Rule Act went through, and it was put upon the Statute Book, and it was forced

  2033
  to another place by the special means that were adotped. So that it is futile for the Chief Secretary to say that we cannot give effect to the Home Rule Act because there are in Ireland expressions of disloyalty and because there are sometimes acts of illegality carried on.
  Apart from the quibble about the words of this Motion, it is clear that the words are easily understood, because it says that the Irish question should be settled in accordance with certain principles. In stating that, the Motion only echoes the cry of the whole country in the street, in the counting-house, in the workshop you hear the same cry, "Why do you not settle the Irish question?" What is present to the minds of people is that after the War when the Peace Conference takes place, England's voice should not be weakened by the fact that there is an Irish question unsettled, and that England has not settled with her own small nationality. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Irish question was a domestic matter, and that the Peace Conference should have nothing to say to it, and that nobody outside Great Britain and Ireland should have any voice in the matter. That is not the way in which the question has been handled during the past few years or during the War. A very short time ago, only last July I think it was, a deputation waited upon the Prime Minister to bring before his notice a sort of vague Motion that there was a general desire for a settlement of the question of government in Great Britain and Ireland upon the federal principle. Many Members of this House, and of the other House, jointly waited upon the Prime Minister and impressed upon him the necessity of settling the question of government on the basis of the federal system, and the Prime Minister said these words at that time:
  "Many Americans, not pro-Germans, are unhappy in their hearts about the fact that the Irish question is not solved."
  That is the opinion of the present Prime Minister. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith), not a very long time before that, on the 22nd March this year, in speaking at Derby, used these words:
  "These are critical times in the fortunes of Ireland, and you must remember that there is far more involved than merely local questions."
  He might have said domestic questions.
  "In the first place it involves the unity, the real unity as distinguished from the formal
  2034
  uniformity of the United Kingdom. In the next place it involves the strength, the solidarity and the efficient co-operative power of the whole British Empire. Further than that, it has a direct bearing on our relations with our Allies, particularly with that great kindred nation across the Atlantic whose association with the Allied cause is the one bright, outstanding and welcome event in the last twelve months."
  In face of these statements by the present Prime Minister and the late Prime Minister you have the Chancellor of the Exchequer standing up in this House and saying that this is a domestic question with which the Peace Conference shall have nothing to do, and that nobody outside the United Kingdom shall dare to look at. That is a most unstatesmanlike utterance from the right hon. Gentleman. It is in contradiction to all the facts of the case. This question of Ireland and the settlement of it has been declared to be over and over again by everybody in authority a war measure. The War has nearly ended, and we have had speeches to-night from two right hon. Gentlemen, especially from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that you might have heard for the last hundred years. I have heard Chief Secretaries from that Box for the last thirty-three years speaking words of suppression, oppression and contempt for the Irish people, but they have not been one bit worse than the contemptuous observations which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr Shortt) addressed to us to-day. He seems not to have risen to the level of his position. He seems incapable of addressing himself to any Irish subject here without giving offence to those who represent Ireland. He may not mean it; it may be his own gauche manner, but I have never heard him, and I have never seen him stand up in his place and speak an official word without succeeding in offending every man on these benches and offending the Irish nation.
  The right hon. Gentleman has sounded the death knell of the constitutional movement in Ireland. We are on the eve of a General Election. We are about to meet our constituents, and we shall be opposed every man of us, by men who represent physical force. What chance have we in face of the speech delivered to-night by the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. FIELD: That is all they want.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Some of my colleagues think that that is what they want, that they want to give a rebuff to the Irish cause, they want to bring about an appeal

  2035
  to force, which they can smother in blood, as has so often been done before in the history of our country. The right hon. Gentleman may not mean that, but I know that in the history of the country you will find that such policies have been practised in the past. It is charged, and it has been proved, against Pitt; it is charged, and has been proved, against other statesmen, that they wilfully and deliberately fomented insurrection so that they might stifle it in blood, and might also destroy the legitimate and reasonable demands of the constitutional representatives of Ireland. It is such a monstrous thing that I am loth to believe it of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not an unreasonable suggestion to make, and a great many people are making it. You may think that you are safe in making such speeches to-night, you may think that the War is coming to a conclusion, and that it will set loose all the other influences that have been restrained. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may think that those influences may be set free anew, and that he may give full rein to his hostility to the Irish demand. It would look very like it, because he made as strong and as bitter a speech against Home Rule this evening as he did at any time when the Home Rule Bill was passing through its stages in this House, and being placed on the Statute Book. It was assailed by him no more bitterly in the past than it was assailed by him to-night.
  I submit to the Government that they cannot reconcile themselves by these reflections. The War may be coming to a conclusion, but it is then that your troubles will begin. Your troubles will begin then, notwithstanding all you say, because when you go to the Peace Conference you will go out only to settle the claims of these small nationalities that are present to your minds, but you will go into the Peace Conference as one going to judgment, and you will find there before you to arraign you the small nationalities whose aspirations you have shamefully neglected in the past. You will be confronted by promises unfulfilled, by broken faith, and, I had almost said, treachery. At all events you will be confronted by the charge of cowardice with which you have handled this question. You will be asked—because there will be reviewed at that Conference, and there will be placed before that Conference the whole traffic series of misused opportunity
  2036
  in the past—you will be asked why in 1886 you did not rise to the invitation of that great man, Mr. Gladstone, when he made his very noble efforts to settle this question? In all these discussions my mind is always carried back to that great and noble person, Mr. Gladstone, who introduced this subject for the first time, in the present generation at all events, in 1886. I often think how noble he was and how foolish this nation was in not accepting his invitation. Had a settlement been then arrived at, Ireland would have been your right hand instead of being what was stated in that noble poem of Meredith's which was read by a representative from Wales; instead of being "your broken right arm" she would have been your strong right hand. You will be asked why you did not settle the question then; also why you did not settle it in 1893—when you were again invited by Mr. Gladstone. You will be asked why the cup was raised to the Irish lips only to be dashed when she was about to taste it. You cannot distribute or apportion the blame of these two instances or refusal to do justice. The whole nation of Great Britain endorsed the refusal on both occasions. After 1886 the Liberal party were defeated, I might say ignominously; a debâcle took place and a majority was elected who practically condemned Mr. Gladstone for bringing in a Home Rule measure. In like manner after 1893, when the Act was passed by the House of Commons and was thrown out in another place, and when an appeal was made to the country in 1895, again the Liberals were defeated. Thus I say the whole nation will, before the Conference and before the world, be indicted for its wilful and brutal denial of justice. The whole nation associated itself with the crime and will have to bear the burden of its sin.
  9.0 P.M.
  We heard in the course of the Debate this evening from the Government Bench certain imputations against Irishmen. I would ask them to look into their own minds and to find in their own conduct the true reason for the present conditions in Ireland. Ireland still clung to the hope and some Liberals clung to the tradition and made spasmodic efforts to settle this question. It was my intention to trouble the House with the betrayal of the Irish case in the year 1916 and also in the year 1917, but these two betrayals have been ably dealt with by my colleague, one of the

  2037
  Members for Dublin (Mr. Clancy), who seconded the Motion, and, therefore, I do not feel justified at this late hour in going through the details of that shameful betrayal. When the settlement of the Irish question was put in the hands of the present Prime Minister by the late Prime Minister, and when he had got both sides to agree upon a certain formula—although I believe that is now doubted—when the late Mr. Redmond went to the South and got his followers to agree to the settlement proposed, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson) went up to the the North and got his followers to agree, as he said, "with a sad and sore heart," we thought there was nothing left to be done but to give effect to the agreement that had been arrived at. And what did we find? Lord Lansdowne goes to another place and says the agreement could not be carried out. He says that there were enduring and permanent changes in the agreement, and that it had to be repudiated. Why was that the case? It was stated by Lord Lansdowne himself that this great change took place because, if carried out as agreed to, it would make all the difference between a Liberal and a Unionist Government:; so that Ireland was sacrificed by the Cabinet who made these permanent and enduring changes in the Act of Parliament and in the agreement. Ireland was betrayed by the Cabinet because of Lord Lansdowne, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson), and the Orange faction in the Cabinet and out of it.
  In like manner my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. Clancy) explained the betrayal of the Convention, and I shall not trouble the House again with it; but I would just like to conclude my observations by alluding to that portion of the Motion which says that "by the application of these principles the system of coercion and military rule, under which Ireland is at present governed, should be brought to an end." It is a deplorable fact that at the present moment instead of all these hopes that were raised in the minds of the Irish people being satisfied, we have a return to the old, worst system of government in Ireland. It was stated in 1916 that Dublin Castle had ceased to exist as the governing factor, but Dublin Castle has been reinstated. The personnel of the Government
  2038
  has been changed, there have been dismissals all round of those who, according to Lord Wimborne's statement, who were in sympathy with Home Rule or even with the faith of the Irish people, and together with that you have a military Lord Lieutenant appointed, and you have present all the signs and tokens of suppression and coercion. Men are being sent to prison every day without trial and without cause, and this is the state of things brought about under the regime of the right hon. Gentleman who puts into force and operation all the powers that are granted to him under exceptionally severe Acts. There is one thing that I would impress upon the Government more than any other, and it is that they should look into their whole conduct and see if it would not be better for them to take seriously this question to their minds and have it settled by themselves rather than have it forced upon them by-and-bye by an indignant world at the Peace Conference.
  Mr. TILLETT: I want to back up what the Leader of the Labour party has said in regard to this matter. I ask the Government not to be deceived by the fact that there is a considerable feeling against the Irish in the Colonies and in America and in our own country. I do not want them to be deceived by that fact because they might be undeceived in a very abrupt manner. It has been said that there are sections of the land-owning class, the clergy, farmers and traders and employers who, depending on the existence of the military, are Sinn Feiners and are supporting physical violence. That may be true, possibly it is true to an extent. I am old enough as a Labour Leader to know what it is to be in a minority under government by the majority, but after all we have never given Ireland a chance from the days of King John or Bismarck, from the days of Castlereagh and the Land League, and from the days when men were put into gaol, Ireland has never had a free outspoken voice.
  I regret that the sinking of the "Leinster" did not awaken the Irish people to a sense of their obligation. I am feeling very deeply on that head, but I want to be fair to the Irish nation and to the movement. I want the House to understand that after all there is another political factor coming into the field. I had the privilege of moving a resolution on this subject in the last Trade Union Congress, which represented some 4,500,000 people. There may

  2039
  be all this resentment and antipathy to the Irish people for a time, but I want to warn the Government that there is not an Australian, a Canadian, or American, and not a single member of any of our Colonies who is an Irishman, who has Irish blood in his veins, but who wants Home Rule as much as the Nationalist party. There is, however, a suspicion growing amongst the Labour Members and the Labour movement in regard to the Sinn Fein movement, that there are certain Members of this House who would only be too glad to see the development of that feeling, and there is a growing feeling that the reason the Nationalists have lost caste and influence has been because they have been too loyal to this country and this House as such. There has not been a single measure for the granting of liberty in this House which has not been met by similar arguments to those which have been used to-day on this particular question, but we must get down to the real facts of the case.
  I wish to tell the Government, on behalf of the Labour movement of this country, that the basis of action will be shifted probably from Ireland if suppression is started there, and you will have the development of a movement here that you will not be able to cope with. I have travelled very much. I have been through our Colonies and I have been pretty well all over the world. It may be true that Ireland has failed in sending her quota to join our forces, but in regard to Irishmen belonging to our Colonies there is no member of the Government or this House dare say that Irish blood has not been in every regiment sent from America and our Colonies, and if it came to it, I believe the men of Irish blood and race would show as big a percentage as any race represented in the War, either Scotch, Welsh or English. When I think of Ireland I am astounded to realise that through all the long years in which Prime Ministers have made promises on behalf of the Liberal party, the Tory party, or the Coalition Government, not one of them has been fulfilled. You can hardly realise the pettifogging interference with personal liberty in Ireland. I remember once when Michael Davitt invited me over to Ireland I was "shadowed" by the police. I am not saying that Irishmen are any better than anyone else, and I am positive that Irish employers are not as
  2040
  good as ours, but I do say that if there could be a fusion of all the malevolent influences of the world in combination it could not be worse than the government of Ireland to-day. I want the House to realise that the best members of the Labour party in this country are Irishmen, and that the best members of the several Governments in our Colonies are Irishmen. It is extraordinary that directly an Irishman gets out of Ireland he becomes a citizen with great qualities. I do not know any Colony or any part of America where Irishmen have not done duty as statesmen and have not given expression to qualities both mental and moral that we might well envy.
  The Home Rule question is not merely a matter for Ireland alone; it is also one for the workers of this country. I am old enough to have taken as a sailor many emigrants to America and over the seas, and wherever Irishmen have gone, whether to mountains where gold is sought, or to prairies, or to any part of the four quarters of the earth, and however much success they may have attained, in their hearts of hearts there has still remained a love of their own country. There has been that thing, born of their mothers, crooned to them in their cradles, and we might just as well realise that psychological fact. I know it is said that we do not understand the Irish. [An HON. MEMBER: "You do not!"] I do not. I do not believe any Irishman ever understood another, or that any Irishman ever understood himself; he would not be an Irishman if he did. You may say what you like, but there has been nothing more persistent in the history of politics and of nations than the demand of the Irish for Home Rule. From the day of Castlereagh that demand has gone on and I do ask that no supercilious view shall be taken of this matter. The Chief Secretary is a very clever lawyer, as all lawyers are. He is a great lawyer, but I want him to be a great statesman. I want him to realise that this War is closing. I have fought the Germans for thirty years. I have tried to help them and to be a comrade to them, but I do not want any German a few years hence to point the finger of scorn at this country, and to say that, after talking so eloquently of liberty and freedom, we denied liberty and freedom to Ireland. If I had my way, I would take every soldier out of Ireland. I would leave Ireland to fight out her own destiny. It is not merely German money that is suc-

  2041
  couring the Sinn Fein movement. A more sinister influence is being brought to bear. If this country wants the comradeship of Ireland, what it ought to do is to give Ireland its confidence and to give Irishmen a fair and square chance of citizenship in their own land, such as Irishmen enjoy in other parts of the world.
  Mr. FITZGIBBON: I feel that I can add very little to what the hon. Member who has just spoken has said with regard to my country. It struck me whilst he was speaking that it was a pity that the speech, or a similar speech, was not delivered from the Government Bench instead of the speeches to which we have listened. I have been eight years in this House, and I have been visiting this House for forty-eight years, and two speeches more bereft of statesmanship and so utterly devoid of a knowledge of Irish sentiment I have never heard from the Government Bench. I interrupted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and protested that it was a gross libel on the Irish to say that they had not contributed their share in the War. I know my country well. There is scarcely a Sunday passes that the soul of some person who has died in the War is not prayed for in our church. There is scarcely a family round me that has not lost some of its members. Irishmen have joined in Ireland, they have joined here in England, and they have joined in America. [An HON. MEMBER: "Including your own!"] I do not want to mention my own, but I think I can speak on this matter as strongly as any Member on the Government Benches. It is natural, quite natural, that I should feel the observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I brand it as a gross libel on the Irish people. They have taken their part and they have done their share, and that statement is largely due to an ignorance of the conditions of Ireland by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What does he know about Ireland? We have a population of 4,000,000 when we should have a population of 16,000,000 or 18,000,000. We have there the old and the young. The best of our race has gone through your misgovernment. Our country is as rich in natural resources as your own, but we have never had the opportunity of developing those resources. You taunt us with not having contributed to this War as we should have done. It is very convenient for you to ignore the fact that you have scattered the Irish race throughout the world. You have Irish-
  2042
  men from Australia, from Canada, from America, and largely from this country, and if you ask your officers they will tell you that the regiments in which they serve are the regiments that have shone at the front. We are certainly under a terrible disadvantage owing to the ignorance of Members of this House as to the conditions of Ireland.
  You appeal to us to help you to bring about peace in Ireland. What right have we? You have undertaken the government of Ireland. You have undertaken the responsibility of governing us. You refuse to place upon our shoulders the responsibility of governing ourselves. But you know nothing whatever of the conditions of Ireland. You have undertaken to rule a people who in spirit are far better than you are. They resent the idea of a nation not more intelligent than themselves ruling them in their purely domestic affairs. I would like to recall the remark of the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. John O'Connor) in reference to Mr. Gladstone. It has struck me very forcibly during the day that had England even then, in 1886, passed a Home Rule measure, and had it responded to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal, Ireland to-day would have been a very different Ireland and we should not have had the discontent which now exists. But let us get to the root of the whole question. From 1906 until 1913 what was the condition of Ireland? It was peaceful. There was no doubt a Sinn Fein movement, but it was not a physical force movement. It was a movement which had a very different programme. It was your subsequent acts which gave rise to the Sinn Fein movement. It is speeches such as those we have had delivered to-night which will give another fillip to the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland. It was never made more apparent than it has been to-night how futile it is to try and reason with Englishmen as to the ills of Ireland. Perhaps I may qualify that term "English men." I refer rather to certain governing classes. I know the English people well. I have mixed with them for forty-eight years. I know that, as a rule, they are well-disposed towards Ireland, but the difficulty is they know so little about our country.
  Let me refer to the Convention for one moment. It has been spoken of as a Failure. It was no failure. A settlement, if it had been attempted in earnest, could easily have been brought about. It was

  2043
  the first time for a hundred years that Irishmen who differed materially on political questions had sat together for many months. It was apparent to everyone that we were getting to understand each other, and hon. Members may take my word for it when I say that the Members from Ulster were only half-hearted in their opposition to a settlement. There were many of them who had to follow their leader, but even the Gentleman who is known as their leader showed himself most anxious, if he could, to bring about a settlement. What was really wanted was a strong hand to dictate to them, to tell them that they must settle the question. But that, unfortunately, was not done, and the Convention was allowed to break up without a settlement being arrived at, although had the Government been in earnest it could have secured such a settlement. In my opinion, what happened was this. They simply dangled the Convention before America and kept the pot boiling while the American troops were coming over, but as soon as the Government felt themselves perfectly safe then they gave up the attempt at a settlement. I reluctantly came into this House eight years ago. I came at the wish of my late respected Leader, Mr. John Redmond. I believed I was more useful to him and to the party outside the House than I would be here. I am going back to resume my old position, and I am going to tell our people that they will have to resort to some other means besides appealing to right hon. Gentlemen who are capable of delivering such speeches as we have heard from right hon. Gentlemen opposite to-night, and that we must adopt other means if Ireland is to secure what she is justly entitled to, and that is the right to govern herself.
  Mr. LOUGH: I think the situation into which we have wandered is a rather extraordinary one, and needs to be put right. My hon. Friend who last spoke referred to two speeches made from the Government Bench. I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that the Resolution has now been amended in such a way as to remove the whole of the objections to it suggested by the right hon. Gentlemen in question, and at the same time I must add I do not think that the Resolution has been weakened one bit by the change which has been made in it. I think it was only natural for the
  2044
  right hon. Gentlemen who spoke on behalf of the Government to take the line they did with regard to the references to the Peace Conference in connection with the Home Rule question, and I think my hon. Friends from Ireland has been very wise to accept the Amendment, which I understood was moved during the dinner hour and which removes the cause of the offence from the Resolution. I hope, therefore, we will have some statement from the Government Bench dealing with the altered condition of affairs. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Black-friars Division (Mr. Barnes) is in the background. Will he not come forward and say a few words about Home Rule now that every objectionable word has been taken out of the Resolution? We should like to know what the Labour Members of the Government think on the question of Homo Rule for Ireland. The Resolution in its present form is simply an emphatic appeal for Home Rule, while its second part is a protest against coercion. There is no need to detain the House after the speeches which have been made this evening, by speaking in favour of Home Rule. No man is more tied to the principle of Home Rule than the Prime Minister, and there never was greater need for a clear statement from the Government as to their intention with regard to that question. We have had a few words from the Chief Secretary in reference to the Peace Conference, and the Leader of the House for nearly twenty minutes devoted his remarks to two aspects of the Resolution both of which have now been withdrawn from it. Let us get rid of all this camouflage. Cannot the Solicitor-General say something about it. I believe he advocates the principle of Home Rule for Ireland.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): Certainly!
  Mr. LOUGH: I hope then the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what he thinks on the question. I want to say a few words regarding the protest against coercion. I do not think enough has been said on that question to-night. The House should seriously think about it. We are told that this Parliament may come to an end in a week or two, and if those of us who survive the election come back again and find thirty or forty or fifty Members who have been returned from Ireland still in prison what shall we have to say about it? We want to know if the prison doors are to be

  2045
  open to the candidates to enable them to face their constituents. I do not remember any election in which the prison doors in Ireland have remained closed to men at the time they have had to face the constituencies and fight an election. I should like to refer to an incident connected with the county of Cavan. There was a strongly contested election there in May last when Mr Griffiths, a Sinn Feiner, was returned by a great majority. Hon. Members of this House will remember that the former representative of that constituency was our old friend, who was respected by everyone, Mr. Samuel Young. He was the father of the House of Commons, and died when about ninety-six years of age. He was a Belfast man, a very rich man, and a Protestant. For thirty-five years he represented this constituency. By whom was he succeeded? By Mr. Arthur Griffiths, a leading Sinn Feiner. The House will think that some mighty change has taken place there. I drove through that division myself when I was over there in October, and there was no trace of any change at all. I quite agree with the remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) that it is perhaps easy to paint these Sinn Feiners too black. This constituency repeatedly sent Mr. Young to this House. He was a man we all respected. The House ought to have some respect for a constituency which has not changed a bit except, perhaps, in this respect, that, for some reason or other, they thought that Mr. Young had not secured all the progress they expected, and they thought it was time to get a move on, and, therefore, selected Mr. Arthur Griffiths.
  I should like to ask, are these men to be locked in prison when the time comes for them to face their constituents again? The House will not get out of the question by hiding its head in its hands; it will be a nasty question, and a nasty circumstance which this House and this country will have to face with regard to these free nations which are referred to in the Resolution. The Solicitor-General ought to tell us whether any consideration will be extended to these men, or to their constituents. We have heard the pretext of the German plot, of which we have heard for six months, given as the only reason for keeping these people from addressing their constituents. That is only one part of the case. Over in Ireland, perhaps, the most fierce system of oppression ever car-
  2046
  ried out by military men is being carried out in every part of the country at this moment. No public meetings can be held. We are promised that an exception is to be made for the election. It is a humiliation for hon. Members of this House that they should have to take advantage of an exception in order to be able to address their constituents. So far as my experience of the country went, I found it perfectly quiet when I was over there. Allusion has been made to-night, especially by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, to the inadequate response Ireland has made to the appeals for recruits. Ever since the War broke out any influence I could exercise in county Cavan I did exercise in favour of getting recruits, and twelve months ago in that county I was able to distribute 1,200 certificates to the friends of men who had gone to the front. This spring seven or eight officers out of one little town in Cavan, including the brother of the hon. Member who represents a division in this House, were taken prisoners in the great German offensive. Ireland does not get credit for what she has done in the War.
  Quite unfair contrasts have been made between the number of recruits furnished by Ireland and the number furnished by Great Britain and her Colonies. There is a great difference between those countries and Ireland. In Ireland the population is decreasing, while in the other countries it is increasing, and this affects men of recruiting age rather more than those of any other age. We have heard in the Debate, especially from the hon. and gallant Member who has returned from the front to make a speech, that a great many Irishmen have acted most nobly in the War. It would be better if Members of the House, and especially the responsible leaders, were to think of what Ireland has done in trying circumstances and to give her credit for it rather than to use the extreme language of criticism about what she has failed to do. When I was going over there I had to get a passport. Just think of having to get a passport to go from one part of this country to another! I had to have my photograph attached to it, and the photographs of members of my family who were going too. When you got into the country you found there were military cordons drawn around places as if they were places in a battle area. That is militarism, pure and simple. It is all very well for us to denounce Prussian

  2047
  militarism and say that the object of the War is to put an end to it when we are maintaining a system which is almost as bad as what exists elsewhere. I appeal to the Solicitor-General to tell us something about Home Rule and what are the Government's intentions now that hon. Members have removed everything that has been criticised in the Resolution. Secondly, I ask him to tell us if the prison doors will be opened and will—I was going to say the infamous system of coercion, but I do not want to use strong language and I will say this severe system—which is worse than anything practised for generations in Ireland, be abated so that we may get a free expression of opinion in the country in the Election which is about to take place?
  Mr. PRICE: This has been one of the most painful Debates I have listened to since I have been in the House, now for about twelve years. There is nothing easier than to create prejudice against Ireland, and nothing more difficult than for a man sitting on this side of the House to get up and defend her. Unless he has agreed to certain fundamental principles, he is bound to get himself into trouble. We have had three speeches delivered to-day, to each of which I listened with regret. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) on the magnificent speech he delivered, but I listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition with very great regret. I did so on this ground, that it was far too full of platitudes. He has said the same thing a great many times. He should have revealed to us and to those who have been following him how it was that he failed to settle the Irish question when he was Prime Minister. We have never heard that. We who have been followers of his have been awaiting any explanation he could give to the country as to why he did not settle the Irish question when he was Prime Minister. A great many people say it was because of Lord Lansdowne's intervention. If that is true—I do not know whether it is or not—we ought to know it. It is not fair for anybody to come here and make a statement that both sides in Ireland must agree to a settlement. We have been told that a great many times. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife stated—this has been read out many times
  2048
  —that the coercion of Ireland was unthinkable, from that very moment he cut the ground from under his feet. I should like to ask him and others is the coercion of the rest of Ireland unthinkable? You have been coercing the rest of Ireland now for a century, and I remember well that you had the demand put forward by Parnell when he appealed to the revolutionary element in Ireland to give up their methods of force, and appeal in a constitutional manner.
  The Chief Secretary to-night has been describing the deplorable condition which exists. That is nothing new. We have had it before in Ireland. Parnell found that, and he appealed to the people to fight in a constitutional manner for the rights of Ireland. He carried his point, and you have had Home Rule carried in the House. But you passed a suspensory Act. What a deplorable thing! A change is brought about in a constitutional manner, and now you pass another Act to say they shall not get that which the-House has given them, and you wonder that people are going back to the old methods. I remember when Mr. Gladstone was putting Parnell in prison. I was opposed very bitterly to Mr. Gladstone's act, and I told a Member of the House, "If you decline to settle the Irish problem with the Nationalists who are now sent from Ireland, you will have a worse and more irresponsible body to follow it." That has come true, and it will come true. Supposing these men are replaced by another body of men from Ireland more advanced and more revolutionary, and you decline to settle the Irish problem with them, you will have a worse and more irresponsible body to follow them, because you cannot kill national sentiment. It will rise, do what you will. Therefore I regret to have listened to these speeches. The Chief Secretary delivered a speech not quite worthy of him. I believe he had a better heart and a better mind than his speech revealed to us. I am exceedingly sorry that he spoke in the manner he did. He admitted that 99 per cent. of the people are loyal. If so, why should he make so much trouble about what is left? Then he said the armed forces had been the bottom dog, and now they are going to be the top dog. Who made the armed forces the top dog? I regretted the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not add anything to the solution of the problem. He did not tend to smooth anything. He

  2049
  seemed to be a great deal more anxious to put the Leader of the Opposition in a difficult position. That does not help to solve the Irish problem.
  I felt uncomfortable about this Resolution as originally framed, because I knew it might be misunderstood, and I am glad they have made the verbal alterations they have, because it is easy to twist things into a way they were never intended. I do not think anyone can object to it in its present form. But there is one thing we have to make up our minds about. We are in exactly the same position with regard to Ireland now as we were when Mr. Gladstone said there were only two ways of governing Ireland. You have either to give her Home Rule or govern her by coercion, and we shall look a bonny people, after fighting to free small nationalities all over the world, if we are going to begin with a coercive policy in Ireland. A pretty spectacle we shall look, fighting for these nationalities when we have people living at our own door who have been taking part in the War. I remember the time when Mr. John Redmond and his brother were called rebels. I used to defend them when I was younger. Have they proved rebels or not? They have proved as great patriots as any Members of this House or anyone else. Yet what thanks have they had? You are driving similar men to be rebels in the country. It is a perfectly scandalous thing that at this time of day, with this great War going on, we should have had the speeches we have had, one from the Leader of the Opposition, which dealt in platitudes; to be followed by the frivolous speech of the Chief Secretary and the bad blood creating speech delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We shall pay the penalty for it. Ireland will be there as long as we are here, and it is our business to try to find some solution of her difficulty.
  Mr. DILLON: I wish to return my heartfelt thanks on behalf of the party for which I speak to the hon. Member for the speech he has just delivered. It was full of genuine Liberal feeling, which is a little hard sometimes to find in these days, and it was instinct with a true conception and understanding of the realities of the Irish situation. We are engaged to-night in a very important Debate, and it is in my experience—a long experience in this House—absolutely unique in one important particular. It has lasted now the whole night, and not
  2050
  one single independent Member of the House has got up to support the Government. I have been in the House for nigh upon forty years, and I never remember a similar occurrence on an important Debate. The Government policy has been defended by two speeches which I find it difficult to characterise. We have had many strange experiences in Ireland of Chief Secretaries, but we never met the match of this one. He beats the record. I have never heard such a speech delivered by a responsible Chief Secretary for Ireland before. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bitter and provocative. He undertook to lecture us. It was very unlike the tone and temper of his recent speeches. He lectured us with bitterness and with insult, and apparently with the deliberate intention of provoking retort. It recalled to my mind thirty long years ago, when the present Foreign Secretary was Chief Secretary for Ireland, running the great Coercion Acts of that time. It was instinct with that spirit. It gave me the impression that we were back thirty years in this struggle for Ireland and that all that had been done in those thirty years was now about to be obliterated. The speech was full of bitter provocative insult. He seemed to have forgotten all the blood which Ireland had shed in this War. He spoke about us ungenerously and offensively.
  There is no section of this House which has risked and suffered so much in the support of the Allies as we who sit on these benches. Under the leadership of Mr. Redmond, we staked our whole position and the fortunes of our party, and what I value infinitely more than the fortunes of our party or our own personal political fortunes, the interests of our country in this War, because we believed it to be a war for human liberty and because we thought it to be the wisest thing and the right thing for our people, in spite of the bitterness which they had and the bitter recollections which they had, to forget and wipe out, to range themselves frankly and courageously on the side of the Allies in this struggle for human freedom. He pointed out to our people that in the whole bitter history of Ireland there never had been an occasion when Ireland stood, no matter what the risk was to her own fate, on the wrong side of a war for liberty.
  We stood by the Boers when we were denounced in this House as traitors.

  2051
  When the present Prime Minister used to sit on the bench beneath me he was denounced just as bitterly as I have been denounced here, and his life was in danger. Time has vindicated our action. We did everything, as I say, and made every sacrifice, to rally our people heartily in this War. We did rally them. Irish blood was spilt like water in the great battles of the opening of this War, though now that is forgotten. At Ypres, at Mons, I doubt whether the Germans would not have broken through, and this War had been ended in six months, had it not been for the valour of the Irish regiments. Now every cheap politician in this country thinks he is entitled to insult the Irish, and if, towards the close of this War, there has not been the same response in Ireland in the matter of recruiting, who is to blame? I will tell you who is to blame. The Government of this country is to blame. They have broken pledge after pledge. They have hammered it into the minds of our poor people that they were to be denied the benefits and liberties which this War was entered upon to vindicate for other races. They were to be called upon from their depleted population, where the proportion of fighting men in Ireland owing to long generations of persecution has been reduced to about half what it is in this country or any normal country in the world—from that depicted population, I say, they were to be called upon to fight on every battlefield in Europe to vindicate liberties and to win freedom for every nationality, some of whose names were unknown to them, to make the world safe for democracy in every land but their own.
  I shall never to the longest day that I live forget a pathetic scene that took place at my home in Dublin a couple of years ago, when a poor soldier came to see me and to bid me farewell before he went off again to the War. He was one of those who was recruited by the Member for West Belfast; one of the two thousand recruits then amongst the Nationalists of Belfast. He had been badly wounded, but was on his way back. He did not complain of this. But as he was shaking hands with me on parting, he said sorrowfully, "Mr. Dillon, the worst of it is I know now that we are not fighting for liberty, for England is going to betray us again." These words are graven on my memory, and will never be forgotten, for it was to me one of the most pathetic expressions I ever listened to. I
  2052
  have only made that explanation to show how it comes about that the Irish—who, let it be remembered, in the first two years of the War, were just as enthusiastic as anybody in this country and far more than a good many, for in Cornwall, and Devon, and in many of the rural districts here they would not recruit at all whilst the Irish were flocking to the Colours with enthusiasm—stand where they now stand—and you taught them a fatal lesson. Finally, you brought the Member for Trinity College into the Cabinet and killed recruiting in Ireland. After that hour it was impossible for anybody to do recruiting in Ireland. I say that the work of destroying the spirit of the Irish people was accentuated and completed by the work of the War Office.
  10.0 P.M.
  I just wanted to say that one word before I passed to the general subject to-night in answer to the charge of slackness of Irish people in recruiting. I do not think, after all that has been said, that this House realises—and I wish I could make hon. Members realise—the extent to which the driving of Ireland out of the War in this last year or two, has been the work of the British War Office. Let me quote a passage from the "Sunday Times" of last week. Here is the passage quoted from a British newspaper which is, I suppose, in touch with the Government, and is a most influential paper, and I think a very fair newspaper. Last Sunday it said:
  "The extraordinary treatment meted out to those who have been fortunate enough to escape from hideous agony of imprisonment in Germany, and the regulation which forbids them to relate their sufferings can only be explained on the assumption that the British War Office bureaucrats admire Prussian torturers and despise their victims."
  What would you have said to that language if an Irish Member had used it?
  "The revelations contained in our war correspondent's article on this page—"
  continues the "Sunday Times,"
  "as to War Office exactions, insolence, and inhumanity will send a shock of dismay through this country. It is hard to find any excuse for them, save an innate bureaucratic irritation at the public insistence that these heroes are entitled both to sympathy and recompense for which War Office tradition provides no precedent."
  Now you are beginning to understand the War Office of this country. We have been under the heel of that office throughout all these experiments in Ireland. I say here to-night, in answer to the ungenerous

  2053
  taunts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if there has been a scarcity of Irish recruiting it was due altogether to the bureaucratic insolence of your War Office, which in Ireland, unchecked by public opinion, even as here in England, has been able to dominate the situation. The people will not tolerate it. After our experience of the British Government and of the British War Office, how can anyone ask us to fight for liberty in Europe while this kind of liberty is handed out to us? I make just these preliminary observations in reply to the taunt to which I have referred, because I know the game that is being played. Instead of facing the real issue in all these recent debates—just as last spring the Prime Minister fell back upon the German plot—what has become of that? It is forgotten now. It was a pure invention. It was one of the basest and most unscrupulous political tricks that I ever remember in my political career. Then it was the German plot! Now it is the failure of Ireland to do her duty in the War. I have endeavoured to answer that. Just one other word before I go away from that subject. What is Ireland? We have left in Ireland owing to your magnificent government 4,500,000 of a race that had it been left to its own development for the last century would have numbered at least 16,000,000. During the last sixty or seventy years it has been reduced to 4,250,000. But there is a greater Ireland. There is an Ireland you have left at home. There are the Irish in this country. There are the Irish in the dominions. There are the Irish in the United States. And I say here deliberately to-night that there is no race not of Jugo-Slavs nor of Czecho-Slovaks, nor English, nor Scottish, nor Welsh, who have spilt more blood or done more fighting in proportion to their number throughout the world than has the Irish nation throughout the world. While it is true that recruiting in some parts of Ireland has fallen off in recent years, I may mention that I was talking to an intimate friend the other day in my Constituency, and he told me that he had five brothers fighting in the American Army under the Stars and Stripes in France. Is it to be said that that man's household had made no contribution? No; the Irish race have fought as bravely for the cause of liberty as any other race in the whole of this great alliance of nations, and it remains to be seen what they are going to get for it. I am glad that we have succeeded, to a large extent due
  2054
  to our action and our sacrifices, in keeping our race right in this great fight, and I have sufficient faith in the ultimate prevalence of right to believe that, sooner or later, they will reap their reward for the blood they have shed. This has been a very remarkable Debate. The moral I draw from it is this, that the two speeches from the Treasury Bench have proclaimed that the Member for Trinity College is the king of Ireland. That is the real moral of this Debate, and let America know it. He has set there on the corner bench silent to-night. He did not need to speak. Why should he? The Government were obeying his orders, and he now is King Carson and lord and master of Ireland. That is the moral of this Debate.
  Sir E. CARSON: May I say that this is the tenth year of my reign!
  Mr. DILLON: He used to be obliged to get up to defend himself. Now he has no need to do so because the Front Bench does it for him. It is the tenth year of his reign based on German rifles and rebellion. What right has he or the Front Bench to condemn Sinn Fein when he led the way, when he told them that he would break every law, and that he was going over to Ireland to break every law, when he stood up in the whole hearing of the House of Commons and said, "I have been called a rebel. I glory in the name, and I am crossing to Ireland to break every law?" Next, let me ask this question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as he has referred to the conduct of our people. On the 29th September, 1914, while the Battle of the Marne was still undecided, while the fate of Europe was hanging in the balance he crossed over to Ireland with the right hon. Gentleman to Belfast, and he declared in the name of the whole Tory party, following a speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that the moment the War was over they would treat the Home Rule Act as Germany had treated the scrap of paper, and tear it in pieces and have civil war. That was while the fate of Europe was trembling in the balance. Does that threat still stand, or is it withdrawn, and is the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared now to cross over to Ireland and stand at the head of the Ulster men in civil war? I think that is a fair question to put to the right hon. Gentleman. It should never be forgotten that there would be no physical force party in Ireland to-day, and there would have been

  2055
  no rebellion in Ireland in 1916 if it had not been for the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College and those who supported him. There was not a single rifle landed in Ireland, nor had anybody thought of physical force, until the right hon. Gentleman had set the example, and the argument that our people used was a very simple one. They saw that for three years in this House the Member for Trinity College argued against Home Rule, and said Ulster would not submit to it, and got no hearing. There was no talk then on the Front Bench of making concessions to Ulster, but when they got their rifles and threatened a rebellion then they discovered that the voice of Ulster must be listened to, and our people said to themselves, "Ulster was not listened to until she got rifles and threatened rebellion; then we will do the same thing. The House of Commons may treat Redmond and Dillon and the Nationalists with contempt. What we have got to do is to do what Ulster did, and then we will be listened to.'
  But that was not my view. I warned them that the gentlemen from Ulster had friends at their back in this country which our people had not. They did not listen to me, and they met with a very different fate. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of triumphing over their fate, over that bloody vengeance which has done incalculable harm in embittering the relationship between the two countries. As I have said, we have exposed ourselves to a great deal of misrepresentation and incurred a vast deal of unpopularity among our own people by endeavouring to conciliate opposition by concessions and modifications of the national demand of Ireland. I do not for my part regret anything that has happened, in this respect, but I agree that it is quite true that we have shaken greatly the strength of our party. I do not regret it. The object which we had in view was a very great one and worthy of considerable sacrifice, and our task was one of immense difficulty, which only those who know our country and the history of the country can appreciate—the difficulty of reconciling peoples between whom for centuries there have been such feelings of bitterness and who had so thoroughly misunderstood each other.
  If we had been met by the Government in the British Parliament with a very
  2056
  moderate amount of honesty and fair treatment we could have succeeded triumphantly in that task, and none of the Irish troubles in connection with this War would have ever occurred. You would have had every soldier that could possibly have been raised in Ireland. The Irish people would have been enthusiastically on your side and you would have had every man without any recourse to compulsion, because constitutionally we rather love a fight, but the history of the last five years has been a history of repeatedly broken promises and deferred hopes which make the heart sick, until the people of Ireland to a very large extent have lost all faith in constitutional action, undoubtedly a large section of the Irish people to-day think that they can only win their rights by force. Who brought them into this frame of mind? It was not we. On the contrary, we have risked sacrificing our whole political position in trying to avert it, but you have done it by your action and your policy for the last three years. I do not go into the motives. I cannot look into your mind, but if it had actually been your deliberate purpose to throw the whole Irish people into the hands of the revolutionary party you could not have acted more effectively to bring about that result. And you are carrying on that policy to-day. All that you are doing is strengthening enormously the forces and the power of the revolutionary party. I only take one instance. Last spring, in March and April, there was a great reaction in Ireland, and the tide was flowing strongly back to the constitutional movement. Three successive elections we had won, and the fourth, the East Cavan election, we should have undoubtedly have won, by 1,000 votes at least, but for the intervention of the Government. At that moment they sprung Conscription on Ireland, and arrested all the Sinn Fein leaders. The moment they arrested Arthur Griffiths, who would have been defeated in that election, to my own knowledge, he became a hero. Englishmen do not understand it, but the best recommendation to an Irish constituency is to arrest the candidate; it may appear strange, but is absolutely true. The moment he was arrested our voters deserted us in hundreds, and said, "While we believe in your policy"—I know some of them said this—"we must vote for the prisoner, and we are not going to allow the Government to imprison one of the candidates." There

  2057
  is also a certain sporting sense in Ireland that it is foul play to arrest a man in the midst of his candidature, and that the best answer to it is, without reference to his policy, to vote for him as a slap against the Government. Then, again, on top of that, the Government revived one of the most outrageous systems of coercion that we have ever had at work in Ireland. The Chief Secretary drew a most appalling description of the condition of the country, and of the desperate men who were there. These are the men you created; these are the forces you let loose. They may be very dangerous—I do not profess to know—but I know that the country is overrun with police spies, riddled with police spies, and I dare say you get a great many reports I know nothing about, and a great many which are not true. But admit that there are a great many desperate men in Ireland—they represent a very small section of the population—what is the reason of the sympathy with, or, at all events of the tolerance of, these desperate men? I will tell him. Hatred of the Government. Nobody will help the Government. The Chief Secretary said, "We cannot crush this thing unless we get assistance!" Of course not; that is the experience of all despotic Governments, from the Czar down. The more you attempt to crush them, the worse they become; and you will not get assistance, for the very good reason that no man in Ireland with any self respect likes to be associated with the Government.
  That is exactly the situation. Can you imagine a more hopeless state of things to exist in a country than that? What I want to ask the Chief Secretary and the Government is when do they expect to bring this state of things to an end? They will not bring it to an end by oppression. On the contrary, they are making it worse. What do they expect to be the end? They have not given us the faintest inkling to-night of what their policy is to be. But I was struck when I listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I would recommend this in all earnestness to the Leaders of the Labour party, who are still members of the Government, when they are reconsidering their course—I was struck by the statement in the "Times" this morning—and whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say the "Times" is in the secrets of the Government, and takes care to reveal those secrets whenever it suits Lord Northcliffe—that
  2058
  "It is understood that the Prime Minister has already acquainted the Unionist Leaders with his ideas on such questions as economic policy and Irish government."
  So that there is a secret treaty between the Prime Minister and the Unionist party in preparation for the election and the two points mentioned, and after the speeches delivered to-day I cannot doubt as to the inspiration and authenticity of that paragraph of the "Times." The two points on which he has given pledges to the Unionist party are the questions of economic policy and Irish government. We had the result in the speeches delivered here to-night. But let me say this as regards the situation in Ireland, it has totally changed. I would like the Government to understand that the time for concessions and adjustments and compromises has gone by. We have tried hard and sacrificed much to ease the situation by making those concessions and compromises in order to obtain a peaceful settlement. We have been deceived, betrayed, repulsed, and that time has gone by. And the situation is changed also by the fact of this War. Nothing surprised me more in this Debate than to hear Ministers get up and speak as though no war had taken place and no changes had come about in Europe, where new States are springing up on all sides and nations, whose very names were unknown in this country and in Ireland—the Czecho-Slovaks, the Jugo-Slavs, the Ukrainians, the Esthionians, and the Poles. Why should not Ireland, one of the most ancient nations in Europe, not get the same rights? Is it any wonder that the young men in Ireland should be asking themselves this question? Therefore, the whole situation is changed. But let me tell the Government this. They appear to me to be under the mistake of treating, or pretending to treat, the Irish question as if it were a question of making concessions or as a question of a devolution policy, for sections of the United Kingdom. It is nothing of the kind. As regards the demand of Ireland we do not differ in the least degree and never have differed from the demand made by the present Sinn Feiners, or by any of the Nationalist revolutionary parties in the past—that is to say we, one and all, and we are in the same position as O'Connell and all who went before us; we claim that Ireland is a nation with independent rights, and that the full national right of Ireland is to be mistress of her own destiny. That is the claim that Ireland has put forward through

  2059
  centuries. But after many rebellions and many tragedies we attempted in pursuance of the policy of O'Connell and Butt and Parnell to arrive at a peaceful settlement with England by concessions and limitations of that demand. Here is a passage one of the most remarkable articles ever written on the Irish question by Mr. Gladstone in the month of July, 1889. He was a great statesman, and I wish we had such statesmen in these days. He really understood this question, and this is what he said in that article:
  "The resort to Parliamentary methods which was constituted by O'Connell and which was renounced by his immediate successors and which was eventually restored and consolidated by Parnell, is not, in the view of Irishmen, a pretext to cover their demand, but it is an abatement of historical and constitutional claims. It is, indeed, in his view, a double, not a single, abatement. He foregoes his claim for the re-establishment of his Imperial independence—"
  So that even Gladstone thoroughly understood and recognised that that was the national demand of Ireland:
  "by the repeal of the Union, and renounces the use of other than Parliamentary methods for obtaining the limited concession of Home Rule, although the Act of Union is void of moral authority, and he would be justified in employing any methods not in themselves immoral."
  That was the opinion of Mr. Gladstone, that the Irish nation are justified in employing against the Act of Union any methods not in themselves immoral. That was the deliberate opinion of Mr. Gladstone, because he goes on to explain that, in his judgment, the Act of Union was passed by such infamous methods that it had no moral binding power whatever upon the Irish people. After to-night I am afraid—I think it is inevitable—that the Irish question must become an international one, just as much as any of these new nationalities to be set up in Europe. We must push our appeal, as you have denied us here to-night, to the outside world, and get such hearing as we can. My own desire—I have been very much abused for it in Ireland—I confess my anxious desire has been to settle this thing with the English people in a friendly and conciliatory way, but after the speeches to which we have listened to-night, what hope is offered to us that we can do it? It will be our duty to do our best to get a hearing for the claim of Ireland in the re-settlement of Europe, and, of course, when we come to place the claim of Ireland before Europe, and before America—and I place my trust, I confess, chiefly in
  2060
  America and President Wilson—we will be obliged to base our claim upon our national right. Europe is now—I thank God for it—about to undo the partition of Poland, one of the great infamies of history, in which this country, to its disgrace, has acquiesced for 140 years. Why not equally ask Europe to undo the Act of Union, an Act more infamous in all its details, and more recent than the partition of Poland? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I challenge anybody to contradict me. I can quote overwhelming English testimony in favour of my contention. I say, How can you go before the tribunal of Europe and say that you are going to undo this partition of Poland, to take away Galicia from Austria, to take away Posen from Prussia, and when some man stands up and charges you with having done in more recent days a greater act of iniquity in passing the Act of Union, how can you refuse to undo that? Certainly President Wilson would be false to all his principles if he did not bring his influence to bear in favour of us, and there is this additional and strong consideration. Poland was partitioned and subjected to a cruel tyranny, but, strange to relate, Galicia under Austria, Russian Poland, and Posen under Prussia all flourished economically. Their populations increased; their cities vastly increased. Warsaw, under the Russian domination, from being one of the smallest and most impoverished cities, became one of the greatest cities of the Eastern world, and whereas Poland, under the domination of her masters, flourished and grew wealthy, Ireland, under your domination, has perished away. [HON. MEMBERS: "Belfast!" and "Never so prosperous!"] Belfast has done well, I quite admit, and I am very glad of it, But can you call a country in a satisfactory condition that for a hundred years has not increased her population by one? Point to another country in Europe, except some of the countries under Turkish rule, of which the same can be said. And this one of the most fertile countries in the world! Therefore, I say that Ireland, when she comes before the tribunal of the world, will be obliged to put her case in a different shape, and because she has been denied the right to settle by compromise she will be obliged to stand upon her national rights. I again ask the Chief Secretary what does he intend to do in Ireland? We have no indication in his speech to-night. The

  2061
  present situation in Ireland cannot continue; it is impossible. It grows worse from day to day, in spite of what he said, and it is bound to grow worse. It breeds every kind of evil. There is no real government in Ireland. The only feelings inspired by what passes for government are hatred and contempt, and it would be very hard to say which is the more universal of the two. That feeling of hatred and contempt pervades every section of the population. Even the Northern Ulstermen have as great contempt for the Irish government as we have, every bit. Nobody believes one word the Irish government say. Whatever policy they may propound everybody laught at it knowing perfectly well it will not be enforced. The consequence is that there is no section of the population which has a single shred of confidence or respect for what passes as executive government in the country. The result is as has always been the case in similar circumstances, that in order to carry on any pretext of government the executive is obliged to trust entirely to police spies, agents provocateur, informers, and in the last resort, to courts-martial and military law. That is the whole philosophy of government in Ireland. To-night we have had no hint from the Chief Secretary how he proposes to bring that condition of things to an end. On the contrary he seems to have got into the vicious circle travelled by so many of his predecessors which makes the disorders and troubles of Ireland an excuse for further coercion, then the coercion produces worse disorders until the whole situation becames absolutely intolerable.
  I make one final appeal to the Labour party. We have heard a speech made on behalf of the Labour party to-night. I thank the Labour party for their support. They have done nobly in recent troubles in Ireland. They hate stood behind us. What of the Labour party which forms part of the Coalition Government? We are told that the Government is going to the country in three weeks for a blank cheque. We know now that it is not a blank cheque. We know one item. In regard to Ireland it is to be a policy of coercion. I do ask the Labour men whether they are going to be responsible for that! If so, they will be false to all the traditions of their party, and I am confident that the bulk of their party will repudiate them. It is not a happy prospect for the Irish people, nor do I think
  2062
  it is a happy prospect for England to undo all the work that has been done by Mr. Gladstone and his successors for the last thirty-five years The one hope I see in the darkness that now enshrouds this question, apart from the unconquerable spirit of Ireland, is that I still have faith in the masses of the working men of England, who on more than one occasion have saved England from indelible disgrace and ruin. [An HON MEMBER: "They fight well, too!"] They always fight well. They have fought well on more than one occasion in the history of England. In spite of storms of execration and abuse, the working men of England have saved England from intolerable chains. They saved her in the Civil War, when the whole of the aristocracy of England wanted to side with the Southern States, and would have supported the Southern States in that great war. They saved the good name of England in the days of the Boer War, that shameless attack upon human liberty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Was there ever a more shameless attack? There are some men here who still think that the Boers ought to be crushed. They save South Africa for England then, and, what is more, they saved the good name of their own country, and I hope they will once more rise in their might and save the honour of England.
  Sir G. HEWART: In a matter of extreme gravity deliberately raised at the present critical time I am sure that the House and every Member of it would regard with impatience, and with just impatience, any merely verbal criticism directed to the terms of the present Motion. But I do think that it is a little important to see precisely what it is that the House is now being invited to affirm. After all, it is in words that we have to express ourselves, and the author, or it may be the authors, of this Motion, have chosen to express their meaning in a great many words. May I ask the House to look for a moment at the Motion as it originally stood, because by a remarkable and belated afterthought, in the dinner hour when very few hon. Members were present, somebody who was entitled to speak with authority on the part of the authors and supporters of this Motion chose to put in a new form of words which I imagine was intended to take the bite and the sting out of the proposal? Therefore I ask the House to look at the Motion

  2063
  as it originally stood, and I propose to stop at the first word of the fourth line. The proposal was this: The House was invited to say,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is essential—"
  I am sure that hon. Members observe the word "essential," not that it is desirable or expedient or convenient, but that it is essential—
  "that, before the British Government takes part in any proceeding for the resettlement of Europe on the conclusion of peace, the Irish question should he settled."
  I pass over now the words that follow the word "settled." That is a proposal which was seriously laid before the House in the name of the hon. Member who has spoken last, and in the name of the hon. Member for South Kerry, who, on second thoughts, moved the Amendment to which I have just referred. Before I pass to that Amendment, I should like to make this observation: In the course of the Debate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. Herbert Samuel) supported the Motion as it then stood. Nor is that all. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife, speaking, I am sure, with the greatest deliberation, as he always does, and with the greatest clearness, said that, in his opinion, the Motion, framed as it then was framed, would pass with unanimity in the Parliament of any self-governing Dominion. [Cheers.] I hear, as I am bound to hear, those cheers, and I reflect that the Motion, which is so cheered, is a Motion the sting of which, upon second thoughts, and in a thin House, the authors have just taken out. I ask the House to consider for a moment what that Motion meant. It meant that before this Government took any step, however tentative, however slight, in the direction of peace, it must not merely have considered, not merely have discussed, but must have settled the Irish question. That was a condition precedent. The Motion, if it had been accepted, would have become a Resolution of this House, with all the sanction and all the efficacy which a Resolution of the House must possess. In my submission, that was a grotesque suggestion. What it meant was that this secular controversy, which has occupied for so many years the time, the attention,
  2064
  and the good will of men of all parties, must have been finally, ultimately, and successfully disposed of before we could take any step towards the making of peace in this War. The proposition has only to be clearly stated, and it must be at once repudiated. Greatly, I must suppose, to the grief of the hon. and right hon. Members who supported it in its original and unamended form, the Motion has, upon second thoughts, been repudiated by those who gave it birth, and now the mere words of it are in a somewhat less provocative form. The alternative which is suggested is a somewhat less impracticable alternative, but in my submission—and I think the House will agree—the meaning is still the same. It is that morally the Government of this country is not entitled to take any part whatever in the making of peace in this War unless and until it has first settled the Irish question. That is what the House is being, as I suppose, seriously, and not as a mere debating point, invited to affirm. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] That, if hon Members will allow me, I propose in a sentence or two to explain. We are to settle the Irish question before we begin to take any step in the direction of peace. Have we not tried to settle the Irish question? The hon. Member for East Mayo spoke of his endeavours to settle it. Is he not aware of our prolonged and repeated endeavours to settle it? The House and the Government must face the plain facts. The Government has sought with absolute sincerity to find a settlement of the Irish question by consent. Consent, as every man knows, and, at least privately, will admit, is the only basis on which a settlement of the Irish question can now be reached. That effort for a time has failed, but it is being continued. My second observation is this, and I am speaking as a Liberal. [An HON. MEMBER: "Of what type?"] I remember, not many months ago, I heard a distinguished colleague in the present Government saying at this table that he was speaking as a Conservative, and had never spoken as a more convinced Conservative than on that occasion, and if my hon. Friend will allow me to make myself heard for a moment, I will say I am speaking as a Liberal and Home Ruler, and I never spoke as a more convinced Liberal and Home Ruler than I do at this moment. I desire to add this that, from the point of view of a Liberal Home Ruler, recent

  2065
  events in Ireland have certainly not made our task more easy. I do not want to dwell upon these events. The hon. Member for East Mayo no doubt, in pursuit of a policy of conciliation, has permitted himself to impute to those who have spoken from this bench bitterness, provocativeness, and insult. I do not propose to follow that example, but I will say this, that whether one looks at the attitude of Ireland to the Military Service Acts, or whether one looks at the attitude of Ireland on voluntary recruiting, it is impossible for a reasonable Liberal and Home Ruler to say that recent events in Ireland have made our task more easy. It has been said that this is an international question. I rather gather from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. Samuel) that he really objected to that aspect of the problem. May I say this: That six years ago, when I was standing as Liberal candidate for North-West Manchester, and when I had—and I welcomed it—the support of some of those who are now sitting below the Gangway upon the opposite side of the House, I ventured, in arguing the case for Home Rule, to put it as one of the collateral advantages of Home Rule, that it would tend to conciliate the feeling of America towards this country. But do not let me be misunderstood. The question of Home Rule is essentially a domestic question. It is a question which we, in these Islands, are fit and are determined to deal with—[An HON. MEMBER: "You have failed"]—and upon that question we are certainly not going to invite, or to welcome or to tolerate—
  Mr. PRINGLE: Wait and see.
  Sir G. HEWART—the directions or the instructions of any external authority.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Why did you tolerate America in the War?
  Mr. BYRNE: You tolerated the fourteen points.
  Sir G. HEWART: And I may say to some of those to whom my words are apparently unpalatable that I do not think the best friends either of this country or of Home Rule would suggest that it is by that means that self-government is to come to Ireland.
  Mr. BYRNE: Wait and see.
  Sir G. HEWART: Then we are charged—it was the make-weight of every argument on that side of the House—with insincerity.
  An HON. MEMBER: It went home!
  Another HON. MEMBER: On Home Rule.
  Sir G. HEWART: We are charged with insincerity, dishonesty, injustice.
  Mr. LUNDON: And treachery.
  Sir G. HEWART: So far as those are the remarks which are made to us, in the name, I suppose, of the "Union of Hearts"?—[An HON. MEMBERS: "The Knave of Hearts!"]—I would make one further observation upon that part of the matter, and one only. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in that, if he will allow me to say so, eloquent and passionate speech he made this afternoon, compared the position of Ireland with the position of the Czecho-Slovaks. I quite agree, if I may say so, that the comparison was relevant to the Motion before the House, because when you go past the word "settlement" and come to the second part of this Motion, it is an invitation to the House to affirm that a settlement of Ireland is to take place in accordance with certain principles as to the free self-determination of nations and peoples.
  Mr. BYRNE: The Prime Minister said that.
  Sir G. HEWART: It is under that formula that the Czecho-Slovaks have proclaimed themselves a free, separate, and independent Republic. [An HON. MEMBER: "So will the Irish!"] Is that what the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool desires?
  Mr. DILLON: Those words were quoted from the Prime Minister's own speech.
  Sir G. HEWART: If they are quoted from a speech, let us see the context from which they were quoted. It was never suggested by the Prime Minister in that or any other speech that Ireland was to have a separate existence apart from the unity of the United Kingdom. But is that what is meant? I stopped in reading this Motion at the word "settled." That is only a very small part of the Motion, as it appears upon the Paper. It goes on for

  2067
  many lines after that. My hon. Friend Bays that to satisfy this condition precedent the Home Rule question is not only to be settled, but to be settled in accordance with certain principles, which he then proceeds to describe.
  Mr. DILLON: In the words of the Prime Minister.
  Sir G. HEWART: So my hon. Friend says. I ask him this question. Does that mean the existing Home Rule Act or does that mean some other Act?
  Mr. DILLON: Did you ever hear of the Irish way of answering a question by asking another? What did the Prime Minister mean when he used those words?
  Sir G. HEWART: I accept the admission of inability to answer the question. If these subsequent words in the Resolution mean something different from the Home Rule Act, the authors of this Resolution must have contemplated that for a period of months, or it may be years, we were to go on fighting this War through the Germans were willing to surrender or that others must make a peace for us behind our backs and that we should be debarred from taking any part in the deliberations. The Motion has now been amended, but its spirit, its intention, and its purpose remain what they originally were. As it was originally framed it received from the opposite bench the most deliberate and most authoritative support. I say with no less deliberation that we are discussing as grave a matter as it is
  possible for us to discuss. A tone of levity has been introduced into the discussion—not by any member of the Government. So far as the Government is concerned—I speak not only for myself but in the name of all my colleagues—we regard this as a matter of palmary importance. What the hon. Member is plainly inviting the House to do is to pass a Vote of Censure upon the Government. As a Liberal and a Home Ruler—[Interruption]—I affirm that the policy of the Government is a policy of Home Rule for Ireland. We have never receded from that policy. In that policy we persist. But we cannot accept this Motion. In all seriousness and in all earnestness I address my remarks to Liberal Members of the House, and in each individual case the question for him now is: Is he prepared in this sense to censure the Government?
  Question put,
  "That in the opinion of this House, in view of the coming Peace Conference, it is essential that the Irish question should be settled without further delay in accordance with the principle laid down by President Wilson, that all nations, large and small, should have free self-determination as to their form of government, and that no people should be ruled and dominated even in their own internal affairs by arbitrary and irresponsible force instead of by their own will and choice, principles for which, in the words of the Prime Minister, the Allies are ostensibly fighting in every other country; and that by the application of these principles the system of coercion and military rule under which Ireland is at present governed, should be brought to an end."
  The House divided.—Ayes, 115; Noes, 196.

  Division No. 88.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kelly, Edward

  Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Alden, Percy

  Esmonde, Capt. J. (Tipporary, N.)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Ftrench, Peter

  Kilbride, Denis

  Anderson, William C. (Attercliffe)

  Field, William

  King, Joseph

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Benn, Capt. W. (Tower Hamlets)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Hackett, John

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harbison, T. J. S.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Buxton, Noel

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Byrne, Alfred

  Hazleton, Richard

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hearn, Michael L.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Durham)

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hinds, John

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Clough, William

  Hogge, J. M.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Cotton, H. E. A.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Meagher, Michael

  Crumley, Patrick

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Davies, Timothy (Louth)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Millar, James Duncan

  Dillon, John

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Molloy, Michael

  Donnelly, Patrick

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B.

  Joyce, Michael

  Mooney, John J.

  Duffy, William J.

  Keating, Matthew

  Muldoon, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Reddy, Michael

  Tillet, Benjamin

  Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Tootill, Robert

  Nugent, Sir W. R. (Westrneath, S.)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Nuttall, Harry

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (D'sbury)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool, Scot'd)

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

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  O'Dowd, John

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

  O'Leary, Daniel

  Sheehy, David

  Williams, Llewelyn

  O'Malley, William

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Boland and Mr. Doris.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  NOES.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

  Newman, Major John R. P. (Enfield)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

  Anderson, G. K. (Canterbury)

  Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Anstruther-Gray, Lt.-Col. Wm.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gretton, John

  Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis Jones

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

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)

  Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

  Parkes, Sir Edward

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Hamersley, Lt.-Col. A. St. George

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Barnett, Capt. Richard W.

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Altrincham)

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Barran, Sir Rowland H. (Leeds, N.)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford)

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Barrie, Charles C.

  Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

  Pratt, John W.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)

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

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

  Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Prothero, Rt. Hon. Roland Edmund

  Beach, William F. H.

  Haslam, Lewis

  Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pulley, C. T.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Randles, Sir John

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon)

  Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Hewins, William Albert S.

  Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

  Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hibbert, Sir Henry

  Richardson, A. (Gravesend)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. Geo. H. (Norwich)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Roberts, Sir Herbert (Denbighs)

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Royds, Major Edmund

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

  Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

  Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

  Boyton, Sir James

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Horne, Edgar

  Samuels, Arthur W. (Dub. U.)

  Brassey, H. L. C.

  Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Shortt, Edward

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Jessel, Colonel Sir Herbert M.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Liverpool)

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

  Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cator, John

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Swift, Rigby

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

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

  Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon)

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Thomas-Stanford, Chas. (Brighton)

  Colvin, Colonel

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Walker, Col. W. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Lonsdale, James R.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lowe, Sir F. W.

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

  Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, E.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Wardle, George J.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. R. C. A.

  Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Weston, John W

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  White, Col. G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Currie, G. W.

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

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

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

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

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

  Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (York)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Marriott, John A. R.

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Green)

  Du Cros, Sir Arthur Philip

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

  Du Pre. Major W. B.

  Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

  Winfrey, Sir R.

  Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Mitchell-Thomson, Sir W.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Fletcher, John S.

  Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

  Younger, Sir George

  Foxcroft, Capt. Charles Talbot

  Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir J. N. (Hanover Sq.)

  Ganzonl, F. J. C.

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Guest and Col. Sanders.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1916–17.
  Considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  PLOT-HOLDERS, IRELAND (SECURITY OF TENURE).
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. FIELD: I wish to bring to the notice of the House the unsatisfactory replies given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland regarding the Allotments Act for Ireland. I do this in the public interest, because everybody admits that we want more food production. Thousands of plot-holders in Ireland belong to the various cities-Dublin, in which I am particularly interested, Belfast, and Cork—and towns in Ireland. All of them furnish a large number of men and sometimes of women with plots, and they all increase the food. I put it to the Chief Secretary that, in order to carry out the policy of the Government and to assist the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, at whose call these thousands of plot-holders have cultivated land and produced food, it is desirable that they should have the same security of tenure as is at present granted to plot-holders in England and Scotland, There is no reason particularly why, under what is called a Coalition and Unionist Government, we should have different laws for Ireland and for Great Britain. I I have no wish to detain the House, but unless we have a permanent statutory security in the same way as they have in England and Scotland, great trouble will undoubtedly arise. Because I am not prepared to say outside of the House what I would say inside, I would advise, those men and women particularly in my own Constituency, not to give up possession of the land unless other land is provided for them and they obtain some security of tenure, such as is granted in England and Scotland. That is a fair proposition, and I am simply asking for Ireland what is granted already in England and Scotland,
  2072
  to carry out the policy of increasing food. I hope he will give a favourable answer and prevent a good deal of confusion in Ireland, and thus help to carry out the policy of more food production.
  Mr. HAZLETON: May I ask whether the Report of the Committee on which the Government Land Bill for Soldiers was founded which was ordered to be laid on the Table has yet been painted. I inquired at the Vote Office to-day for it, and it has not yet been received there or made available for Members. I should like to know if under those circumstances he is going on with that Land Bill to-morrow?
  Mr. SHORTT: In reply to the hon. Member who has just spoken, I may say I gave instructions that it was to be done, but whether it was done or not I do not know, but I will make inquiries about it. Anyhow it deals with what was done before, and I do not think any inconvenience will be caused. I quite appreciate the importance of the subject the hon. Member (Mr. Field) has raised and it has been occupying attention for some time. It is a much more complicated and difficult matter in Ireland than it is in this country. There is every desire to ensure that everything should be done to further food production. I appreciate very keenly the great cogency of his arguments from that point of view, and, equally, we are all anxious to do the best we can for the holders of those plots and allotments. I am meeting a deputation on the subject to-morrow, and perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to deal more fully with this question then than I could possibly do to-night. It is a long and complicated question, and I hope to deal as thoroughly as possible with it on that occasion.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Committee, which is understood to be drafting the Home Rule Bill, is still in existence? On the 8th August last the right hon. Gentleman made a speech in this House saying that he proposed to take up a large part of his recess to deal with the subject.
  Mr. SHORTTdissented.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Here is what the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "That question faces us to-day, and hon. Members talk as though the Government had abandoned Home Rule, as though Home Rule was a thing dead and gone. It is absolutely nothing of the sort. There is a Committee which

  2073
  has been labouring at various schemes dealing with this Ulster question, and I have arranged myself to come back in the Recess, instead of giving my whole time in Ireland, in order to meet a sub-committee to go into certain other points. We are doing our best to get a measure into a form which will ensure it passing through this House, and that is the one thing which is absolutely essential before you can take the necessary steps to remove discontent in Ireland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th August, 1918, cols. 1652. Vol. 109.]
  Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Committee had any meetings in the Recess, and how much of his time did he give to this Committee? He has denied that he made that statement.
  Mr. SHORTT: I denied that I ever said "a large part of the Recess."
  Mr. PRINGLE: Well, a part of the Recess. Has he given any part of the Recess to this?
  Mr. SHORTT: Yes.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Did the right hon. Gentleman meet the Committee? Is it still in existence?
  Mr. SHORTT: Certainly.
  Mr. PRINGLE: And Home Rule is part of the policy of the Government, is it?
  Mr. SHORTT: A statement has been made.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to cross-examine. This is not a Court of law. The Chief Secretary is not in the witness box.
  Mr. PRINGLE: In view of the fact that I was not able to make any remarks during the Debate, as I was unable to catch your eye, I am taking the opportunity on the Adjournment of ascertaining what the position of the Government is. Apparently the Government has no policy. The right hon. Gentleman, who was returned by Irish votes as a Home Ruler, has deserted that policy, and by a deliberate policy of betrayal is going to surrender the best interests not only of Ireland but of Great Britain.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
    CANNED FISH.
    CANNED FISH.
    UNESTABLISHED CIVIL SERVANTS (KILLED IN ACTION).
    UNESTABLISHED CIVIL SERVANTS (KILLED IN ACTION).
    LAND PURCHASE, CONNEMARA.
    LAND PURCHASE, CONNEMARA.
    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    GALLIPOLI MEDAL.
    GALLIPOLI MEDAL.
    RE-ENGAGED TERRITORIALS (WAR BOUNTY)
    RE-ENGAGED TERRITORIALS (WAR BOUNTY)
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    MEN WITH LARGE FAMILIES.
    MEN WITH LARGE FAMILIES.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE (OFFICERS).
    MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE (OFFICERS).
    PETROL SUPPLIES (DISCHARGED SERVICE MEN).
    PETROL SUPPLIES (DISCHARGED SERVICE MEN).
    SEASON TICKETS (RENEWAL REFUSED).
    SEASON TICKETS (RENEWAL REFUSED).
    POST OFFICE EMPLOYES (RIGHT TO RESIGN).
    POST OFFICE EMPLOYES (RIGHT TO RESIGN).
    Old Age Pensions.
    Old Age Pensions.
    Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Royal Irish Constabulary.
    School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill.
    School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill.
    Mental Deficiency Act, 1913 (Administration).
    Mental Deficiency Act, 1913 (Administration).

COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) Act, 1851.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Shandon.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

SEPARATION AND DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I desire to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to separation and divorce, and I beg to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LICENSED STOCKBROKERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE PRISONERS AGREEMENT.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Newton whether he has any information to give the House relative to the ratification of the Prisoners Agreement with Germany.
THE ASSISTANT UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, I am sure that the House will learn with great satisfaction that we received a message from Germany yesterday, to the effect that the Germans have abandoned their preposterous claims with regard to German civilians in China, and are prepared to ratify the Agreement.

TERMS OF ARMISTICE WITH AUSTRIA.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL(EARL CURZON OF KEDLETON):My Lords, I think the House would like such information as I am in a position to give it in regard to the Conferences of the Allies which have been meeting at Versailles, and about the important events of the past week. The Conferences were attended by Ministers representative of France, Italy, and Great Britain; by Colonel House, as representing the President of the United States; by a number of other Ministers of the Allied Governments; by the naval and military advisers of the Allied Governments, and by the representatives of Japan, Belgium, Serbia, Greece, and Portugal, and also of the Czecho-Slovaks.
The first matter to which the Supreme War Council gave its attention was the final elimination of Turkey from the war. The terms of the armistice with Turkey and the conditions under which it was signed have already been made public, and I need say little more on that subject. The conditions of the armistice not only deprived Germany of her Eastern Ally, but they give to the Allied Governments the command of the Black Sea—a matter of great importance from the point of view of the future conduct of the war.
Early last week the Commander-in-Chief of the Austro-Hungarian Army sent a parlementaire across the lines to General Diaz, asking for the conditions upon which the Allies would grant an armistice. After the fullest consultation both with their naval and military advisers, the Supreme War Council agreed upon the conditions, and they were immediately despatched to General Diaz for transmission to the Austro-Hungarian Commander-in-Chief and Government. The terms as communicated to Austria-Hungary were as follows:—
Military Clauses
1. The immediate cessation of hostilities by land, sea and air.
2. Total demobilisation of the Austro-Hungarian Army and immediate withdrawal of all Austro-Hungarian forces operating on the front from the North Sea to Switzerland. Within Austro-Hungarian territory, limited as in Clause 3 below, there shall only be maintained as an

993
organised military force a maximum of twenty divisions, reduced to pre-war peace effectives. Half the Divisional, Corps and Army artillery and equipment shall be collected at points to be indicated by the Allies and United States of America for delivery to them, beginning with all such material as exists in the territories to be evacuated by the Austro-Hungarian forces.
3. Evacuation of all territories invaded by Austria-Hungary since the beginning of war. Withdrawal within such periods as shall be determined by the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied forces on each front of the Austro-Hungarian Armies behind a line fixed so as to provide that the Austro-Hungarian Armies have to retire behind a line which affords a strategic safeguard for Italy's Alpine frontier. From the Swiss frontier this line follows the watershed of the Rhaetian, Carnic, and Julian Alps to the Gulf of Fiume (excluding the port of that name). It compels Austria-Hungary to evacuate all the Tyrol south of the Bemner Pass, and also to evacuate the Carso Plateau and the Istrian Peninsula. Further south the Austro-Hungarian forces have to evacuate the Province of Dalmatia and the Dalmatian Islands, with the exception of the islands in the Gulf of Spalato. All territories thus evacuated will be occupied by the troops of the Allies and of the United States of America. All military and railway equipment of all kinds (including coal), belonging to or within these territories, to be left in situ and surrendered to the Allies according to special orders given by the Commanders-in-Chief of the forces of the Associated Powers on the different fronts. No new destruction, pillage, or requisition to be done by enemy troops in the territories to be evacuated by them and occupied by the forces of the Associated Powers.
4. The Allies shall have the right of free movement over all road and rail and waterways in Austro-Hungarian territory, and of the use of the necessary Austrian and Hungarian means of transportation. The Armies of the Associated Powers shall occupy such strategic points in Austria-Hungary at such times as they may deem necessary to enable them to conduct military operations or to maintain order. They shall have the right of requisition on payment for the troops of the Associated Powers wherever they may be.
5. Complete evacuation of all German troops within fifteen days, not only from
994
the Italian and Balkan fronts, but from all Austro-Hungarian territory. Internment of all German troops which have not left Austria-Hungary within that date.
6. The administration of the evacuated territories of Austria-Hungary will be entrusted to the local authorities under the control of the Allied and Associated Armies of occupation.
7. The immediate repatriation without reciprocity of all Allied prisoners of war and interned subjects, and of civil populations evacuated from their homes, on conditions to be laid down by the Commanders-in-Chief of the forces of the Associated Powers on the various fronts.
8. Sick and wounded who cannot be removed from evacuated territory will be cared for by Austro-Hungarian personnel who will be left on the spot with the medical material required.
Naval Conditions
1. Immediate cessation of all hostilities at sea, and definite information to be given as to the location and movements of all Austro-Hungarian ships. Notification to be made to neutrals that freedom of navigation in all territorial waters is given to the Naval and Mercantile Marines of the Allied and Associated Powers, all questions of neutrality being waived.
2. Surrender to the Allies and United States of America of fifteen Austro-Hungarian submarines, completed between the years 1910 and 1918, and of all German submarines which are in or may hereafter enter Austro-Hungarian territorial waters. All other Austro-Hungarian submarines to be paid off and completely disarmed, and to remain under the supervision of the Allies and United States of America.
3. Surrender to the Allies and United States of America, with their complete armament and equipment, of three battleships, three light cruisers, nine destroyers, twelve torpedo boats, one minelayer, six Danube monitors, to be designated by the Allies and the United States of America. All other surface warships (including river craft) are to be concentrated in Austro-Hungarian naval bases to be designated by the Allies and the United States of America, and are to be paid off and completely disarmed and placed under the supervision of the Allies and United States of America.
4. Freedom of navigation to all warships and merchant ships of the Allied and Associated Powers to be given in the Adriatic and up the river Danube and its tributaries in the territorial waters and territory of Austria-Hungary. The Allies and Associated Powers shall have the right to sweep up all mine-fields and obstructions, and the positions of these are to be indicated. In order to ensure the freedom of navigation on the Danube, the Allies and the United States of America shall be empowered to occupy or to dismantle all fortifications or defence works.
5. The existing Blockade conditions set up by the Allied and Associated Powers are to remain unchanged, and all Austro-Hungarian merchant ships found at sea are to remain liable to capture, save exceptions which may be made by a Commission nominated by the Allies and United States of America.
6. All Naval aircraft are to be concentrated and immobilised in Austro-Hungarian bases to be designated by the Allies and United States of America.
7. Evacuation of all the Italian coasts and of all ports occupied by Austria-Hungary outside their national territory, and the abandonment of all floating craft, naval materials, equipment, and materials for inland navigation of all kinds.
8. Occupation by the Allies and the United States of America of the land and sea fortifications and the islands which form the defences and of the dockyards and arsenal at Pola.
9. All merchant vessels held by Austria-Hungary belonging to the Allies and Associated Powers to be returned.
10. No destruction of ships or of materials to be permitted before evacuation, surrender, or restoration.
11. All naval and mercantile marine prisoners of war of the Allied and Associated Powers in Austor-Hungarian hands to be returned without reciprocity.
We gave the Austro-Hungarian Government until twelve midnight on Sunday to accept these terms. On Sunday afternoon we received the news that these conditions had been accepted, and that General Diaz had signed an armistice which was to come into operation on Monday—yesterday—at 3 p.m. The most important point about these terms is that they give to the Allies the free use of Austro-Hungarian territory and communications for the pur-
996
pose of operations of war. When we consider that the events of the past few weeks have liberated all the Allied forces which have hitherto been operating against Turkey, against Bulgaria, and against Austria-Hungary, to be used for the great converging final attack upon Germany, the full significance of the terms which I have just read will be apparent to all. I am glad to be able to announce that Marshal Foch, by the unanimous decision of the Governments concerned, has been placed in supreme strategic direction of all the forces operating against Germany on all fronts in this the last and decisive phase of the war.
There are two other remarks I should like to make on this subject. In the first place, I think we ought all to recognise the great debt of gratitude we owe to the Italian Army and to General Diaz for the great victory they have won. This victory means the final removal of the danger which has threatened Italian liberty and Italian security for many centuries. I would, therefore, ask the House to join me in expressing their heartfelt admiration and gratitude to the Italian Army and people for the great and invaluable victory they have just gained. I should like also to pay tribute to the very real part which has been taken in achieving this victory by the British troops under the command of Lord Cavan. They have played a rôle in this battle fully worthy of the unforgetable achievements of their compatriots on the Western Front.
The other thing I would like to do, my Lords, is to offer my congratulations to the Czecho-Slovak and Jugo-Slav peoples, who have thrown off the yoke of their oppressors and joined themselves openly with the Allies. These little nations, which have stood out so long and with such heroism against Germanic domination, may rest assured that the Allies intend to come to their aid as fast as they possibly can.
After thus disposing of the questions of the terms of armistice with Turkey and Austria-Hungary, the Supreme War Council proceeded to consider the answer which they should make to the Despatch of the President of the United States covering his correspondence from the German Government, which has been made public, and the reply that they should give to the German request for an armistice. I am unable to give the House any information on this subject further than to say that after the

997
fullest deliberation with their naval and military advisers, complete agreement was reached among the Allies. Their conclusions have been transmitted to the President of the United States, with the request that he should inform the German Government that if they wish to know the conditions of armistice upon which the Allies are agreed they should make the application to Marshal Foch in the usual military form. If an application is made, a British naval representative will be associated with Marshal Foch. Whatever the reply will be, the Associated Powers await the issue with perfect confidence.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Electoral divisions.
2.—(1) For the purpose of such elections, the Secretary for Scotland shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, by order divide each education area into electoral divisions, and in determining the boundaries thereof, he shall have regard, so far as may be, to the boundaries of wards in scheduled burghs, and districts, burghs and parishes in counties.
(2) Before making an order under this and the following section, the Secretary for Scotland shall cause the proposed order to be published in such manner as to make the same known to all persons interested, and shall, after considering any objections and representations respecting the proposed order, and causing a local inquiry to be held if he sees fit to do so, thereafter make the order and cause the same to be forthwith published in the Edinburgh Gazette and in a newspaper circulating in the education area.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, after the first ("and") insert ("of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, after line 20 insert as a new subsection:
"(2) The Secretary of State for Scotland shall also by order determine the number of members
998
to be elected to each education authority, and shall apportion them among the electoral divisions of the education area. In making such determination and apportionment the Secretary for Scotland shall have regard to the population, area, and other circumstances, of the scheduled burgh or county, as the case may be, and the electoral divisions thereof."—(The Lord Chancellor.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble and learned Lord say what is the exact object of this change? So far as I can see, the words now put into the second are the same as those in Clause 3. What is the precise object of making the change in this stage of the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: the object is this. My noble friend will see that as the clause stands at present, the second subsection begins "Before making an order under this and the following section, the Secretary for Scotland shall cause the proposed order to be published in such manner as to make the same known. …" My noble friend will see that the words proposed to be inserted are the same, really, as the words of the present third subsection. So you get the third section made the second subsection of Sect on 2, and then come the words "cause the ame to be forthwith published." That makes the order apply to both.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Pure drafting?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: No change on the merits?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, leave out ("and the following").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
School management committees.
4.—(1) It shall be the duty of every education authority to prepare and submit to the Department for their approval a scheme or schemes for the constitution of committees (in this Act called "school management committees") for the management of schools or groups of schools under their control throughout their education area.
Every such scheme shall contain provision—

(a) for the due representation on each school management committee of the education authority and of the parents of the children attending the schools under the management of such committee; and

(b) for the appointment thereto, on the nomination of the teachers engaged in the schools under the management of such committee, or, failing such nomination, directly of at least one such teacher; and also

(c) in the case of a school management committee having under its management one or more transferred schools, for the appointment there to of at least one member in whose selection regard shall be had to the religious belief of the parents of the children attending such school or schools.

Further, in the case of a county, every such scheme shall have regard to the desirability of constituting separate school management committees for individual burghs and parishes, and shall provide for the appointment thereto, on the nomination of local bodies (including town and parish councils and at the first constitution outgoing school boards) or failing such nomination directly, of persons resident in the locality and otherwise qualified to represent local interests in school management.
(2) A school management committee shall, subject except as hereinafter provided to any regulations and restrictions made by the education authority, have all the powers and duties of that authority in regard to the general management and supervision of the school or group of schools, including attendance thereat:
Provided that a school management committee having under its management a secondary school shall have all the said powers and duties not subject to any such regulations or restrictions:
Provided further that the education authority shall in every case themselves retain, exercise, and perform all their powers and duties in regard to—

(a) the raising of money by rate or loan and the general control of expenditure;

(b) the acquisition or holding of land;

(c) the appointment, transfer, remuneration and dismissal of teachers;

(d) the appointment of bursars, and the exercise of the powers conferred by the section of this Act relating to power to facilitate attendance at secondary schools and other institutions; and

(e) the recognition, establishment, or discontinuance of intermediate or secondary schools or of centres of advanced technical instruction.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had given notice to move, in subsection (2), after the words "school management committee," to insert "in case of a county." The noble Lord said: I think that I am right—perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, will tell us whether it is so—in saying that this Amendment will not be necessary if the Lord Chancellor adheres to his Amend-
1000
ment on the following page. If that is so I will, of course, take his Amendment and not move my own.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to amend the first proviso in subsection (2), after "provided that," by inserting the words "in the case of a county."
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Will the noble and learned Lord explain why this should be limited in the case of a county?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is for this reason. An Amendment was proposed in Committee in the House of Commons to give greater powers to the school management committees in burghs of over 20,000 inhabitants, and after a good deal of discussion it was realised that there were objections to attaching a population limit to a proviso of this kind, and the present form of the proviso, which my noble and learned friend will see is in the Bill, was accepted on Report as a satisfactory fulfilment of the undertaking. Then the intention was that the provision in its amended form should apply only to the case of burghs in counties. My noble friend is aware that the scheme of the Bill is that the five large burghs—Aberdeen, Dundee, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Leith—form areas for the purpose of the Bill. Scattered throughout the counties which are the areas for the rest of Scotland there are, of course, a number of smaller burghs, and the intention was that the proviso should apply only to the case of burghs in counties. These words make it perfectly clear that that is done.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, after ("that") insert ("in the case of a county").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Power to facilitate attendance at secondary school and other institutions.
5.—(1) It shall be lawful for an education authority, with a view to securing that no child or young person resident in their education area who is qualified for attendance at an intermediate or secondary school, and in their opinion formed after consideration of a report from the teachers

1001
concerned shows promise of profiting thereby, shall be debarred therefrom by reason of the expense involved, to grant assistance in the case of any such child or young person by payment of travelling expenses, or of fees, or of the cost of residence in a hostel, or of a bursary or maintenance allowance, or any combination of these forms of assistance or otherwise, as the authority think fit. And it shall also be lawful for an education authority similarly to assist any duly qualified person resident in their education area to enter or attend a university, or a training college, or a central institution (including classes affiliated thereto), or in special cases any other educational institution approved for the purpose by the Department.
(2) It shall further be lawful for an education authority to grant assistance by payment of travelling expenses necessarily incurred in the case of any person resident in their education area in attending continuation classes under a a scheme for instruction in such classes as in this Act provided.
(3) Any assistance granted under this section shall be such as the education authority consider proper and necessary, having regard to the circumstances of each case, including the circumstances of the parents.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after "hostel" in subsection (1), to insert "which the education authorities are hereby empowered to establish and maintain." The noble Lord said: I have some difficulty about this Amendment. The time since the Second Reading has been very short, and I have had a large number of communications from school boards in regard to this particular matter, and at the instance of the School Board of Perth I have put down this Amendment. It may not be necessary to move it if the point which it deals with is already met. As far as I gather, I think that Clause 20 of the Act of 1908 gives this power, but the school boards with whom I have been in communication assure me that they have had great difficulty, and they do not know that they have the power. Therefore I will confine myself for the moment to asking the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill whether it is the fact that without this Amendment the new education authorities will have ample power to establish these hostels.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, after ("hostel") insert ("which the education authorities are hereby empowered to establish and maintain").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This matter has been looked into, and I am informed that it is quite clear that there is a power without the insertion of these words.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: Apropos of the answer that has just been given by the Lord Chancellor, I wish to ask a question which arises on this clause. I think that it is sufficiently near to the point which is now under discussion. In some countries, notably in Australia, where the population is very scanty and scattered, it has been found very desirable for education authorities to make arrangements for the conjoint travelling of children from various remote places to a central school. Can the Lord Chancellor say whether, under the provisions of Clause 5, it will be possible for the education authorities not only to pay the expense of particular children, but to provide means for the conveyance of children from remote areas, as for instance from some village or clachan high up in the glen down to the school in the lower part of the glen. If such a conveyance were provided it would take the children down in the mornings and back again in the evenings. Would that be within the power which is granted by the provisions of this clause?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The suggestion which has just been made seems eminently reasonable. I doubt whether the clause as it stands covers the point because it refers to the payment of expenses. But the question raised by my noble friend will certainly be considered. I cannot say more at present than that before the next stage of the Bill we will think over what he has said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Religious instruction.
8. Whereas it has been the custom in the public schools of Scotland to give instruction in religion to children whose parents did not object to the instruction so given, but with liberty to parents, without forfeiting any of the other advantages of the schools, to elect that their children should not receive such instruction, be it enacted that education authorities shall be at liberty to continue the said custom, subject to the provisions of section sixty-eight (conscience clause) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872.
LORD GISBOROUGH LORD GISBOROUGH moved to delete the words "be at liberty to." The noble Lord said: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I do so with the object of making the teaching of religion

1003
in the board schools compulsory. As your Lordships are aware, there are two kinds of school in Scotland—the voluntary schools which belong, I believe, almost entirely to the Episcopalians and the Roman Catholic Churches, and the board schools which hitherto have been confined to a small area of a parish. Under this Bill the voluntary schools are to be granted a maximum of advantage with regard to religious instruction which is to be compulsory. The Bill says that religion shall be taught in those schools exactly as has been the custom in the past. They are also to have the advantage of being able to apply whatever test they think necessary to the teachers as to their religious views and characters before they are allowed to teach in the schools. I do not think that anybody will complain of those advantages being granted to the Episcopalians and Roman Catholic Churches.
When you come to the other side—to the board schools—you find an entirely different state of things. Not only in their case is the teaching of religion not to be compulsory, but even the position which they occupy today is to be taken away from them. Under the present system, the school board area being a parish and therefore a very small one, it is easy for the ministers of the various Free Churches to take an interest in the election and to secure the return of sufficient representatives on the board to make certain of their religious instruction, but under the Bill that area is to be enlarged to the county area, with the result that in all probability, in many counties where those who do not believe in religion are I think increasing in numbers, it will be quite impossible to secure the return of a sufficient number of board school representatives to ensure religion being taught at all. I think that for one reason alone this Amendment would be advisable, and that is that you are going to continue in the future the discussion of the religious question all over the county every time that a school board election takes place. If you grant to the Episcopalian and the Roman Catholic Churches the maximum advantage which they get under the Bill, I think it is rather hard to deny to the Free Churches the minimum of advantage for which they ask. All they ask is that the words "be at liberty to" shall be omitted, so that the clause shall read "shall continue the said custom." I hope that the Government will
1004
accept this Amendment because it will avoid all fighting over the religious question at future elections, and it will grant to a very deserving body of men, who represent I think something like four-fifths of the population of Scotland, the minimum advantage which they ask. Moreover, it will be a very great boon to them, believing as they do that the question of religious instruction is the most important one that can be dealt with. I trust, for the reasons I have given, that the Government will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("be at liberty to").—(Lord Gisborough.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that the noble Lord, on consideration, will not press this Amendment, and I can assure him, in saying this, that there is no lack of sympathy on my part with the object he has in view. I think that the means proposed to be adopted by the Amendment would rather prejudice than advance the cause of religious education in these Scottish schools. The noble Lord will remember that in the previous Scottish Education Act—the Act of 1872—there was not any enacting clause whatever as to religious teaching. The Act begins with the preamble, reciting the use and wont as to religious education in Scotland, but then you turn over the pages of the Act in vain if you have any hope of finding a corresponding enactment. The course adopted was to leave it to the authorities, who have exercised the power according to use and wont, in the manner which is universally desired by the people of Scotland, and I think we had better leave it there, as it stands in the Act at present, without, attempting to make it compulsory. I think it was pointed out by one or two fellow-countrymen of my own in this House, who know the Scottish people well, that they are very apt to kick if a thing is forced upon them, and I am afraid that if you make it compulsory in the terms proposed by the noble Lord you might effect exactly the opposite of that which he intends. The form of words in the Bill has been adopted after consultation between the different Presbyterian bodies in Scotland; it has been accepted by the education committees of the leading Presbyterian teachers in Scotland, and it was supported in the House of Commons by Members who might claim to be very

1005
representative of the feelings of these bodies upon this matter. On the whole I must say that the Government are not prepared to re-open this question, and I earnestly hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment to a division.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said. I should, perhaps prefer to remain silent, but I think it would be hardly fair to the House and myself and to those with whom I generally act if I did not say that, speaking generally, for the reasons which the noble and learned Lord has given, I cordially support the view which he takes, and I hope that the Committee will not re-open this question. You are making certain creeds the mandatory creeds of a minority. If it came to a mere matter of logic it is not easy to see why on that ground the creed of the majority should be left out. But the fact remains that this Bill is making no change in the custom and law as it now stands, and as it has stood since the year 1872. The Act of that year, as was mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount behind me (Lord Haldane) did not make the teaching of religion compulsory, but it made it legal, and I think that what the noble and learned Lord has said is right—that if the people of Scotland have the power to get a thing and want it, they will see that it is given in the proper form. Although religious instruction is not a Code subject it is, as a matter of fact, universal or practically so in all public schools. So I believe it will remain. None of us want to imperil the position of the Bill by again raising this question. Therefore, although there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment, considered as a question of logic, as a matter of practical politics I think it would be extremely inexpedient to do anything to disturb the arrangement which was made at a late stage in another place.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I venture to express my agreement with what has been said by the Lord Chancellor and by my noble friend who has just spoken on this subject. The question has excited a great deal of interest and some controversy in Scotland. I think there was some basis for the view which has been expressed by the noble Lord (Lord Gisborough). It would appear on the face of the Bill as if the denominational schools were given an advantage
1006
which does not belong to the undenominational schools, the pupils in which represent the very large majority of the people of Scotland. But, as has been already said, a compromise has been arrived at, and it is always dangerous to disturb a compromise, unless you are certain that you will arrive at greater peace than existed before. I am afraid that, if we were to make this change, we would start a new controversy, that there would be great trouble, and that an end might be put to the comparative peace which has existed in Scottish schools on this subject, and which has made the religious question so much smaller a matter in Scotland than it has, unfortunately, been in England.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: From another point of view, I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said. I was in Scotland through the period of controversy over this Amendment. I have a good deal of interest in Scottish education, and come in contact with a great number of the teachers. I was very much impressed with this, that we have been delivered, by the settlement which the Government have made from a controversy of the most serious character. The peace and tranquillity of Scottish education had been disturbed by the proposal of this Amendment. Nobody who really knew the arrangement there thought in the least that there would be any advantage to the teaching of religion in Scotland. There would no doubt be a new and mechanical element introduced—a teaching of religion that was mechanical—and the most striking feature that I observed was the intense repugnance to the Amendment shown by the whole body of Scottish teachers—a very important body. They saw—and they were right in thinking—that this was, in effect, an indirect way of imposing a test upon them, and it was bitterly resented, and we were on the verge of a great controversy which the fortunate arrangement made by the Secretary for Scotland enabled us to get out of. I trust that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, which would simply bring us into a condition of things which I shudder to contemplate.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Claus 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14
Expenses of education authorities.
14.—(1) The expenses of an education authority (including the expenditure incurred by school management committees in the performance of their duties and approved by the authority) shall be paid out of the education fund of the education area, which shall come in place of the school fund referred to in section forty-three of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, and of the district education fund referred to in section seventeen of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after the word "committees" where it first occurred in subsection (1), to insert "and local advisory councils." The noble and learned Lord said: It is obviously desirable that the expenses of these councils should be paid.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 20, after ("committees") insert ("and local advisory councils").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Continuation classes.
16. Sections nine and ten of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, are hereby repealed and in lieu there of—
(1) Every education authority shall, after due inquiry and consultation with persons concerned in local crafts and industries and with due regard to local circumstances generally, prepare and submit for the approval of the Department a scheme or schemes for the part-time instruction in continuation classes of all young persons within the education area of the authority who may under this Act be required to attend such classes.
(2)—

(a) Every education authority shall prepare and submit for the approval of the Department under this section—

(i) within one year after the appointed day a scheme applicable to young persons under the age of sixteen years; and

(ii) as soon thereafter as the Department may require a scheme or schemes applicable to young persons of any age greater than sixteen but not exceeding eighteen years.

(b) When a young person to whom any such scheme applies attains the age of sixteen years or any greater age as the case may be during any continuation class session, he shall for the purposes of this section be deemed not to have attained such age until the close of such session, so, however, that a young person shall not by reason of this provision be required to attend continuation classes for more than three months after he has attained such age:

(3) For the better preparation and carrying into effect of schemes under this section, and in particular for the registration and classification of young persons within their areas, it shall be the duty of education authorities to communicate and co-operate with associations or committees of employers and workmen concerned in the registration or supervision of apprentices in trades where apprentices are employed, or with similar associations or committees in trades or businesses where young persons, though not apprenticed thereto, have the prospect of regular employment therein in later years, and to encourage the formation of such associations or committees, and to register and classify young persons within their areas according to their employment in such trades or businesses or in occupations which do not afford the prospect of such regular employment, and to have regard to the educational requirements of such young persons with respect alike to their present and to their prospective employments:
(4) Every such scheme shall provide for—

(a) instruction in the English language and literature, and in such other parts of a general education as may be deemed desirable;

(b) special instruction conducive to the efficiency of young persons in the employment in which they are engaged or propose to be engaged; and

(c) instruction in physical exercises adapted to age and physique: Provided that for this purpose account may be taken of instruction in such exercises afforded at holiday camps or in connection with boys' brigades or kindred organisations if the instruction so afforded is approved by the education authority as satisfactory:

(5) The instruction given in continuation classes under any such scheme shall amount for each young person to an aggregate of at least three hundred and twenty hours of attendance in each year distributed as regards times and seasons as may best suit the circumstances of each locality:
Provided that no attendance at classes held between the hours of seven in the evening and eight in the morning shall be reckoned as part of the necessary aggregate of three hundred and twenty hours of attendance, except in circumstances and to the extent specially approved by the Department:
(6) The obligation to attend continuation classes under any such scheme shall not apply to any young person who—

(i) is above the age of fourteen years on the appointed day; or

(ii)—(a) is in full-time attendance at a recognised primary intermediate or secondary school; or

(b) is shown to the satisfaction of the education authority to be receiving suitable and efficient instruction in some other manner; or

1009
(iii)—(a) has been in full-time attendance at a recognised intermediate or secondary school until the close of the school session in which he has attained the age of seventeen years and is certified by the school authorities to have completed the post-intermediate course; or
(b) has attained the age of seventeen years and is shown to the satisfaction of the education authority to have completed a course of instruction equivalent in value to the post-intermediate course:
The obligation to attend continuation classes under any such scheme shall not, within a period of three years from the appointed day on which the provisions of this section come into force, apply to young persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, nor after such period to any young person who has attained the age of sixteen before the expiration of that period:
(7) Whenever a scheme has been approved by the Department, the education authority shall, in such manner as the Department may by order prescribe, require every young person to whom the obligation to attend continuation classes under such scheme applies to attend with due regularity for instruction in accordance with the scheme at such times and places as the education authority may appoint:
Provided that an education authority may, upon such conditions as they think fit, exempt any young person from the obligation to attend continuation classes where, after due inquiry, the authority are satisfied that the circumstances justify such exemption, and the provisions of section three of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1901, relating to the keeping of register and to the power of the Department, shall, with the necessary modifications, apply to exemptions granted under this provision.
(8) If it appears to an education authority that any young person of the age of fifteen years and upwards is neglecting or failing without reasonable excuse to comply with any such requirement of the authority, it shall be lawful for that authority after due warning to such young person and to his parent and employer (if any) to summon the young person, with or without his parent or employer, to appear before the authority at any meeting thereof, and to require from him or them every information and explanation respecting such neglect or failure; and if such young person or his parent or employer, or some person on his or their behalf, either does not appear, or appears and does not satisfy the authority that there is reasonable excuse for such neglect or failure, it shall be lawful for the authority to order in writing that such young person shall comply with such requirement, or with such other requirement as to attendance as the authority may direct. The authority shall cause a copy of any such order to be sent to the young person by registered letter, and if the young person fails to comply with the order he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding five shillings.
(9) Every employer of labour shall afford to every young person in his employment any opportunity necessary for attendance at continuation classes in accordance with the requirements of the education authority, including time for travelling, and the hours of employment of any young person when added to the time necessary for such attendance, including time for travelling, shall not in the aggregate exceed in any day or week, as the case may be, the period of employment permitted for such young person by any Act of Parliament.
Every employer who tai s to afford the opportunity aforesaid, or who employs a young person contrary to the provisions of this subsection, shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding twenty shillings, or in case of a second or subsequent offence whether relating to the same or to another young person not exceeding five pounds, and every parent of a young person who has conduced to the commission of such an offence by an employer, or to the failure of such young person to observe any requirement of the education authority under this section, shall be liable on summary conviction to the like penalties:
(10) An education authority may, in any scheme under this section, make provision for the attendance at continuation classes of persons of any age who desire to attend such classes although not required by the authority so to do.
(11) An education authority may in any scheme under this section, or by a separate scheme or schemes similarly submitted and approved, provide for the delegation by the authority, subject to any regulations and restrictions made by them, of any of their powers and duties relating to the management and supervision of continuation classes (including attendance thereat) within their education area or any part thereof to any school management committee or combination of such committees within their area, or to a committee or committees appointed by the authority for the purpose, consisting in whole or in part of members of the authority, and any such school management committee or other committee may exercise and shall perform all the powers and duties so delegated to them:
Provided that an education authority shall not so delegate any of the powers and duties which, by the section of this Act relating to school management committees, the authority are required themselves to retain, exercise, and perform:
(12) Where continuation classes provided by the education authority in any education area are attended by persons resident outwith that area, there shall be paid in each year to that authority out of the education fund of the education area in which any such persons are so resident a sum equal to the cost of the instruction of such persons in those classes (including in such cost repayment of, and interest on, loans for capital expenditure) after deduction of income from all sources of income other than educations rate:
Provided that no payment shall be made under this subsection out of the education fund of any education area in respect of any person for whom it is shown, to the satisfaction of the Department, that suitable instruction is available in accessible continuation classes within that area, regard being had to all the circumstances:
(13) The provisions of section four of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, which relates to the medical inspection of children, shall apply, with the necessary modifications, to the medical examination and supervision of young persons under the obligation to attend continuation classes under this section.
(14) if a young person or the parent of a young person under the age of sixteen represents in writing to the local education authority that he objects to any part of the instruction given in the continuation school which the young person is required to attend, on the ground that it is contrary or offensive to his religious belief, the obligation under this Act to attend that school for the purpose of such instruction shall not apply to him, and the local education authority shall, if practicable, arrange for him to attend some other instruction in lieu thereof or some other school:
(15) In this section the expression "young person" includes any person between the ages of fifteen and eighteen years and also any child under the age of fifteen years who has been exempted under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1901, from the obligation to attend school; the expression, "employ" and "employment" include employment in any labour exercised by way of trade or for purposes of gain whether the gain be to the young person or to any other person: and the expression "employer" includes a parent so employing his children.
LORD INCHCAPE: My noble friend Lord Beresford has asked me to say that he is very sorry he could not attend the House to-day on account of illness; otherwise he would have supported my Amendment In subsection (6) of Clause 16. I understand that His Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the Amendment, which would have been moved in the House of Commons but for some mistake.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 21, after ("course") insert ("or"
(c) who has satisfactorily completed a course of training for, and is engaged in, the sea service, in accordance with the provisions of any national scheme which may hereafter be established, by Order in Council or otherwise, with the object of maintaining an adequate supply of well-trained British seamen, or, pending the establishment of such scheme, in accordance with the pro-
1012
visions of any interim scheme approved by the Department.")—(Lord Inchcape.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I believe it is true that it was by accident that this clause was not moved in the Commons. The Government have considered the matter, and are prepared to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Is there not a general clause enabling exemption to be given in cases where it is required? After all, this is rather a serious matter. There is a disposition to think that young persons are very valuable economic material, and so they are; but the first consideration is to get them educated, and we have to think of the whole future of the country. Here is an exception proposed to be made, and I think we ought to hear from the Government whether there is not in the Bill a clause which would enable the authority to make such exemptions as would cover the only cases of absolute necessity.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are words giving power of exemption; but this Amendment relates to a matter so important, and to one which would so often arise, that the Government have thought it desirable to recognise this exemption as a matter of law. It would require a great many individual applications, and the view the Government have adopted in accepting the Amendment is that they treat it as a matter of principle, and that where the conditions mentioned here are present the attendance ought not to be insisted upon.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: If the Government are satified with that, on the advice of the educational experts, well and good. But I think it is a serious matter to make these exceptions; and I understand that the School Board of Glasgow, at all events, have represented very strongly against the Amendment. But the responsibility must be with the Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think my noble and learned friend will find that the clause is in the English Bill, but owing to an accident it was not put into this Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (6) to omit "three" ["The obligation to attend continuation classes under any such scheme shall not, within a period of three years"], and to substitute "seven"; and he also had on the Paper the addition of a new paragraph to subsection (6). The noble lord said: The Amendment which I now rise to move is perhaps the most important of those of which notice has been given. I shall endeavour not to occupy the Committee longer than is absolutely necessary, but I hope it will be understood that those for whom I speak attach the greatest importance to this Amendment.
There are two Amendments to the clause. They are not absolutely necessary the one to the other, but they run very much into one another, and the argument for the one is very much the same as for the other. The first is to give a longer period of transition—seven years instead of three; and to give at the end of the subsection a certain amount of freedom to local authorities to suit the requirements of their own particular districts. The difference between the "three" and the "seven" is material. I know it will be said that the three years was a compromise, but the machinery of this Bill is such that it will take nearly three years before anything can be done under it with regard to the continuation classes. I do not think that this will be contradicted. And under this same clause it takes a year before the scheme can be started, and some months later than that before it can be brought into operation; so that it will be a good deal over two years before anything can be done under this clause. There are many reasons why this great change should be made gradually, and why people should be given time to make preparations to accustom themselves to it.
The proposal is that lads and young women between sixteen and eighteen shall spend 320 hours in every year at these continuation classes. That will be, for the number of weeks in which these continuation classes can be held, something like two hours a day, and I propose to speak for two great industries in my own district, which I thoroughly know. The first is the mining industry. Mining conditions are peculiar. I do not know that the hours at which the men start work are earlier in our district than in any other, but the people do start early, and they are home early in the after-
1014
noon, between 3 and 4 o'clock. Surely there should be some assurance that the attendance at these classes would be arranged so that the attendance can be after those hours and not during the working day of those chiefly concerned. The point of importance is stated to me in this language by a personal friend. He says—
"These lads are all employed on work which cannot be done by full grown men, and as it would mean that they would have to leave their work, often at a distance of some miles from home, thus disarranging the whole working of the colliery, the cost will thereby be increased over 1s. a ton, and as our business in the East of Scotland, particularly in ordinary times, is largely shipping business, competing with the North of England, it would simply mean that during the four years we are compelled to release these lads from work we shall not be in a position to compete with the collieries in the North of England for the supply of shipping business."
Under the English Act, as your Lordships know, the period is seven years and not three, and that is the reason for that particular argument.
I am quite sure that those for whom I speak do not want to put any handicap on education, but the practical difficulties in bringing the new custom into operation will be very great. It is no good to answer that the arrangement contemplated would not be quickly carried into practical effect, and that the industries would have time to accomodate themselves. They would not be able to do that owing to the confusion caused by the war, and in fact if you carry the Bill in the form in which it now stands it would place this important industry in the East of Scotland at a serious disadvantage as compared with its English competitors. I know quite well that the representatives of the large cities, where these continuation classes can be held close to the homes of those concerned, are not interested in this Amendment and are probably in opposition to it, but the plea which I make for the Amendment at the end of the clause, giving a certain latitude, is shortly this—that the education authority, being elected not by the masters but by the parents of the children concerned, can be trusted to judge what is best for their own particular district.
Let me turn for a moment to the question of agriculture. The whole of the agricultural community in Scotland are deeply concerned about this point. As you know, the clause requires the compulsory attendance of lads up to eighteen years of age for 320 hours in the year. Those for whom I

1015
speak are fully satisfied that this provision cannot be carried into effect without great prejudice to the agricultural industry, having regard to the fact that the agricultural population is a scattered one and that the lads would be required in most cases to travel long distances to and from the classes. In these days lads have charge of horses soon after they are sixteen, and long before they are eighteen, and between those years they often take an active part in the work of ploughing. If they are to lose half the day in attending these classes—I say half a day because they will have to prepare themselves for work and go and come long distances—the whole work of the farm will be thrown out of gear, and the pair of horses to which the young man has to attend will be thrown idle.
I have no doubt whatever that so far as they possibly can the education authority will endeavour to fix a time for the classes which will be as far as possible convenient for the farmer, but if you are going to take 320 hours in the year it will be absolutely impossible to fix the hours in such a way as not to prejudice the great interest of agriculture. You would have to take two hours a day for more than seven months, if you exclude Saturdays and Sundays, as of course you must, and in the country it is impossible to get lads to and from the places where these continuation classes would have to be held without serious interference with their work. They would have, as I have said, to stop work very soon after the middle of the day in order to put up the horses, clean themselves, have their food, and travel to the school, and I am sure I am speaking the very general opinion of the agricultural community when I say it is absolutely impossible to manage the work on the lines on which it is at present managed if the clause is carried into effect as it now stands.
I make a special plea for the reconsideration of this particular point on this ground. This clause was put into the Bill in Grand Committee in another place. An Amendment was put down for the purpose of raising this question in the House itself, but by an accident that Amendment was never moved. Immediately before it there was an important Amendment dealing with rating matters, which it was expected would take up time. That Amendment was unexpectedly ruled out of order, and therefore those concerned were unable to take the opinion of the House upon this
1016
question. I say frankly that I would not wish to imperil the Bill on account of this question, but I do think that it is at least important, having regard to the enormous interests involved, that the representatives of the people themselves should have an opportunity of deciding this question. It has never been discussed or decided in another place on its merits, and I sincerely hope that the Government will allow us to have the chance of taking the opinion of the representatives of the people upon a point on which, owing to the way in which the measure has been hurried through, there has been no real opportunity of taking the opinion of the country.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 23, leave out ("three") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that the Committee will not adopt this Amendment. I am obliged to my noble friend for the very friendly spirit in which he has dealt with the proposal which he submits to the Committee. There are two branches of the proposal, and the connection between them is not very direct, but I quite agree that it was convenient to take them at the same time. The two proposals are firstly that for "three" should be substituted "seven" in defining the term when the provisions of the Act are to come into force, and the second is as to making the number of hours for which attendance is to be required considerably less than the number now fixed in the Bill. With regard to the first of those proposals, I believe that it will be found that it would be strongly opposed by a great many people in Scotland—
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR—and particularly the representatives of the scheduled burghs. In Committee in the other House the point was discussed, and I am informed that the proposal to insert seven years was rejected without a division.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Not in the House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, in Grand Committee. "Three years" was inserted after a division in which twenty-one Members voted for the moratorium of three years, while four Members were

1017
opposed to any delay at all. It is perfectly true that in the English Act it is seven years, but the fact is that Scotland is much more ready to meet this form of continuing education than England was at the time the English Act was passed. In Scotland, since 1908, continuation classes in a modified form have been in use, and I am informed that the larger burghs particularly have made arrangements for the provision of classes such as the Bill requires at an early date, and that they are confident they will be in a position to start the scheme of the Bill well within the limit of three years. In England the moratorium of seven years was, I am told, largely due to the necessity of providing buildings for the purpose, and of finding the necessary staff of teachers; but Scotland is more forward in its preparations, and after consideration by those who have an intimate knowledge of the educational requirements of Scotland, it is considered that three years will meet the wishes of the people of Scotland, and, what is even more important still, will be a date at which Scotland can be ready to bring the scheme into operation. For these reasons I hope the Committee will not accept the proposal of my noble friend to postpone the commencement of the operation of the provision of the Bill for seven years.
I propose now to say a few words as to the second branch of the noble Lord's proposal, and it is with regard to the number of hours for which a young person may be required to attend continuation schools in any year. He wishes to make the number 280, instead of 320. I understand that 320 hours is regarded as the minimum by a great many educational authorities in Scotland. They would not be satisfied with less, and if that is their feeling I do not know that the power to reduce the number is one which will be largely taken advantage of.
But the truth is that the Bill contains a provision not in the English Act at all. It is in subsection (7) of Clause 16. I had better read it, because I think it obviates the inconvenience that my noble friend apprehended might arise. This subsection says—
"Provided that an education authority may, upon such conditions as they think fit, exempt any young person from the obligation to attend continuation classes where, after due inquiry, the authority are satisfied that the circumstances justify such exemption."
That power may be used so as to avoid
1018
inconvenience, the possibility of which has been referred to by my noble friend. Moreover, I think it is a matter which will deserve consideration on any such proposal, that you might have different views taken by different education authorities. I do not know that very many authorities in Scotland will avail themselves of the power. That must be a matter of speculation, though I am told the general feeling is against it. Suppose you have the power exercised, it would be a very inconvenient thing to have in two adjoining district two different scales of attendance at these continuation classes. It would affect the labour in the two districts, and you would have a state of things which might produce a rather unhealthy competition. You do not want to have a less number of hours in one district than you have in an adjoining district. There ought to be uniformity as far as possible.
For these reasons, I submit to the Committee that it would have an unfortunate effect if the possibility of such divergence in districts closely associated with one another were allowed to prevail, and I hope the Committee will not adopt this Amendment. I was very glad to hear what the noble Lord said as to his desire not in any way to imperil the progress of the Bill, which he, like myself, regards as highly beneficial to Scotland, and I hope the discussion which has taken place may be regarded as a sufficient mode of dealing with the subject, and that my noble friend may see his way not to press the Amendment further.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: On the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Inchcape, the Government let in the thin end of the wedge. Then comes my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who, with a hammer blow, proposes to drive in the thick end. I am grateful to the Government on public grounds for having resisted this proposal. I am afraid that my noble friend, who really takes a great and genuine interest in education, and who has been its good friend in the past, has not quite realised what he is doing in his kindly desire to help various employers of labour.
Here is a provision proposed to be accorded for the first time to young persons in Scotland for continuing their education, and my noble friend by his Amendment proposes to diminish that provision. In whose interest? Not in the interest of

1019
the young persons concerned, but in the interest of some farmers and coal owners who find it inconvenient. Inconvenient to do what? To allow these boys and girls to get 320 hours a year, or to get this much before seven years have elapsed. As the Lord Chancellor pointed out, the Amendment has two-fold branches. Under one branch the continuation education is to be cut down from 320 to 280 hours per year, and under the second branch this education is put off for seven years. That is indeed driving in the thick end of the wedge.
The Lord Chancellor pointed out truly that there is very little analogy between Scotland and England. It is quite true that Mr. Fisher introduced into his Bill the seven years' limitation so far as continuation schools were concerned. Yes, but, as the Lord Chancellor said, the Act of 1908 long ago introduced continuation schools into Scotland—not as good ones as we shall get under this Bill, but they are effective continuation schools, which there was power to make compulsory and which are really put into operation in some parts of Scotland. If my noble friend supposes that Scotland is to put off for seven years doing what it has been doing for some time and is doing now—because already some of the larger authorities are intending to anticipate even the three years' limit, and are making their preparations for putting new continuation schools into operation—I think he is mistaken.
Then, as regards that branch of the Amendment which cuts down the 320 hours in the year to 280, what does that mean? At the most the boy or girl is only to get in the continuation school a little over six hours per week, and it is proposed to knock an hour off that. Such a proposition, of course, is not put forward in the name of education. It is put forward by the colliery owners and farmers who want to get more and more of the labour of these boys and girls. I admit that it is a temptation to them to do so. They may say that it puts them to some considerable inconvenience to have to give up any part of the labour, and I dare say many of them think the whole proposal to give any continuation education at all by compulsion is very bad. Many of them, again, would like this education to be given after hours of work in the evening, when the boy or girl is tired out, and when it will not interfere with the labour during the day.
1020
We know all about that argument. It belongs to a past state of society, to a condition of things which we dare not allow to continue for the future. It is not your Tariff Reform arrangements or your commercial protection by artificial means which will deliver you from the contest to which you are going to be exposed throughout the world—a contest as severe as, and in some respects I think more perilous for us than, the contest on which we embarked in this war. The handicap that this country has is that of want of knowledge, a want of education among those who will form the coming generations, and it is only by providing that knowledge, which is your one protection in the race for supremacy in the future, that you will attain your object.
The matter is very, very serious, and just when we are taking the first step, and when Scotland is agreed in taking it without the smallest dissent, to make things better and to lay the foundations of what will at least give us the chance to make an advance, an Amendment is proposed, of which, I am sure, my noble friend has not quite realised the effect upon the continuation system, even as it exists in Scotland. I trust he will not persist in it.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I hope that my noble friend will persist in his Amendment. I disagree with what the noble and learned Viscount has just said—that my noble friend was not speaking in the interest of the persons concerned. I think he is most distinctly speaking in their interest. In the old days before we had compulsory education it is perfectly well known that Scotsmen were far better educated than Englishmen. They are now, but the difference was much greater in those days than it has been since there has been compulsory education. There were in those days, as I think any of your Lordships who live in Scotland will know, a large number of men who were extraordinarily highly educated, and throughout the whole world Scotsmen were able to hold their own with the men of any other country in the way of education and enterprise.
It is not merely education and book-learning which people require. They have also to know their work. It is not by any means always those who are best learned in books and who have devoted themselves

1021
to books who are most successful in life, commercially or in other respects. I am in favour of continuation classes, but there are a large number of boys and probably girls who are much interested in them who do not wish to go on, or whose parents do not wish them to go on. I think it is universal in Scotland, so far as my experience goes of rural districts, that if children have any inclination for education their parents do everything they can to give them the opportunities, even at the cost of great sacrifices themselves. They will obtain this, even if the seven years provision is put in. All those who are willing be able to go on, and it only means that some of those who do not see the necessity or advisability of doing so will have the option.
As regards the number of days, I am not quite certain on that point, but I feel pretty sure, myself, that although it is said that the feeling in Scotland is in favour of the clause as it is, it is simply because it is not known throughout Scotland. I feel very sure that if the Bill passes in its present form it will not be well received in Scotland, and it may have a contrary effect, because of all people in this world the Scottish are the very worst to try and force. And I think without it you will get certainly as good results if my noble friend's Amendment is passed by the Committee, and I believe that in reality it will prove more successful than this forcing under the Bill, which I think will be greatly resented by a very large number of people throughout Scotland. I hope my noble friend will insist on the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I should like to express, as one who knows something about Scotland, my belief that this Amendment would not give satisfaction to people in Scotland as a whole. There is nothing which has been more characteristic of Scotland in the past than its desire to be always abreast of the movement for extending education in every possible way, and giving the best possible chance to people, before they enter upon the serious work of life, of having prepared themselves in every way to take advantage of their natural talents. My noble friend who has moved this Amendment knows that Scotland has for two centuries been in the vanguard of education, and nothing has done so much to enable these people to make their country prosperous and one
1022
of the first peoples in Europe, as the devotion of the people to education. The Government, in this Bill, seem to have recognised this, and to have recognised also that the greatest possible facility should be given to boys of capacity to make the maximum use of the continuation schools before they enter the serious business of life. What is the answer which my noble friend gave to that? That a certain number of coalowners and agriculturists will be embarrassed in their business. I think it is very likely they will. But is not the gain to the people of Scotland and to Scotland itself of very much greater importance than this small sacrifice which they are asked to make?
With regard to what was said by the noble Duke, I agree with him. Practical education is valuable, and it is not merely book-learning, but training in the actual work of an industry which enables a boy to succeed. But this Amendment is not proposed in the interests of giving the boy a large amount of practical knowledge in the work; it is a proposal to take away from the general education and the technical education he will receive, to put him into the practical work too soon, by which he will not gain in the long run. I venture therefore, to express the belief that the general opinion of Scotland would not welcome this Amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will not persevere with it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I confess I am wholly unconverted by the arguments which the noble Lord has used, or by the arguments spoken from this side of the House. It is said that there has been a probable diversity in my Amendment with regard to adjoining counties. It is said that the Bill will show some diversity, that there is no guarantee that they will take the same view provided an education authority may appoint such conditions as they think fit. There is no appeal; they may do what they like, and two adjoining authorities may take exactly opposite courses, and two adjoining people may be put under different conditions. Therefore that argument, at any rate, falls to the ground. The noble and learned Viscount behind me, and the noble Lord who spoke last, made the point that I was acting in the selfish interests of employers. That is not my belief at all. I believe that this Amendment is in the interests of the young people themselves,

1023
and for this reason. Especially in the case of agriculturists, I think there is great reason to fear that if a boy of seventeen cannot be employed for whole time on a farm, he will not be employed at all on the farm; that he will drift into the adjoining town centres sooner than otherwise he would do. I think it is entirely in the interests of the boys themselves that they should learn at an early age the work which they will have to do in their lives. Therefore I resent the idea that I am supposed to be speaking only in the interest of the employer, and not in the interest of the
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (8), to leave out "sent to the young person by registered letter" and to insert "served by post on the young person to whom it relates." The noble and learned Lord said: The words "served by post" bring the clause into harmony with the Interpretation Act of 1869.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("sent to the young person by registered letter") and insert ("served by post on the young person to whom it relates").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: I should like to ask a question on this subsection. Towards the end of the subsection there is still power apparently to take young persons to a Police Court. What are the precautions against their being taken there unnecessarily? Everything I think in the early part of the clause is so designed that only those who
individual. To a certain extent that element does come in, because I used the argument—and I use it still—that an important industry in Scotland is being prejudiced, as compared with that industry in England, on account of the shorter time which is given in Scotland. I am afraid, in all the circumstances, that I must take the feeling of the House upon this important matter.
On Question, whether the word "three" shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 6.

CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Bryce, V.

Gisborough, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Haldane, V.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Inchcape, L.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Lansdowne, M.

Peel, V.

Beauchamp, E.

Pontypridd, L.

Eldon, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Howe, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Rotherham, L.

Kimberley, E.

Burnham, L.

Southwark, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carmichael, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Stanhope, E.

Cawley, L.

Strachie, L.

Clinton, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Colebrooke, L.

Sumner, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Elphinstone, L.

Terrington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) [Teller.)

Avebury, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Balfour, L. [Teller.]

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Blythswood, L.

are actually summoned shall be taken to the Police Court, and some anxiety has been expressed to me that there is not sufficient check on the will and power of the education authority to enter on these prosecutions.
LORD CHANCELLOR: If my noble friend can suggest any additional precautions which he deems desirable, I need not say that they will be most attentively considered. The words to which he refers are these in subsection(8)—"The authority shall cause a copy of any such order to be served by post on the young person to whom it relates, and if the young person fails to comply with the order he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding 5s." That is the provision, and I submit to my noble friend's consideration that it does not err on the side that he fears.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (14), after "If a young person," to insert "over the age of sixteen." The

1025
noble and learned Lord said: The reason for the Amendment is this. The clause as it stands is identical in substance with the corresponding section of the English Act, but "young person" has not exactly the same signification in the two countries, because in Scotland the term includes persons under an obligation to attend continuation classes, who are under the age of fifteen, in consequence of their having, been exempted from full-time attendance at school. It seems desirable, where you have such a condition, that the young person who is to make objection should be defined as being over the age of sixteen. If it is a child who has been exempted from full-time attendance, and therefore becomes liable to go to continuation classes, it is natural that his parents should do it for him. That is the whole point of the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 19, after the first ("Person") insert ("over the age of sixteen").—(The Lord chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (14), to substitute "continuation classes" for "continuation school." The noble and learned Lord said: The word "school" is not apt to denote continuation classes. This is a verbal Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 23, leave out ("school") and insert ("classes").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment argeed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to delete "or offensive" from subsection (14). The noble Lord said: I hope that the Government will allow the deletion of these words. I do not quite understand the genesis of this provision. It was not in the Bill when first introduced, and it found its way there at some stage in another place. I do not quite understand what the object is of the words "or offensive." They seem to me quite unnecessary, and they will create controversy. I quite agree that if the teaching is contrary to the religious belief of anybody it is an act of injustice to insist upon their receiving it, but it is a question of fact, and it is dealt with as a fact. The word "offensive" is an adjective, and as the parents have
1026
to make statements I am sure that the fact that they are invited to say that a thing is offensive is bad tactics. For my part I do not care whether it is Protestants who have to say that the Roman Catholic creed is offensive or vice versa. I do not think that they ought to be asked to say that any creed is offensive. I believe that these words have no real effect upon the matter with which we are dealing, and I hope that they may be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 24, leave out ("or offensive").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The reason these words are here is this. They are in the corresponding section of the English Act. If my noble friend will look up subsection (9) of the tenth section of the Education Act for England, 1918, he will find these words: "If a young person, or the parent of a young person, under the age of sixteen represents in writing to the local education authority that he objects to any part of the instruction given in the continuation school which the young person is required to attend on the ground that it is contrary or offensive to his religious belief … the obligation under the Act to attend that school shall not apply to him." I submit that it would be very undesirable to have a difference in the wording of the two sections in the English Act and the Scottish Act. Moreover, there may be cases contrary to religious belief, as your Lordships will easily understand. There may be cases where it would be difficult to say that it was contrary to religious belief, and yet the matter might be handled in such a way as to render it highly offensive to persons of religious belief. For those reasons I hope that my noble friend will recognise that it is better to adhere to the words as they appear in the English Act.
VISCOUNT HALDANEI quite sympathise with the noble Lord. Though I do not like the word "offensive," I agree with the Lord Chancellor that it does cover a kind of case which might arise. I remember myself going into a Scottish board school some time ago where the chairman of the school board was a very good friend of my own, and a very zealous Free Kirk minister, and I found a room where religious instruction was going on,

1027
a large class room, and a group of children by themselves in a corner, and I asked my friend what these children were doing. "Oh," he said, "the Act compels us to exempt them from religious instruction and to put them aside, but it does not compel us to put them out of the room, and we keep them here in the hope that a crumb of the Word may drop into their little souls." I have no doubt that there was nothing which was taught that was contrary to the religious belief of those children or of their parents, but there was certainly something there offensive, notwithstanding that my friend was a very well-meaning man. I quite agree with the Lord Chancellor that there is something which has to be covered beyond what is covered by the word "contrary," and, although I do not believe the matter is very important, I do not think the noble Lord need have very much feeling about the word "offensive."
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I rather agree with my noble friend who moved the Amendment. I think the expression is unfortunate, and it ought to be possible for a draftsman to find a much better expression. Perhaps my noble friend at a later stage would suggest some words that would be better. This word does not seem to be at all happy. What is meant evidently is that the religious instruction ought not to contain anything which gives offence, but the word "offensive" is a different thing from giving offence, I think that if a somewhat longer and more roundabout expression could have been devised the result would have been attained which the Bill desires, but it would have been achieved in a more pleasant manner.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If my noble friend will give us his help in selecting some expression which will convey the meaning without the risk which he thinks attaches to the word "offensive," we will most carefully consider it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The difficulty I have is that part of the defence of this unfortunate clause was that it was in the English Bill, and that we do not want to make a difference between the English and the Scottish Bill. I think the best thing to do would be to delete the subsection. I give notice that on the Report stage I shall move to delete it altogether.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is, of course, no understanding whatever as to the attitude of the Government with regard to the Amendment on the Report stage, if my noble friend should move it.
LORD BALBOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have a very good understanding that the Government will oppose it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I am perfectly satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 26, leave out ("that school") and insert ("those classes").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit from subsection (14) the words "attend some other instruction in lieu thereof or some other school," and to substitute "receive other instruction in lieu thereof or attend other classes." The noble and learned Lord said: This is really the same thing in another form.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, leave out lines 29 and 30, and insert ("receive other instruction in lieu thereof or attend other classes").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Amendment of Employment of Children Act, 1903.
17. The Employment of Children Act, 1903, so far as it relates to Scotland shall be amended as follows:—
(1) For subsection (1) of section three the following subsection shall lie substituted—
A child under the age of thirteen shall not be employed on any day on which he is required to attend school before the close of school hours on that day nor on any day before eight o'clock in the morning or after six o'clock in the evening, nor shall any child who is of the age of thirteen, be so employed unless he has been exempted under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1901, from the obligation to attend school:
(2) For subsection (2) of section three the following subsection shall be substituted—
No child or young person under the age of seventeen shall be employed in street trading:
(3) To section fourteen the following definition shall be added:—
The expression "child" means a person under the age of fifteen years, and for the purposes of this Act a child attending school shall be deemed to attain that age on the date prescribed for terminating school attendance next succeeding the fifteenth anniversary of his birth:
(4) References to the Education (Scotland) Act, 1901, shall be construed as references to that Act as amended by this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "Provided that any local authority may by bye-law vary these hours, either generally or for any specified occupation." The noble and learned Lord said: I desire to move this Amendment not exactly in the form in which it stands. I propose for the word "hours" to substitute the word "restrictions," and to move the Amendment in that form. The reason of the change is simply this, that I do not think the word "hours" would necessarily fit the whole of the clause to which the proviso is intended to apply. For instance, the clause begins by saying this—
A child under the age of thirteen shall not be employed on any day on which he is required to attend the school before the close of school hours that day";
and then it goes on—
"nor on any day before eight o'clock in the morning or after six o'clock in the evening."
The word "hours" in the proviso, as it stands on the Paper, is perfectly apt for dealing with the second case, as to the hours before eight o'clock in the morning or after six o'clock in the evening; the word "hours" is not apt for denoting the first case, where a child under the age of thirteen is not to be employed on any day on which he is required to attend the school before the close of school hours. It is really verbal, but I think the Amendment is an improvement.
The reason for the Amendment on the merits is this, that the proviso in the same form will be found in Section 3, subsection (1), of the Employment of Children Act, 1903. At first it was thought that it was not necessary to introduce this into the Scottish Bill, but the provision now is pretty severe. As the Bill stands employment is prohibited before eight o'clock in the morning and after six o'clock in the evening. That would be drastic if it were
1030
universally enforced without a power of exemption, and I submit that it is only reasonable to provide some means of relaxation, and that would be done by the exercise of the power of making the bye-laws. The new education authority will be the authority, and the bye-laws require confirmation by the Secretary for Scotland according to the terms of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page l7, line 13, at end insert ("Provided that any local authority may by byelaw vary these restrictions, either generally or for any specified occupation").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor about the expression "any local authority." I was relieved just now to hear that what the Government intends by that is the local education authority. But is that made clear by definition? For, as it stands, it has a most formidable and disastrous look. It appears as if any authority not interested in education might be able to exercise the power. Where is the definition which will apply to that?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The words could not possibly be read as relating to an authority for the purpose of dealing with sanitary matters; they would be read in an Act of this kind as the education authority. However, if my noble and learned friend has any doubt about it we will look carefully into it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am glad that the Government are to look into it, because it is not the phrase used in the Bill. "The local authority" as used here might mean the parish council or the county council.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We mean the education authority.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Our intention is nothing; it is the words we use.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think the Amending in my name is a correct drafting Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree. I accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 34, leave out ("workshops") and insert ("workshop").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I leave out the word "any" at the point indicated the clause will read much better.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 16, leave out ("any").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The person or persons vested with the title of the school are the proper persons to set the Department in motion in a matter of this kind. I therefore move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 38, after ("Department") insert ("by the person or persons vested with the title of the school").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the words stand in line 39, it might be read that the majority of the children in the school must be shown to be from the particular district. That is not necessary, and "largely" would better meet the case.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 39, leave out ("mainly") and insert ("largely").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Line 41, leave out ("orphanage or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 2, after ("department") insert ("by the person or persons vested with the title of the orphanage").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The next two Amendments, I think, are purely drafting.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes; I accept them both.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 20, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)").—
Page 20, line 31, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)").—Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to,
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25:
Dismissal of teachers.
25.—(1) No resolution of an education authority for the dismissal of a certificated teacher from their service shall be valid unless—

(a) written notice of the motion for his dismissal shall, not less than three weeks before the meeting at which the resolution is adopted, have been sent to the teacher and to each member of the education authority; and

(b) the resolution is agreed to by two-thirds of the members of the education authority present and voting.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, it shall be lawful for any school management committee summarily to suspend any teacher from the exercise of his duties in any school or schools under their management; but such suspension shall not affect the teacher's rights to the salary or other emoluments attached to his office.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of teachers appointed before the passing of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, in so far as the same are saved by that Act, and the rights of teachers under section twenty-one of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908.
(4) The provisions of the Public Schools (Scotland) Teachers Act, 1882, which relate to the dismissal of certificated teachers, shall cease to have effect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert, after subsection (1) (a), a new paragraph—
(b) Not less than one half of the members of the education authority are present at the meeting; and").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is desired for this reason. In dealing with matters such as the dismissal of a teacher, it is certainly desirable to promote confidence by having a tribunal adequate to deal with a matter of that gravity; and it is intended by this Amendment to secure that there shall be an attendance which will give confidence to the teaching profession, and which will be recognised as adequate to deal with points of that kind.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, after line 23, insert:
"(b) Not less than one half of the members of the education authority are present at the meeting; and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment standing in my name is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, leave out line 25, and insert ("so present").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26:
Advisory councils in education areas.
26. It shall be the duty of every education authority within three months after the first election thereof to establish an advisory council, consisting of persons qualified to represent the views of bodies interested in education, for the purpose of advising the authority on matters referred to the advisory council by the authority, and the authority shall take into consideration any advice or representation submitted to them by the advisory council.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is desirable to provide a compendious description for the particular body mentioned, and this Amendment does that.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 3, after ("council") insert ("(in this Act called a 'local advisory council')").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out "referred to the advisory council by the authority" and to insert "of educational interest relating to the education area." The noble and learned Lord said: it is better to define the matters which may be so brought forward as being matters which relate to education and particularly affect the education area.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 5, leave out from ("matters") to ("and") in line 6, and insert ("of educational interest relating to the education area").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is merely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 7, after ("the") insert ("local").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Some provision of the kind made in this Amendment is desirable, and the proposed words meet the case.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 30, at end insert ("The expenses of any such inquiry as certified by the Department shall be paid by the authority").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
Clause 31:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This clause says, "In future the Scotch Education Department shall be known as the Scottish Education Department." The Amendment is simply to leave out the words "In future." The spelling "Scottish" is preferred to "Scotch," and there is no reason to say "in future" because it will begin to operate under the terms on the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 7, leave out ("in future").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The wording of paragraph 8 of this Schedule is obviously not very happy, because it says "Except in two of the months," not specifying which. The Amendment in my name will put this right.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, lines 39 and 40, leave out ("except in two of the months of July, August and September") and insert ("provided that it shall not be necessary to hold more than one such meeting between the end of June and the beginning of October").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment merely applies Section 93 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1899, to every case where the Secretary for Scotland is authorised or required by the Act to make an Order, or to hold an Inquiry; and then makes provision with regard to the cost of the Inquiry.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, after line 35, insert as a new paragraph:
"14. Section ninety-three of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889 (which relates to local inquiry, &c.), shall apply in any case where the Secretary for Scotland is authorised or required by this Act to make any order or to hold any inquiry: Provided that the costs of any inquiry held in pursuance of the section of this Act relating to electoral divisions and constitution of authorities shall be deemed to be expenses incident to the first election of the education authority for the education area to which the inquiry relates."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clause 4 of this Schedule provides that a member of the Committee may resign on giving to the committee one month's notice in writing of his intention so to do. This Amendment is intended to secure that he should give notice to the education authority as well as to the committee, which, I submit, is desirable.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 18, after ("the") insert ("education authority and the")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I propose to insert, at the beginning of section 12, the words "Subject to the provisions of this Act." I think there should be a limitation of the duties laid upon the local committee. Surely it should be distinctly subject to the provisions of the Act, and the committee should not be obliged to do anything which the education authority tells them, whether it is within or without the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 13, at beginning insert ("subject to the provisions of this Act").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move in section 11 (a), after council, to insert "and to the convener or vice-convener." The section refers to giving certain duties to the convener or vice-convener, and it is desirable to apply these terms to the case of the education authority, and for that purpose I propose to insert these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 17, after ("Council") insert ("and to the convener or vice-convener").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At the end of the same paragraph a I move to insert "and to the chairman respectively." That is to apply the provisions of this Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 18, at end insert ("and to the chairman respectively").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I propose to leave out from subsection 11 (c) the word "of transfer," and to insert "when the loss arose." This relates to the time when the complaint may be put forward, and "when the loss arose" seems fair, as giving a somewhat longer time. Before that the attention of the person who considers himself aggrieved might not have been called to the matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 25, leave out ("of transfer") and insert ("when the loss arose").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I rather think that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill proposes to do, in another way upon Schedule 6, what my Amendment to this Schedule seeks to do. If that is the case, and if he prefers to do it on the Sixth Schedule. I will not move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am prepared to accept the Amendment of my noble friend.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 24, at end insert ("and in section five the words 'except in the case of a deaf mute child under seven years of age' shall be omitted").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The new paragraph which I now propose to insert is really an adaptation of Section 5 of the Employment of Children Act Of 1903, which related to offences and penalties under that Act, and the Amendment is really consequential to the raising of the age to seventeen before which street trading is prohibited.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, after line 24, insert as a new paragraph:
"4. In the Employment of Children Act, 1903, in subsections (1) and (2) of section five, for the words 'age of sixteen' there shall be substituted the words 'age of seventeen.'"—The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My next Amendment is in section 4 (b), to insert "or meetings of a local advisory council." It is only reasonable that the travelling expenses of local advisory councils should be provided.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 9, at end insert ("or meetings of a local advisory council").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not desirable that at the moment the age is attained, in the middle of a session, the suspension of the provision should take effect, and I therefore propose that we should say "at the close of the school session" in which the age is attained.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 16, at end insert:
"(c) In section five, for the words 'age of sixteen years' there shall be substituted the words 'close of the school session in which they attain the age of sixteen years.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had on the paper an Amendment to insert at the end of the Schedule the following proviso: "Provided that before an order by the Department is operative for adapting
1038
the provisions of the Act or Confirmed Order of a governing body of an endowed school, the Department shall intimate the terms of the order to the governing body concerned, and the governing body shall have right, within one month from the date of the intimation by the Department, to appeal to the Court of Session against the adaptation of their Act or Order."
The noble Lord said: I wish to call the attention of the House to the last subsection of this schedule, which says that "The Department may by order at any time after the passing of this Act make such further adaptations in the provisions of any Act (including any local Act and any provisional order duly confirmed) as may seem to them necessary to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act, and any order so made shall operate as if enacted in this Act." This seems, in my humble judgment, to give absolutely unlimited power of legislation to the Department without any appeal or without Parliament or any other authority being brought in at all. If that is so, I wish to ask what happens to schemes under the Educational Endowment (Scotland) Act, 1882, which are not absolutely mentioned in this clause. I want to know whether under the construction of this Act those schemes are to be at the mercy of the Department without any appeal. I have had communications on the subject, and the Amendment in my name is put down at the instance of the Merchant Company of the City of Edinburgh, who are under apprehension that their private Acts, which regulate their endowed schools, will be at the mercy of the Department.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The provision to which this Amendment relates is that the Department may by Order after the passing of the Act make adaptations in any Act, whether local or provisional order, as may seem necessary to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act. That follows very closely the provision in the Education Act of 1902. At the end of the Third Schedule my noble friend will find that there is this provision: "The Local Government Board may, after consultation with the Board of Education, by order make such adaptations in the provisions of any local Act (including any Act to confirm a Provisional Order and any scheme under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, as amended by any subsequent Act) as may seem to them to be

1039
necessary to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act, and may also in like manner, on the application of any council who have power as to education under this Act and have powers as to education under any local Act, make such modifications in the local Act as will enable the powers under that Act to be exercised as if they were powers under this Act." I think the noble Lord will see that this Schedule does not go one whit beyond the provisions contained in the English Education Act of 1902, Schedule 3, paragraph 12, which I have just read. Some such power is wanted; otherwise you would incur the expense of having, it may be, a private Act of Parliament, and as the only object is to bring the scheme into conformity with the provisions of this Bill I submit to the Committee that it need hardly be apprehended that the powers would be abused in the slightest degree.
The Amendment which my noble friend has on the Paper provides that "before an Order by the Department is operative for adapting the provisions of the Act or Confirmed Order of a governing body of an endowed school, the Department shall intimate the terms of the Order to the governing body concerned, and the governing body shall have right, within one month from the date of the intimation by the Department, to appeal to the Court of Session against the adaptation of their Act or Order." I submit that to appeal to a Court of Law is not desirable. It is a matter into which discretion very largely enters, and the Court of Session of course is constituted to deal only with matters of law. If it is claimed that some modification of the Act or Provisional Order is necessary in these circumstances, is it not very undesirable to say that there shall be an appeal to a Court of Law upon the point? I respectfully submit these considerations to my noble friend, and I hope he will be satisfied with this clause, which follows closely the clause which I have read in the English Act, and is one which will be useful in its operation and of the abuse of which there is no danger.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: There is a question of general interest here. It is a most tremendous power to give to any Department, the power by Order to repeal Acts of Parliament. That is what is given. I know it has been done over and over again, but the fact that it was done in
1040
England in an Act a little time ago is no reason for doing it now. We have done it much more recently than that, and it is a procedure which savours somewhat of a kind of Bolshevism. I wish it had never been introduced. On the other hand, as against that, it is a very convenient procedure, and if the Government are satisfied that the Department into whose hands it may come can be trusted with this great power of getting rid of what the Legislature has enacted, they will only be doing what they have done about twenty times in the course of the last two or three years, and I think probably more often.
There is no doubt that it is a very convenient power, because you cannot be always bringing in Acts to get rid of the effects of obsolete Acts and Provisional Orders. I quite agree that the Amendment which my noble friend said he had been asked to put down, and which he has put down, would do no good. The Court of Session would say, "Here is a power, in their discretion, for the Scottish Education Department to change the law. They have changed the law. There is no appeal to us. We are a Court of Law to interpret the law, but the Department has changed the law. How can there be an appeal to us? What standard have we to apply?" I am afraid you would have to appeal to Parliament or the Sovereign in Council, or make some other effective appeal.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I would like a distinct answer to this question—Is this subsection intended to include all the Orders made under the Education Endowments Act of 1882? They are not mentioned. I am anxious to understand the position. They are not local Acts or Provisional Orders duly confirmed, but the schemes have obtained the sanction of Parliament. In addition to that, I want to ask whether the Department is going to claim under this provision that it has the right to alter the Statute of the Merchant Company of Edinburgh.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With regard to the first question put by the noble Lord, the schemes to which he refers, as I understand, are confirmed by Acts of Parliament.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Not all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course, if they are not, they would not fall within the terms of the clause. I understood my noble friend to say that they were. This applies to the provisions of any Act, including any local Act and any Provisional Order duly confirmed. A scheme confirmed by Act is really part of an Act of Parliament. However, I will most carefully consider before the next stage what my noble friend has said, and will communicate with him upon the subject.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Then I will not move the Amendment now.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I cannot refrain from uttering one protest against the practice of altering Acts of Parliament by any other authority. It is quite true, as the noble and learned Viscount opposite said, that this has been done several times lately in English Acts of Parliament. I think that, if not on all occasions, upon most occasions, there has been added some sort of a check, such as that alterations of that kind are to be made by Orders in Council, which are to be laid upon the Table of the House as soon as possible, or something of that kind. There is no restriction here, but there is a mitigating circumstance, and I think a very strong mitigating circumstance—that the alteration of the Act of Parliament is limited to making it to be "in conformity with this Act." It is not, as there has been in some of the Acts, power to modify the Act of Parliament. It is limited to bringing an Act into conformity with the provisions of this measure, and I think that that is a limitation which is valuable to the minds of those who protest against this whole method of proceeding. The only other thing I wish to say is that I cannot think that an appeal to a Court of Law would be right in a case of this sort. There may be an appeal in some form, such as laying the Order on the Table of the House, which makes an appeal to Parliament, but I venture to think that the Amendment of my noble friend opposite could not be properly worked.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth Schedule:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The addition which I now move to the Sixth Schedule is really consequential upon the Amendment which was proposed by Lord
1042
Balfour of Burleigh and accepted by me. It is desirable not to leave the words that are virtually repealed by the Amendment which the House has passed on his Motion. To make assurance doubly sure, we put them into the Schedule of repealed enactments.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, after line 41, insert:

"53&54 Vict. c. 43.

The Education of Blind and Deaf-Mute children (Scotland) Act, 1890.

In section five the words 'except in tke case of a deaf-mute child under seven years of age.')"

—The Lord Chancellor.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack say how long he will give us before we take the next stage of the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether my noble friend will be ready on Thursday.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not think that is fair. Some of the Amendments which have been proposed on behalf of other people have been rejected, and there is no time to communicate with Scotland before Thursday next. I think we ought to see the Bill reprinted, and have time to send it to Scotland, and ask for help and advice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What the noble Lord has said is quite enough. Will Tuesday of next week do? It is very desirable that there should not be any unnecessary delay in passing the Bill. We do not want to leave it too late, and risk the chance of it not being passed.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not think your Lordship can complain of unnecessary delay in connection with this Bill. I do not know, of my own knowledge, all the wishes of those whom I am asked to represent, and I say it is distinctly to the discredit of this House if we are not able to communicate with those for whom we want to act. We want to act in a representative way; we shall not act in the same representative way, of course, as the other House of Parliament,

1043
but we desire to do hat we do with the fullest knowledge, and in accordance with the wishes of all those who are interested in this subject in Scotland. There was very little time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, and confusion was brought in by the fact that the people who made representations to us were taking the Bill as printed by the House of Commons, in which the clauses and sections and lines were different. This created a difficulty which was sonething perfectly stupendous; and I hope that the Bill will be reprinted in time for us to communicate with Scotland before another stage is reached.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not intend to press the noble Lord. I assented to his proposal, and suggested Tuesday. I hope we shall be able to get it through, so that there shall be no risk of the possibility of the Bill being lost.

MIDWIVES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
SPECIAL COMMISSION (BELFAST PRISON) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BURGHS GAS SUPPLY (SCOTLAND) AMEND MENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, this is a very small measure, but it is not unimportant to the burghs concerned. In Scotland, the majority of municipal gas undertakings are administered under the Burghs Gas Supply (Scotland) Act of 1876. This Act provides for the imposition of a rate for the payment of interest on money borrowed under the Act, but not for the repayment of capital; and the absence of a provision for securing the repayment of capital has hampered Scottish corporations in borrowing money for their gas undertakings. The object of this Bill is to make the rate a security for payments to sinking funds. Most of the larger corporations have private Acts that give them a power which this Bill seeks to obtain for other corporations. I may add that the Bill is supported by the Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

EMPLOYMENT OF GERMAN PRISONERS.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is the case that no German combatant prisoners of war are employed in British coal mines.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the day that I put this Question on the Paper my noble friend Lord Lamington put down a Question of the same nature, but I allowed mine to stand because there is hardly anything which excites more public comment than what to the public, rightly or wrongly, seems to be the difference between the respective treatment of German and British prisoners of war. Questions of this kind have had the sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, because I notice when he was questioned about it one day last week he said he wondered more Questions of the kind had not been put. But, in spite of that, he gave an answer which was not satisfying in any way. He also gave the House to understand that he was the mouthpiece of, and was instructed by, the Government. Well, my Lords, it appears that the Government did not equip him with the kind of answer which will satisfy public opinion on this very important point.
I have no doubt that there may be some excellent and perfectly straightforward answer to this Question. The answer may be that prisoners of war are employed, either at home or abroad, on work which in the view of the Government, and indeed demonstratively, may be more important than being employed in the mines. Or it may be that there are other reasons why they should not be employed in the mines. But what is exercising the public mind at the moment is that British prisoners of war in Germany are receiving very harsh treatment, amounting to loss of life, in the mines over there. At the same time we are told to economise coal in this country. We also hear that German prisoners of war over here are not employed in getting coal from the mines. It is inconceivable that there is not some straightforward explanation of this, and I most respectfully hope that the Government will give some answer to this which will satisfy public opinion.

1045
If they will do so now, I will withdraw the Question which stands in my name. But if not, I think it will be your duty to return to this point at a later stage, provided there is a convenient date for doing so before the General Election.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY THE WAR OFFICE (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I do not think I can add very much to what was said by my noble friend Lord Newton last week in answer to a Question of a rather similar nature. He pointed out that of the German prisoners in this country practically every available man is in employment of some kind or another. I may say that, roughly, we have 25,000 employed on agriculture. Those men are in camps varying in strength between thirty and 250 men. In addition to those 25,000, we have about 4,500 in migratory gangs—that is to say, men five or ten strong, travelling about the country to the farms where they are required. And, further, there are about 1,200 men actually living with farmers. Prisoners are also employed at forestry, and, as my noble friend knows, forestry is essential to coal mines, because one of the great difficulties experienced in coal mines now is the lack of a definite provision of pit-props. There also cement production, lime production, work in the shipyards, building operations and hay pressing.
Speaking from memory, I think that we have somewhere about 97,000 prisoners in this country, and we are employing about 58.000. The difference between the two figures is made up entirely of men whom it is impossible to employ. I think that there are 5,500 officers, 11,000 non-commissioned officers, and about 11.000 men in hospital, and 3,000 men only fit for light work who are employed on such duties as it possible to employ them on, like camp fatigues, preparing prisoners' clothing, etc. Thus we account for every single man of the 39,000 who are not in permanent work in this country. Therefore, unless you are going to take the prisoners away from work which they are now engaged upon, there are no men available to put into the coalmines.
As my noble friend Lord Newton pointed out last week, the trade unions have objected—and I think objected with some reason—to the employment of German prisoners in mines, because it is always possible, in a coal mine, if any man opens his
1046
lamp, to set fire to the mine. There would then be caused great loss of life and destruction of the mine. Therefore unless it would be possible to use all German prisoners in one mine by themselves, I think that the miners have great justification in objecting to prisoners being employed in the same mine as themselves.
As regards the employment of British prisoners in Germany, there they are very largely employed, I believe, in salt mines, where of course they have no possibility of being able to destroy German properly and Germany lives. Every one feels only too strongly that if we had an opportunity of getting level with the Germans by employing German prisoners here in mines under conditions very much the same as those under which they employ our men we should do so, but there are these two difficulties. At present all the German prisoners in this country who are available for employment are actually at work of importance, and the coal miners—though I understand that the Coal Controller hopes to get over the difficulty with the trade unionists—object to their employment in mines. If this difficulty be got over, and the work on which the prisoners are now employed is considered of less importance, I have no doubt that they will be employed is the coal mines.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I think that the answer which has just been given is a very disingenuous one. Take the question of the danger of the employment of German prisoners in British coal mines at the same time as our own miners. The pits in the country only work shifts of eight hours, and therefore there are sixteen hours left, and during a certain portion of those sixteen hours the mines would be free for German prisoners to go into. Moreover, many mines are quite free from gas, and there would be no question of taking in lamps, for those mines are absolutely safe. As regards all the German prisoners being employed, I suggest, as we are told by the authorities that we are faced with a great coal famine and that the industries will not be able to work full time owing to a shortage of coal, that it would perhaps be better to divert some of these prisoners from, say, agricultural work to mining. I am rather doubtful whether the noble Earl's classification is complete. I know one case in which a large body of German prisoners are engaged entirely in helping to

1047
make a waterworks. It is not a matter of national importance whether the water-works are finished six months sooner or six months later. I think, therefore are German prisoners now engaged on certain work who could be better employed in the coal mines. Of course, you cannot forcibly employ a non-commissioned officer, but I imagine that it would be legitimate
1048
to employ non-commissioned officers if they wish to work, and I do not see why you should not get a good many of the 11,000 non-commissioned officers to express a willingness to work rather than live in a state of idleness.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.