Sitting of 3 April 1919

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA.

    ALLIES AND BOLSHEVIST GOVERNMENT.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Allied Governments had before them proposals for an honourable understanding with the present rulers of Russia; and, if so, if he is able to give an outline of such proposals?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harms-worth): As my right hon Friend the Leader of the House said last night, the Allied Governments have received no proposals of the kind mentioned in the question other than those circulated by the Bolshevist Wireless Press.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    CLAIMS FOR PENSIONS (Z CASES).
    Sir MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the great delay there is in the settlement of claims for pension in the Z cases; whether he is aware that, even if advances on account of pension are made by the local war pensions committee in such cases, the Z men are ineligible for training or for grants from the King's Fund and that the 20 per cent. bonus is not payable; and whether he can do something to remedy this state of affairs?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I am aware of the delay in settlement of claims for pensions in Z cases. Every possible step is being taken to overtake arrears. Delay begins in some of the record offices, and
    1352
    the War Office are, I believe, doing everything possible to expedite the forwarding of the men's claims and documents to the Ministry of Pensions. At the Ministry of Pensions a special branch has been opened with an emergency staff of 871 persons, to which additions are being made rapidly. Z cases dealt with at the Ministry for the last five weeks show a continuous increase. The figures for each successive week are 5,551, 8,126, 8,800, 13,421, 21,675. I hope next week to reach 26,000 cases, which is about the present intake.
    Sir M. BARLOW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about grants?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My hon. Friend knows that there is great difficulty in making any grants until the claim is admitted for pension. The real way is to overtake the arrears with regard to pensions.

    MARRIED OFFICERS (IRELAND).
    Sir MAURICE DOCKRELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the children's allowance to Irish married officers serving in the Army is, when they happen to be Civil servants, deducted from their civil salaries; and has this deduction his approval?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The effect of the Regulation is that, if a Civil servant's pay as such is greater than his total emoluments as an Army officer, including children's allowance, he draws the civil pay instead of the Army emoluments. There is nothing peculiar to Irish officers in this.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: If the unmarried officer gets the same civil pay as the married officer, why should the allowance in respect of children paid to the married officer be deducted from his civil pay?
    Mr. FORSTER: If an officer, whether married or unmarried, is in receipt of civilian pay at a higher rate than Army emoluments, he is enabled to draw his civil pay during his Army service, and I do not think he has anything to complain of.

    GRATUITIES (ACTING RANK).
    Captain COOTEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will extend the payment of gratuity upon acting rank to adjutants who have held

    1353
    the rank of captain without captain's but with adjutant's pay for a period of over six months?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. As stated in paragraph 4 of Army Order II. of the 11th March, 1919, paid acting rank only is taken into account.
    Captain COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many officers in this position who have been senior captains in their battalions for a year?
    Mr. FORSTER: If they were drawing captain's pay while they were only appointed as acting captains they would get the gratuity, but if they were not drawing captain's pay they would not.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is it not only fair that the men should receive the pay of the rank they held in performing the duties?
    Mr. FORSTER: All that was taken into account by the military authorities when rank without pay was given to the adjutant.

  IRELAND.

    BELFAST PRISON INQUIRY.
    Mr. ARCHDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Report of Mr. Justice Dodd, at the Belfast Prison Inquiry recently held; and, seeing that such Report entirely exonerates the Belfast prison officials from the charges brought against them; what steps he proposes to take in order to refute the falsehoods which are being spread as to the conduct of these officials?
    The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A. W. Samuels): The Report of the learned judge on the Belfast Prison Inquiry has been received and submitted to His Majesty. I am glad to say that it exonerates the prison officials concerned. The Report was laid on the Table on the 17th March, and will be circulated at an early date.

    SECONDARY EDUCATION.
    Mr. EDWARD KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that it is of the utmost importance to principals of secondary schools that time of notice should be given of changes in the official programme, he can indicate whether the Government have
    1354
    yet considered the recommendations of the Committee on Intermediate Education; and, if not, when the Report will be considered by the Government?
    Mr. MOLESasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is the intention to introduce legislation to give effect to the findings of the Vice-Regal Commission on Secondary Education in Ireland; and, if so, when?
    Mr. SAMUELS: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary hopes to deal with these matters in the course of the Debate this afternoon.

    TAXI-CABS (LONDON).
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many taxi-cabs or other vehicles have been licensed during the months of February and March; and how many discharged sailor and soldier drivers and mechanics have been employed during that period?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): During these two months the number of public carriages licensed in the Metropolis was 1,743, and the number of fresh licences issued to drivers and conductors was 5,445. The exact number of soldiers and sailors cannot be given, but it is believed that about 90 per cent. of the fresh licences were issued to ex-Service men. No information as to mechanics is available.
    Sir P. GOFF: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication now as to how soon the public may expect more vehicles on the streets?
    Mr. SHORTT: As soon as the owners bring them for licence.
    Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked the Home Secretary whether the scarcity of taxi-cabs at present plying for hire is due to the increased cost of tyres, petrol, and oil, which makes it difficult to earn of reasonable profit from the legal fares; and whether he proposes to make any alteration in this respect?
    Mr. SHORTT: I understand that the scarcity of taxi-cabs is largely due to the present insufficiency of the spare parts needed to replace those requiring renewal. It would appear that owing to the reduced competition drivers enjoy more constant

    1355
    employment and earn profits above the normal. I am advised that no alteration of fares is called for.
    Sir P. GOFFasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now see his way to release those taxi-cabs which are still in France and which belong to English companies, and are built especially to Scotland Yard requirements?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I am informed by the War Office that there are now no taxi-cabs in France belonging to the War Department.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will my hon. Friend facilitate the sending over of spare parts, as there are a great many taxi's in this country waiting for spare parts?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is being considered.

    MILITARY PRISONER.
    Mr. SIDNEY ROBINSONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of E. Price, No. 1524, formerly a private in the 3rd Battalion, Gloucestershire Regiment, now a conscientious objector in Wormwood Scrubs Prison; whether this man has been three times wounded, and is willing to do work of national importance; and whether, in view of these facts, he can be released from gaol?
    Mr. SHORTT: This prisoner is not a conscientious objector, i.e., a person who, in the words of the Military Service Act, has "a conscientious objection to the undertaking of combatant service." He undertook combatant service, and was twice wounded in France, but on being again included in a draft he refused to obey orders. He is a military prisoner, and I cannot interfere in any way with his sentence.

    MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether the proposed Minister of Ways and Communications, before coming to terms with the municipal engineers to give them a statutory
    1356
    security of tenure, communicated with their employers, the various local authorities?
    Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the question is in the negative. Before the Minister received the deputation from the County Surveyors Society, the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers and the Institution of Municipal Engineers, he had decided to endeavour to give effect to strong representations made by the Road Board that a permissive Clause should be inserted in the Bill by which local authorities might receive a moiety of the cost of the salary of the road surveyor and the establishment charges of that officer, and the deputation was so informed. An almost similar Clause was in the Finance Bill, presented to the House in May, 1914, when the principle of classification of roads was accepted.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does my right hon. Friend mean to say that he never communicated with any county or local authorities before adopting a plan to give their servants statutory security of tenure, so that they could not be dismissed by their employers?
    Mr. SHORTT: I cannot add anything to my answer.

    EARLY CLOSING.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Home Secretary whether under the Early Closing Act an assistant is given one half-day a week and there is no limit to the number of hours that may be worked; whether a young person under such Act may be employed as much as seventy-four hours a week; whether the present Early Closing Order is working satisfactorily; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to secure better conditions for shop assistants and the early closing of shops?
    Mr. SHORTT: The hon. Member's statement of the existing law requires several qualifications, but I need not discuss them, as I recognise the need for making further provision in regard to the hours of employment in shops, especially in the case of young persons. I hope to be able to introduce a Bill dealing with the employment of young persons in shops and other occupations. The Early Closing Order is, I believe, working satisfactorily, but I cannot add anything at present to the

    1357
    reply given to the question asked by the hon. Member for the Elland Division on the 24th February.
    Sir K. WOOD: Can my right hon. Friend indicate when the Bill will be introduced?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid I cannot.
    Major HILLS: Do I understand that the Bill will only relate to young persons, or will it relate to all shop-assistants?
    Mr. SHORTT: That is under consideration.

    HOME OFFICE (FACTORY DEPARTMENT).
    Mr. BRACEasked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to reorganize the Factory Department, and whether it is his intention to make Wales a self-contained district?
    Mr. SHORTT: Certain proposals for reorganising the factory staff are under consideration, but it is not suggested that Wales should be formed into a separate area. This suggestion was carefully reviewed in 1913, but it was found that the number of factories and workshops in Wales would not justify its organisation as a separate area, and I am advised that there has been no material change in the position.
    Mr. BRACE: Could my right hon. Friend receive a deputation on the subject?
    Mr. SHORTT: Certainly.

    HYDE PARK (SPEECHES).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the speech delivered by a Mr. Robert Williams in Hyde Park, on the 30th March, at a labour demonstration in which the speaker advocated the adoption of Bolshevism in this country; if open advocacy of a system of government which has been accompanied by such notorious atrocities as has been the case in Russia constitutes an offence which can be punished under the existing law; and, if so, if it is proposed to take proceedings against this person.?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have seen brief notices in the newspapers of the speech in question, but they do not contain anything to indicate that the speaker was guilty of any offence against the law.
    Sir F. HALL: Do the Government intend to take steps to put down these unnecessary inflammatory speeches that have been made rather commonly lately?
    Mr. SHORTT: The proper officials see to the prosecution of speakers who break the law, but a man who does nothing criminal cannot be prosecuted.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked the Law Officers to advise him?
    Mr. SHORTT: It has been before the proper officials who consider these things. I do not know that the Law Officers have been consulted.

    CONSULAR SERVICE (PARIS AND ANTWERP).
    Lieutenant-Colonel MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any changes are contemplated in the Consular posts at Paris and Antwerp?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND (Department of Overseas Trade): Mr. Hearn, His Majesty's Consul-General at Paris, will shortly retire from the Consular Service, and will be succeeded by Mr. Maxse, His Majesty's Consul-General at Rotterdam, who has rendered service of the highest value throughout the War. No change is at present contemplated at Antwerp.

    COMMERCIAL MISSIONS.
    Mr. BLANEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade if there are at present in foreign countries any commercial missions sent by the British Government to study trade opportunities, and, if so, in what countries?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: General economic missions have been sent under the auspices of His Majesty's Government to Poland and Serbia with the object on the one hand of investigating the requirements of these countries for material necessary to the reconstruction of their damaged industries and on the other hand to inquire into the opportunities of

    1359
    developing British trade. It has been decided to send a similar mission to Belgium. A small mission has also been sent to Bulgaria to investigate the openings for British trade with that country. A special mission is also at present in France dealing with questions relating to sugar-making machinery. Four investigators have been sent out by the Department of Overseas Trade in co-operation with trade associations in this country to inquire into the prospects and conditions of

    (1) The market for jewellery and electro-plate in South America.

    (2) The engineering trade in Brazil.

    (3) The confectionery trade in South America.

    (4) The market for motor vehicles in Australia and the Far East.

    Other investigations of a similar character are now in contemplation.

    COLLAPSE OF WAREHOUSE, LIVERPOOL.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the disaster and loss of life which recently occurred in Liverpool through the collapse of an old warehouse; and whether he can make any statement as to the cause or where the responsibility lies?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have seen the distressing accounts in the Press, and have called for reports from the police and factory inspector, but the cause of the disaster and question of responsibility will be matters for searching investigation at the coroner's inquest, and it would not be right for me to make any statement at the present stage.
    Mr. REMER: Were people left alive at the bottom of the building for twelve hours without any attempt being made to rescue them?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am not aware of the details. The coroner's inquest will inquire into all these matters.

    ST. HELENA.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he received a petition at the end
    1360
    of last year from practically the entire population of St. Helena, headed by two members of the Executive Council, asking, amongst other things, for the recall of the Acting-Governor and for the appointment of a Committee to investigate and report on the present state of the public service; and what steps he has taken or proposes to take in regard thereto?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery): My hon. Friend probably refers to a petition received by the Secretary of State's predecessor, to which he replied that the petitioners gave no reasons for their demands, and that the administration of the government of the Colony did not appear to call for any of the measures for which they asked. I have since received a letter with numerous signatures expressing great appreciation of the work of the Acting-Governor in keeping down the price of essential foodstuffs, and stating that the meeting which gave rise to the petition was not representative of the people of the island but was organised by the larger merchants and flax mill-owners. The petition appears to have been inspired by the dissatisfaction of the larger merchants with the action of the Government in regard to foodstuffs which was, however, highly appreciated by the poorer classes.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman seen the lengthy petition signed by an enormous number of people?
    Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: I understand largely by the employés of the firms concerned.

    NATIVE LABOUR (SOUTH AFRICA).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the resuscitation of recruitment of native labour in Nyasaland in favour of South Africa is contemplated; and, if so, whether he is aware of the heavy mortality which resulted when such was formerly in force, and of the fact that labour is deficient for the ordinary operations of agriculture in the Protectorate itself?
    Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: The Acting Governor of Nyasaland has informed the Secretary of State that the Chamber of Commerce is submitting a petition asking that the recruitment of native labour in Nyasaland for South Africa may

    1361
    not be allowed. This petition has, I understand, just been dispatched. When it arrives the whole matter will receive the most careful consideration.

    BRITISH SHIPPING (UNITED STATES).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a special tax is still being levied on British shipping in the ports of the United States of America in retaliation for the light dues?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir. The discrimination to which my hon. Friend refers, and which did not apply only to British shipping, was abolished in 1909.

    PAPER SUPPLIES.
    Captain BROWNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has, since receiving the deputation of paper manufacturers, now arrived at a decision with regard to the removal of all restrictions on 30th April; and, if so, whether he can make any statement thereon?
    Mr. TALBOTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that writing paper and wrapping paper are fully-manufactured articles and that British paper mills in pre-war years produced approximately two-thirds of the paper used in this country and maintained a large export trade, he will consider the question of immediately curtailing the import of manufactured paper in order to enable home manufacturers to restart the paper machines now lying idle, to give employment to their workpeople now returning from the Colours, and to prevent those at present engaged in the industry from being thrown out of work?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend is considering the points raised by the deputation of paper manufacturers and hopes to make a statement at an early date. In view of the numerous representations which have been made to him in this connection, he is arranging for the appointment of a Committee to investigate fully the present position of the paper-making industry, and to report to him at an early date. This Committee will consist of leading representatives of
    1362
    consumers and of manufacturers, together with the labour unions concerned, three Government representatives, and representatives of the Interim Industrial Reconstruction Committee.
    Sir J. HOPE: Can the hon. Gentleman give the names of the Committee?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No; I cannot give them yet
    Captain BROWN: Will the Committee arrive at a decision before 30th April?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope so.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPEasked what representative of the paper industry the Paper Controller consulted as to the possibility of the paper industry-being able to reduce the price of home-produced paper, provided they were given a sufficient supply of raw material to increase their output?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Paper Controller consulted the manufacturers of newsprint, who quoted a price of 3½d. per lb. as against imported prices of 2¾d. to 3d. per lb. The manufacturers of printing paper quoted a price of 5¼d. to 5¾d. per lb. as against an imported price of 4½d. per lb. The manufacturers of boards quoted £24 per ton as against imported boards at £16 per ton. Esparto papers are not imported into this country, hence no comparison can be found for them. There is no question that the paper industry is able and willing, in many instances, to reduce prices under the conditions indicated by the hon. Member.

    RAILWAY WORKING (ANTICIPATED DEFICIT).
    Sir EDWARD CARSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is willing to publish a summary of accounts showing how the deficit of £100,000,000 in the revenue of the railway companies is arrived at?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The sum mentioned is the deficit as far as can be roughly estimated for the current year. It is based on the war wage of 33s. a week, the increased cost of working due to the introduction of the eight-hour day, the increased cost of materials compared with 1913, and the increased cost due to the recent arrangements with railway unions.

    1363
    As a set-off there may be Government traffic in excess of that of 1913, but it is impossible to give exact figures.
    As regards the working of the railways during the War, an endeavour is being made to prepare a statement, and this will be pressed forward.
    Colonel THORNE: Is there any increase in the legal expenses of the railways?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer that question without notice.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Is this estimated loss without taking into consideration any increase in the rates for traffic and fares?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I shall have to see that in writing.
    Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in arriving at an estimated loss of £100,000,000 a year for working the railways under State control, the accounts of the various companies had been credited with the cost of carrying troops, stores, and other articles on precisely the same terms as would be charged to other passengers and merchants; if not, what is the difference in the rates and charges; and what would it have amounted to during the years 1917 and 1918, separately?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The sum mentioned is the estimated loss on the working for the current year.
    The charges, if made, for carrying troops and naval and military stores are not those charged to the general public, but are based on the provisions of the Cheap Trains Act, 1883.
    No estimate has been formed of the cost in 1917 and 1918 of carrying Government traffic at the rates and fares chargeable to the general public.
    Sir F. HALL: If no estimate was taken into consideration with regard to the traffic on the railways, how is the Government in a position to say there is going to be a loss of £90,000,000 to £100,000,000 during the coming year?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I said before that the estimate was a very rough one, but it is not correct to say no account was made in 1917–18. It was made on the basis of what the Government would have to pay under the Cheap Trains Act of 1883 and not on some supposed basis.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On the basis of the accounts that were taken was there any deficit at all in 1917–18?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer that question.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Will my hon. Friend lay this rough estimate on the Table?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The rough estimate is what I have already stated.
    Sir F. HALL: If I put down another question, say, next week, will my hon. Friend be able to give me further information whether the Department will be able to go into the matter and give me a reply?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am very reluctant to promise that. The Department is very heavily overworked, and I cannot undertake to put upon it the extra duty of making estimates, which at best can only be rather rough, of past years. I will ask if they can produce them. I cannot get the further figures. I cannot promise to go very deeply into the case if it would involve very serious extra labour.
    Sir F. HALL: I will ask this question this day week.

    RAILWAY FACILITIES.
    Mr. WILLIAM CARTERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the passenger-train service between Sutton-in-Ashfield Junction and the town was discontinued during the War; and, as it is a very great inconvenience to the town of 30,000 population, will he favourably consider the desirability of using his influence in order to have the service resumed?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am communicating with the Midland Railway Company on this matter, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman on receipt of their reply.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very great inconvenience caused to people living in and around Nottingham by the restrictions on suburban traffic, and will he take steps to see that it is improved?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am very well aware of the inconvenience that exists there and in many other places, but the difficulty is one of transport and lack of

    1365
    rolling stock. I cannot promise that, it can be improved. If they possibly can, I am sure the companies will do it.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    OATS.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Food Controller whether he is aware that the price of oats in the open market in Scotland upon 3rd March was 43s. per quarter, and on 26th March it had risen to 50s. per quarter; and whether, in view of these prices and the fact that oatmeal furnishes the breakfast food of a considerable part of the population of Scotland, he will transfer a portion of the subsidy upon flour to oatmeal?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): The prices quoted by the hon. Member are substantially correct. The recent rise in the price of Scottish oats, following a fall, will not, however, increase the price of oatmeal to the consumer; since the price of both oats and oatmeal is still controlled by the Grain (Prices) Order, 1918, and the Oats Products (Retail Prices) Order, 1918, respectively.

    COTTON AND WOOLLEN TRADES.
    Mr. SUGDENasked what arrangements are being made to establish the future course of values in the cotton and woollen trades, as, although the world's markets are practically empty, manufacturers cannot make the necessary provision to supply such markets because of such fluctuating values?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is impossible for the Government to control prices in the world's markets, and any attempt to do so would, I am sure, be most unwise.

    TRADE WITH SPAIN.
    Mr. SUGDENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the demand for British goods and manufactures from all parts of Spain, comprising textile fabrics of all kinds, iron manufactures and tools, sanitary goods, electrical goods, machinery, and many other manufactures, and the favourable offers in Spanish markets of rice, tinned
    1366
    vegetables, fruit, and olive oil, as well as the fact that the Spanish exchange is at present very favourable to British merchants, he will arrange a mission comprising a number of the commercial Members of this House, of two permanent officials each from the Board of Trade and the Overseas Trade Department, and of two members of the English chambers of commerce, to proceed to Spain and make full and complete arrangements for such interchange of trade at once?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend is not at present contemplating the dispatch of a commercial mission to-Spain, but if my hon. Friend will kindly communicate with me more fully on the subject, I shall be glad to give consideration to his suggestion.

    CHILD IMPRISONED (IRELAND).
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether the parents of a boy named Connors, aged eleven, who was-arrested on an unknown charge, are refused all knowledge as to where he is-detained; and whether it is legal in Ireland to imprison a child under fourteen years of age?
    Mr. A. W. SAMUELS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland division of Durham on Thursday last.

    GENERAL ELECTION (RETURNING OFFICERS' ACCOUNTS).
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the accounts of returning officers in respect of the General Election of last year have yet been paid, and, if not, what are the causes of the delay; and whether his attention has been called to the hardship inflicted upon the clerks of returning officers, who are without payment on account of this delay?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): Some of these accounts still remain unpaid. The accounts of returning officers in respect of the General Election, which are accompanied' by numerous vouchers and details, require

    1367
    to be carefully examined, queries thereon involve correspondence and delay, and it is not possible to dispose of them in a short time. Some returning officers have not yet rendered their accounts, and many were only received in March. Returning officers have, on application, received advances to enable them to pay pressing claims, so that no hardship need be inflicted upon clerks.

    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (SICK LEAVE).
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the class of messengers, packers, porters, attendants, doorkeepers, and others, are Civil servants; whether they ought, therefore, to receive the same sick-leave privilege as other established Government employés, namely, eight weeks in any one year; and whether he will take steps to make these men eligible for this sick-leave grant?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The employés referred to in the first part of the question like the majority for unestablished Government employés receive the full benefits of the Insurance Acts. Their position is not comparable with that of the employés referred to in the second part of the question, and I do not see my way to modify the existing arrangements which were made after very full consideration of all the circumstances.

    DEPUTY-CONTROLLER (STATIONERY OFFICE).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary to the Treasury on what grounds Lieutenant-Colonel Scorgie has been appointed to the Deputy-Controllership of the Stationery Office while a number of officers within the Department fully qualified to take the post were passed over; whether Lieutenant-Colonel Scorgie has had any previous experience to justify this passing over of men serving in the Stationery Office; and whether, in view of the feeling created by the appointment and the injustice done to men in the Department, he will cancel the appointment in question?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Colonel Scorgie was appointed to the post in question because he was considered better qualified for the duties than any officer serving in the Stationery Office. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative and to the last part in the negative.

    CIVIL SERVICE ASSISTANT CLERKS.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received communications from the Association of Civil Service Assistant Clerks in respect of the regulations laid down for appointments to the Intermediate Class; whether the date of this letter was the 23rd February; whether any reply has been furnished to this communication; if not, whether the Treasury is now in a position to reply, and whether he will make it his business to see that communications from associations of Civil servants are answered within a reasonable time?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have received communications from this Association with regard to the regulations referred to, and a reply was sent to a number of the points raised on the 25th ultimo. The letter of the 23rd February drew attention to a difficulty arising out of the educational qualifications required of candidates for their appointments, and I am considering how this difficulty can best be met, and I hope to communicate with them at an early date.

  OIL FUEL FOR MERCHANT SHIPS.

    BORING OPERATIONS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister if he will state what Departments deal with oil fuel supply; whether he is aware that the Cunard Company contemplate converting their ships to oil-burning vessels, and that there is a strong probability of the gradual conversion of the Mercantile Marine to oil-burning vessels; and whether, in view of the scarcity during the War, an opportunity will arise for a statement to be made and, if necessary, a discussion to take place in regard to future supplies and the boring operations of Messrs. S. Pearson and Son in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The Admiralty is the Depart-

    1369
    ment primarily concerned with oil fuel as a consumer, but the Petroleum Executive and other Departments deal with various aspects of oil policy. The Government have no detailed information as to the intentions of individual companies. The scarcity during the War was due rather to transport difficulties than to inadequate supplies of oil, and I do not think that a discussion at present would serve any useful purpose. Messrs. Pearsons' boring operations have not yet reached a decisive stage and their bearing on future supplies is, therefore, at present quite problematical.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what Department is responsible for Messrs. Pearson's boring operations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It was the Ministry of Munitions, and I think it is now the Ministry of Supply.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Has any oil been found in England by these boring operations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member must put that question down. I cannot say now.

    DENTAL OPERATIONS (UNQUALIFIED PERSONS).
    Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister whether under the present law drillers and turners and butchers can and are performing dental operations; whether the recent Departmental Committee on the Dentists Act has reported that other gross abuses have been associated with the practice of dentistry; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation prohibiting the practice of dentistry by persons not registered?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I informed my hon. Friend in answer to a previous question, the Report is being considered by the Government, but no decision has yet been reached in regard to it.

  PEACE CELEBRATIONS.

    AMNESTY FOR MILITARY PRISONERS.
    Colonel THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have been considering the advisability of releasing all the conscientious objectors,
    1370
    political prisoners, and soldiers who have committed various offences, at the signing, of peace, so that they may have an opportunity of joining in with the country's, peace celebrations?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government has decided that demobilisation is now sufficiently advanced to justify them in approving of the proposal of the Army Council for dealing with soldiers of various classes, including conscientious objectors, who have committed offences under the Army Act and in consequence have been sentenced to imprisonment. All such soldiers will be discharged from the Army for misconduct and, if and when they have completed a total of two years' imprisonment in the aggregate in this country, they will be released from prison.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see the unfairness of that decision of the Government, when it is taken into consideration that there are men now serving under the Compulsory Service Acts who will have to serve for some time to come?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All these considerations were present in my mind and in the mind of the Government when this decision was taken.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Has the facilitation of the discharge of one-man business men been considered? Will they be included?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It has nothing to do with that.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

    INCOME TAX.
    Colonel ROUNDELLasked what will be the earliest opportunity for a discussion in this House of the Income Tax on married persons?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: An opportunity will occur in connection with the Finance Bill.
    Lieutenant Colonel POWNALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the memorial recently presented by a large number of Members belonging to different parties in this House, he will reconsider his decision not to receive a deputation of women on the subject of the Income Tax on married persons?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I have already expressed my own opinion that, in view of the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the Income Tax in all its bearings, it is undesirable that I should be asked to receive deputations on particular points which are within the scope of their inquiry; but I am always glad to confer with Members of this House, and if those who signed the memorial to the Lord Privy Seal desire an interview with me I shall be very glad to arrange it.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if some representation of women desire to accompany the deputation, they will be allowed to attend?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. and learned Friend would feel more encouraged in facing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and strengthened by the presence of ladies, I certainly should not refuse to receive the ladies.

    BANK HOLIDAY.
    Major HILLSasked the Prime Minister whether he will declare Easter Saturday, 19th April, a Bank Holiday in order that the staffs of the banks may get three clear days' holiday at Easter as do nearly all other workers?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Proclamations will be issued in Great Britain and Ireland, respectively, making Saturday, 19th April, a Bank Holiday, but it is not intended that it should be kept as a general holiday.

    BOLSHEVIST DECREES.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the publication by Bolshevist agents of statements to the effect that the reports of decrees having been issued by certain of the provincial Soviet governments in Russia under which women were made common property for sexual purposes are entirely without foundation; if the Government are in possession of information confirming the accuracy of such reports; and, if so, whether he will consider as to taking steps to bring to the knowledge of the country generally the results, in this and
    1372
    other directions, of Bolshevist rule, in order to counteract the influence of those who are advocating similar principles of government in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: In answer to the first and second parts of the hon. and gallant Member's question, His Majesty's Government has no information to show, whether the proclamation about the nationalisation of women published by an anarchist club in the town of Saratov was or was not approved by the Bolshevik Government in Moscow. In answer to the third part of the question, papers were laid before Parliament yesterday, and will, I hope, be distributed to Members to-night dealing with the present Bolshevist rule in Russia.

    ENGINEERING AND SHIPBUILDING TRADES (44-HOURS WEEK).
    Mr. M'GUFFINasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that at a meeting of the engineering and shipbuilding trade unions held in the Central Hall, Westminster, on Thursday, the 27th ultimo, it was decided to take a ballot of the above unions with respect to a 44-hour week; and whether, in the event of a substantial majority being secured in favour of a 44-hour week, the Government will undertake to introduce a Bill to regulate the hours accordingly?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): I have been asked to answer this question. I presume that if the ballot of the members of the engineering and shipbuilding trade unions is in favour of an alteration in hours negotiations will take place between the trade unions and the employers' federations concerned and in these circumstances I can make no statement on the point raised in the last part of the question.

    COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION REPORT.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is proposed to give legislative effect to the Report signed by the Chairman of the Coal Industry Commission?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The action proposed in the question will be taken if, as I anticipate, the Commission is able to continue its work.
    Sir F. HALL: Before any decision is arrived at, will there be a chance of this matter being discussed in the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member cannot have been present when a statement was made by me that that step would be taken and that a discussion would take place.

    HOPS (IMPORTATION).
    Lieutenant-Colonel POWNALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the reasons why hops from our Colonies are not allowed to be imported free of restrictions?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answers given on the 10th March by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to questions put by the hon. Member for Canterbury, of which I am sending him a copy. The same considerations apply to hops of colonial origin.

    LOANS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
    Mr. SUGDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will summon a conference of representatives of the cities, municipal boroughs, and county councils of Great Britain to consider how they can organise their respective loans and credit balances, that the present high prices of such loans may be reduced and economy produced also in national loan prices?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I fear that it is unlikely, in view of the demand for capital for industrial purposes, that any reduction in the rates of interest paid by local authorities for new borrowings can be anticipated for some time to come. I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board and the Secretary for Scotland.

    CAPITAL ISSUES.
    Mr. SUGDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he hopes to discontinue all control over capital issues in those cases when the money is required for legitimate trade?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I fear I am unable, in view of the uncertainty of existing economic conditions, to fix any date.

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
    Sir J. HOPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, though the Board of Customs and Excise acknowledge that the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland is not conducted for profit and that the annual show is held partly for educational and scientific purposes, the Board have refused to grant exemption of Entertainments Tax only because there is to be a horse-jumping competition, and have demanded that the tax should be paid on members' subscriptions; and whether a horse-jumping competition is to be treated as an extraneous? amusement at a show of horses?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that they have refused to grant exemption from the tax to this show on the grounds stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, but that on review of all circumstances connected with these shows they are prepared for the future not to regard the inclusion of a horse-jumping competition in the proceedings as a bar to exemption in the case of a bonâ fide agricultural show, provided that the competition is a purely subsidiary part of the show and that the show is entitled to exemption from tax in all other respects
    Sir J. HOPE: Am I to understand that the Highland Show will be exempt this year from the Entertainments Tax, and that the horse jumping will not be considered a bar to that exemption?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not conversant with the circumstances of the particular case, but the Highland Show would have the benefit of this new decision.
    Sir J. HOPE: The refusal to grant exemption will be reconsidered in view of that answer?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly. It relates to future shows.
    Sir J. HOPE: This year?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Do I understand that the Royal Show at Cardiff will be exempt from the Entertainments Tax?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is impossible for me to give specific answers as to the cases of particular shows of which I know nothing, but the custom will act upon the lines which I have stated in my answer in regard to all shows.

    DRIFTERS AND TRAWLERS.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Lord Leverhulme incorporated the Mac Line Drifters and Trawlers Company, Limited, on 24th February, 1919, and applied to the Treasury for sanction to issue shares to the extent of £500,000 on 6th March, 1919; that the said company was to develop the Lewis and add to the food of the people by increasing the harvest of the sea; and that, after correspondence, the Treasury granted sanction to issue the said shares on the understanding that the boats to be acquired should be newly-built vessels or secondhand vessels purchased direct from the Government; whether the company has requested the said condition to be departed from; and has it been departed from or abrogated as a result of the freeing of the restrictions on the issue of capital for home industries?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to all parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether builders of trawlers are not permitted to enter into contracts at the price they are willing to build them because the Treasury deem the price tendered will not yield enough excess profits; whether one builder of trawlers entered into a contract to build for £11,000 or thereby, and now repudiates the same, alleging that the Treasury will not allow him to build for less than £18,000, and whether it is because of this restriction that it was proposed to grant leave to issue shares to Lord Leverhulme's Company, the Mac Line of Trawlers and Drifters Company, Limited, only on the understanding that they bought newly-built trawlers or relieved the Government of some of those which they had taken during the War and desired to relieve themselves of at the new company's expense?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Treasury has made no such condition as that sug-
    1376
    gested in the question, and exercises no control over the price at which trawlers or other vessels may be built by private firms. I am quite unable to understand the point of the hon. Member's question. If he will send me a detailed statement of the grounds on which he put it, I shall be glad to consider it.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it the fact that those fishermen whose boats were taken over by the Admiralty are now being tendered a sum of £4,000 for drifters which have been lost at sea in mine-sweeping, and that that is an insufficient sum with which to buy a new drifter I Will the right hon. Gentleman see that these fishermen are provided with drifters equal in value to the drifters which the Admiralty took over, so as to be able to renew their work?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not arise out of this question. I think that it is a question which should be addressed to-the Admiralty.

    "GOEBEN" COURT-MARTIAL.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the-First Lord of the Admiralty whether he-will now make the promised statement in regard to the publication of the dispatches concerning the escape of the "Goeben," the bombardments of the Dardanelles forts, and the publication of the proceedings of the Troubridge court-martial?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It has been decided to publish the dispatches relating to the bombardments of the Dardanelles forts, and they are now with the printers. Owing to the presence of the First Lord and First Sea Lord having been required in Paris, it has not been, possible, as was hoped, to complete the consideration of the other papers, but the decision will be announced as soon as practicable.
    Commander BELLAIRS: If I put down a question for Wednesday of next week may I hope for a decision? I have put down a question several times since the beginning of the Session.

    MUDROS NAVAL DEPOT (RELIEF).
    Mr. BLANEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that there is dissatisfaction amongst the men at

    1377
    Mudros Naval Depot because no relief is provided; and, in view of the bad condition of the place, can he see his way to issue instructions for short periodical relief to be granted?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Everything possible is being done to effect the relief of all men eligible for demobilisation at the earliest moment, and also to relieve men belonging to the permanent service who have been away for considerable periods. In view of the large numbers concerned, distributed all over the world, my hon. Friend will recognise that the process of relief must take a long time. Officers and men have been so informed.
    Mr. BLANE: I think that perhaps my right hon. Friend has misapprehended my question: I mean relief on the spot. The conditions are very bad. The men may wish, say, to go out to sea for an hour on Sundays and are refused permission by the senior commanding officer who, I understand has also refused to discuss the matter with them. I will be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give instructions that this matter should receive consideration.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I thought that it was a question of relief coming home. The point which my hon. Friend has put apparently refers to local conditions, and it will be submitted to the authorities concerned.

    PLAYING FIELDS (SCHOOLS).
    Captain COOTEasked the President of the Board of Education what steps have been taken in pursuance of the powers conferred on the Board under Section 17 of the Education Act, 1918, to supply, maintain, and equip playing fields, other than the ordinary playgrounds, for the use of children attending national schools?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The Board have not yet received any proposals from local education authorities for their approval of arrangements under the Section referred to. The absence of proposals is no doubt partly attributable to the financial restrictions imposed during the War on the raising of loans by local authorities, and partly to the great pressure of work
    1378
    and the depletion of staff by which local education authorities have been embarrassed.

    EDUCATION COMMITTEES EXPENSES.
    Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been directed to Section 5 (b) of the Fifth Schedule of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, under which the Department may sanction travelling expenses necessarily incurred in attending meetings of an education committee thereof or meetings of a local advisory council, and an allowance at uniform rates to be prescribed by the Department in respect of other personal expenses necessarily incurred and time necessarily lost from ordinary employment in attending such meetings; and whether, in view of the considerable charge now imposed upon members of education committees in county areas who efficiently perform their duties, he proposes to take any steps to secure that similar provision shall be available to facilitate educational administration in England and Wales?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: My right hon. Friend is aware of the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, to which the hon. Baronet refers. He does not think, however, that members of education committees in England and Wales can be treated in this matter differently from members of other committees of local authorities.

    OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
    Sir J. HOPEasked the Postmaster-General whether the majority of postal, telegraph, and telephone temporary employés, who have been discharged since 11th November, 1918, are drawing out-of-work donations; and whether he will consider the desirability, in the public interest, of retaining temporary employés until all the pre-war postal facilities are restored, and all permanent postal employés demobilised?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I have no information as to what proportion of the temporary Post Office employés who have been discharged are drawing out-of-work donation. My

    1379
    hon. Friend may rest assured that the services of the temporary staff will be retained as long as the requirements of the work justify this course.
    Sir J. HOPE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would be more economical to restore postal facilities than to be paying men out-of-work payments when doing nothing?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member does not understand that the restoration of postal facilities does not depend on one thing at all. It depends on train service and many other circumstances also.
    Sir J. HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local post offices cannot restore pre-war facilities until they get more men and women back?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid that I should have to make a speech of about half an hour in length to explain all the details of the postal service. If the hon. and gallant Member has any particular case in mind, I shall certainly inquire into it.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Minister of Labour whether there are any Courts of Referees or other bodies in Ireland for the purpose of examining the claims of persons applying for out-of-work donations; and, if so, by whom are those bodies appointed, and are all claims submitted to them for acceptance or rejection?
    Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The constitution of the Courts of Referees is the same in Ireland as in Great Britain. Each Court consists of an independent chairman appointed by the Minister, and two representatives of employers and workpeople, respectively, sitting by rota from panels nominated by representative organisations and appointed by the Minister. Straightforward claims to donation are admitted by the local officers of the Department, and all other claims are referred to the Court of Referees for admission or rejection.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that all possible precautions are taken to prevent the issue of these donations to persons not properly qualified?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am not satisfied that all possible precautions are taken, but I will do my best to get that condition satisfied.
    Lieutenant-Colonel HILDERasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the statement made on Monday at Clerkenwell by the Court probation officer to the effect that he was having trouble with lads who were putting themselves out of work in order to draw the allowance of 29s. a week; and what steps he proposes to take to put a stop to this practice?
    Sir R. HOARE: My attention has been called to the statement referred to. If an applicant leaves his employment voluntarily without just cause he is not eligible for donation, and every effort is made by my officers to prevent abuse of the out-of-work donation scheme in this respect. An inquiry is always addressed to the late employer as to the reason why the employment terminated, and I would appeal to employers for their assistance by answering these inquiries promptly. I should add that the weekly rate of donation for boys under eighteen years of age is 14s. 6d. and not 29s.
    Sir F. BANBURY (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Labour whether the Estimate providing for unemployment donation has been laid on the Table of the House; and, if not, when will it be laid?
    Sir R. HORNE: As I informed my right hon. Friend yesterday, the moneys required for paying out-of-work donation are provided in the Vote of the Civil Demobilisation and Resettlement Department. £19,000,000 on account of this Vote was granted by the House on 10th March, and authorised by Statute in the Consolidated Fund Act, which received the Royal Assent on 27th March.
    As my right hon. Friend will remember, the expenditure on the out-of-work donation scheme was the subject of a discussion in which he took an important part, in this House on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 19th March. The matter was also discussed on the Vote on Account on 5th March, 1919.
    Detailed Estimates have not yet been laid on the Table, but I am informed by the Treasury that they are in the printer's I hands, and will be circulated next week.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how we can have discussed this matter fully when the detailed Estimates have not yet been presented to Parliament?
    Sir R. HORNE: I do not think my answer said they were fully discussed. They were discussed in the House, and my right hon. Friend, as he will no doubt remember, took an important part in the discussion.
    Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how long the £19,000,000 voted by this House is estimated to last at the present rate of expenditure?
    Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend will be able to make a calculation for himself. The present expenditure is about £1,000,000 a week.

    PARCELS POST (FRANCE).
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Postmaster General whether he is aware that there are complaints from traders regarding the delays in the dispatch of parcels to France; and whether he will cause an investigation to be made at once into the matter with a view to improvement?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: There is no delay in the dispatch of parcels to France; but I have reason to believe that the delivery of parcels after arrival in France is slower than in ordinary times. I am making inquiry of the French Post Office with a view to an acceleration of the service.

    POSTAL DELIVERIES (COUNTRY DISTRICTS, SCOTLAND).
    Mr. STURROCKasked the Post-master-General whether he can now state when pre-war conditions will be restored to country districts in Scotland where two years ago postal deliveries were cut down to three per week?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The restrictions to which the hon. Member refers were not carried out simultaneously but were introduced only when local circumstances made such a course necessary. Each case will now be again considered in connection with a general review of postal services.

    FOREIGN POSTAGE RATES.
    Mr. GILBERTasked if any recent postal conference has been held to consider the increase of rate for foreign postage in the Postal Union; if any decision has been arrived at to increase foreign rates of postage; if so, to what amount; if it will apply to all kinds of foreign postal matter; and from what date the new rates will take effect?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The answer is in the negative.

    AIRCRAFT CONVEYANCE OF LETTERS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Postmaster-General if any licence or permit has been given to any private aircraft company to convey letters from this country to France; and, if so, if he can state the name of the firm and the conditions on which they have been granted?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The answer is in the negative.

    APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Minister of Labour if he will say how many employers have registered new vacancies with the Appointments Department since 1st January, and how many officers are still on the books of the Department with out a job?
    Sir R. HORNE: Since the beginning of this year 3,204 new vacancies have been notified to the Appointments Department, but I regret that I am unable to give the number of employers who have registered these) vacancies without communicating with the Department's local offices. I am arranging, however, to obtain this information, and will send it to the hon. Member. With regard to the last part of the question, 7,883 ex-officers and men of similar qualifications are now on the list of those immediately available for appointment.

    OFFICERS' TRAINING GRANT SCHEME.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Minister of Labour how many officers are being trained under the Training Grants scheme of his Department at recognised universities and how many in other ways?
    Sir R. HORNE: Training at recognised universities under the Training Grant scheme is dealt with by the Board of Education. I am informed that interim Grants have been promised to 1,042 ex-Service students, of whom about 90 per cent. are actually in residence. There have also been made fifty-four interim and four definitive Grants to candidates for higher education in Ireland. As regards the second part of the question, there are fourty-eight students actually in training under the Board of Agriculture, but no Grants have yet been made for other forms of training. There are, however, 2,282 serving and discharged officers in training with the Appointments Department under the scheme for "officers' university and technical classes," under Army Council Instruction 517, of 1918.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Minister of Labour how many selection committees have been set up for interviewing candidates for training under the Training Grants scheme for officers; and how many applicants they have seen?
    Sir R. HORNE: Five out of the thirteen selective committees to be set up by the Ministry of Labour have met, and have appointed seventeen boards to interview candidates for consideration under the Training Grants scheme. A total of fifty-three candidates have been seen by these boards, which have only recently been appointed and have not all met. It is expected that the remaining eight committees will all have held their first meetings by Easter. I understand that the Board of Education have appointed five district university committees, and that these have already been constituted.

    THRAPSTONE RELIEVING OFFICER (WAR BONUS).
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the refusal of the Thrapston Board of Guardians to grant their relieving officer, Mr. Thomas A. Boyden, a war bonus as laid down by the Conciliation and Arbitration Board for local government employés; is he aware that the guardians declined arbitration; and if he will say what steps he intends to take in order to place this officer in possession of the war bonus in the same way as other relieving officers in the country?
    Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the last part of the question, the discretion in this matter is in the hands of the local board of guardians, and in the case of a difference between a board and its employés the matter can be referred to arbitration only if the consent of both parties is obtained. In the present case the board does not, I am informed, consent to arbitration, and at the moment I am unable to take other steps.

  AIR MINISTRY.

    LINEN (PURCHASES).
    Lieutenant-Colonel MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry the names of the firms of contractors from whom linen was purchased during the War; the price per yard at which it was purchased; and what arrangements are being made for its disposal?
    The DEPUTY-MINISTER for MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to answer this question. Linen was purchased from 137 contractors, whose names I shall be glad to send to my hon. and gallant Friend if he should desire me to do so. The price per yard varied with the price of flax. At the time of the Armistice the price ranged from Is. 8d. for spaced fabric to 3s. 0¾d. for solid fabrics. A considerable quantity of linen is being disposed of in this country in small lots by public tender after advertisement, and arrangements are being made for meeting the demands in foreign markets.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: How many millions of yards of linen are now being treated as scrapped by the authorities?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: None of it is being treated as scrapped.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: How many millions of yards were over-ordered?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The probable surplus is something like forty million yards.
    Lieutenant-Colonel MALONE: And what price is being obtained for it?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I cannot give the figures off-hand, but the contractors-offered a shilling a yard.

    COMMERCIAL ORGANISATION COMMITTEE.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Under Secretary of State to the Air Ministry when he

    1385
    will give a definite reply as to whether or not he will appoint a small but permanent Committee, composed of two or three hon. Members of this House and two or three gentlemen outside the House who have a knowledge of commercial organisation, to assist the Air Ministry authorities in finance and business matters generally; and whether such a Committee is specially desirable during the present reorganisation of the Air Ministry and in view of the admitted defective accounting in the past?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on the 3ist ultimo.
    Mr. RAPER: Are we to understand that a Committee does actually exist? Can we have the names of the members?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, that is not to be deduced from my answer. But there are certain competent men who are associated in an important way with the work of the Air Ministry.
    Lieutenant-Colonel MALONE: Can their names be supplied?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They are men from the Army Council who are associated with the Air Ministry in an advisory capacity.
    Mr. RAPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of appointing a Committee such as I have suggested?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I will, indeed.

    HENDON AERODROME.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry if he is aware that about twenty Handley-Page machines, some with engines and some without, have been left uncovered in the wet at Hendon for periods varying from one month to three months, all through the recent bad weather, with the result that practically all of them are only now fit to be written off; whether the reason put forward for their being there is that there was no accommodation to house them; is he aware that the Kite Balloon Department offered to lend the Aeroplane Department portable sheds, originally built for the housing of kite balloons, but which would have accommodated the Handley-Page machines quite comfortably with their wings folded, and is he aware that these Handley-Page machines
    1386
    cost the country something like £200,000, that they are still standing out in the open rotting, and that the said kite balloon sheds are all carefully stored away in their folded-up condition, being eaten by rats?
    Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): The areoplanes in question are constructed to withstand exposure without permanent damage, and none of the Handley-Pages at Hendon have rotted in any way. Of the number stored there temporarily to await accommodation becoming available, the majority have now been either flown away or stored under cover at Hendon. Eight machines still remain in the open, and will be flown away as soon as circumstances permit. The proposal to erect kite balloon sheds would have involved an amount of labour not justified by the requirements of the case.
    Mr. RAPER: May I take it that every one of these machines is in perfect order?
    Mr. PRATT: I am sorry I cannot add anything to the answer I have already given my hon. Friend.

    CIVIL AVIATION.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he can now make a statement as to the staff and work of the Controller of Civil Aviation?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The Controller-General of Civil Aviation is the member of the Air Council responsible for the executive work falling to the Air Ministry under the Air Navigation Acts, 1911–1919, and for carrying out the accepted policy of assisting the development of civil aviation. It is proposed that he shall be assisted by four heads of Departments who will take charge of planning, information, communications, and aerodromes, respectively. Provision will also be made for meteorological services. Terms for the heads of Departments have been approved, appointment of staff is proceeding, and the Department is being formally constituted as from the 1st April, being the beginning of the financial year.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman unduly, but perhaps he could mention a date when he will be able to make a full statement as to the appointment of the staff and the allocation of the work?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that in the next few days I can mention the principal office holders, but I really think it would be a pity to hurry the selection of the filling of the positions of second rank.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he can give an assurance that the Royal Air Force is not in any way to be brought under the control of the War Office and that civil aviation will not in any way be placed under the control of the Minister of Ways and Communications?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no intention of bringing the Royal Air. Force under the control of the War Office or of placing civil aviation under the control of the Ministry of Ways and Communications. Cabinet decisions in this sense have been definitely obtained.

    DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SUPPLY AND RESEARCH.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry where the Director-General of Supply and Research acquired the necessary business and technical experience to qualify him for this post?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Director General of Supply and Research is an officer who rendered brilliant war service in the Army and in the Air Force, and was for a considerable period Controller-General of Equipment in the Air Ministry. I am satisfied that he is well qualified for the appointment which he holds.

    AERODROME CONSTRUCTION (CONTRACTORS' PROFITS).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry why the system which was adopted of allowing contractors for the construction of aerodromes a certain profit on materials supplied to them by the Government was made retrospective?
    Mr. PRATT: Under the original War Office contracts for aerodrome construction the contractors did not receive commission on materials supplied by the Government, but at that time the actual control of materials by Government was small. When the Air Ministry took over the con-
    1388
    tracts the situation in regard to Government control of materials had entirely changed. In order to expedite progress on the aerodromes modifications in the contracts were made, and it was decided that it would be fair as part of these arrangements to allow a commission on all materials actually handled by the contractors as from the date of the original contract.
    Mr. RAPER: Is it not the fact that this is being made retrospective and applied to contracts already completed?

    COAL EXPORTS.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he or the Coal Controller have the decision of the order of preference in granting freight to coal shipped to neutral nations; and whether, in view of the fact that coal shipped realises 60s. to 90s. per ton as against 25s. to 27s. per ton for land sales coal, care is taken to allocate tonnage equitably and proportionately to the output of each pit?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the SHIPPING CONTROLLER (Colonel Leslie Wilson): Save when special circumstances rendered it essential, no order of preference has been established for shipments to neutral nations. The first part of the question therefore does not arise. As regards the second part of the question the matter is entirely one for the Coal Controller.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman take steps to allocate shipping, seeing that some men are making a good deal of money while others have not the opportunity?
    Colonel WILSON: I think that question should be addressed to the Board of Trade.

    JAPANESE PEAS (IMPORTS).
    Captain BRACKENBURYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware of the effect upon the interests of British farmers of the Government importation of Japanese peas; whether he is aware that it was not possible for the farmers to anticipate such action on the part of the Government; and whether the Govern-

    1389
    ment will in future give facilities to the farmers to obtain information of any intention of the Government to embark upon speculations in foreign agricultural produce?
    Mr. McCURDY: I have been asked to reply. The interests of British farmers have not been prejudiced in any way by the importation of Japanese peas by the Government. In fact, farmers realised considerably higher prices for their peas than they expected when they grew the crop. The transaction in question was not of a speculative character, as the hon. and gallant Member suggests.

    HUNTING (DEVON AND CORNWALL).
    Colonel MILDMAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in the interests of those who get their livelihood in connection with hunting, he can say whether hunting by packs of hounds under proper control will be allowed next season in Devon and Cornwall as it was during the previous outbreak of rabies?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I am afraid I cannot make any statement now as to hunting in Devon and Cornwall next season. The answer must depend on the circumstances in connection with the outbreak of rabies then existing.
    Colonel MILDMAY: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the uncertainty as to the future will affect a great number of persons employed, and that the number of packs of hounds in this district is larger than in any other county in England?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am quite aware of these considerations, but the stamping out of this outbreak of rabies must have the paramount consideration. I am sorry to say that another case occurred in Devon only last Monday. I cannot possibly make a statement as to what the position may be in the autumn.

    DEMONSTRATION DAIRY FARMS.
    Mr. STURROCKasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will state how many Govern-
    1390
    ment demonstration dairy farms it is proposed to establish; and how many of them, will be situated in Scotland?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is proposed to establish ten demonstration dairy farms, and the scheme which I announced on the 17th March in answer to a question put to me by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle, applies to England and Wales only. The question of undertaking a similar scheme in Scotland is, of course, one for the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.

    ARMIES OF OCCUPATION (EDUCATIONAL SCHEME).
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give further details as to the educational scheme which is being carried on in the various Armies of Occupation, and as to the different classes of officers and men for whom this scheme is specially designed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am circulating a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the statement referred to:
    An Army Order consolidating previous Orders and extending educational training in the Armies of Occupation is now under consideration. In the Army at home, the Army in France and Flanders, the Army of the Rhine, and the Armies of the Middle East and at Murmansk, staff officers and officers attached to the General Staff supervise the scheme, and instructors are authorised on a maximum scale of four officers and twelve non-commissioned officers per 1,000 men. Subjects are grouped, so that, as a rule, instruction is given to all men in matters of general education—English, arithmetic or elementary mathematics, history, geography and civics, together with subjects chosen, to a limited number, from other groups which comprise languages, advanced history, commercial subjects to a high standard, engineering, pure science, and higher mathematics. Technical and trade classes are supplemented at home by arrangements specially made with the local educational authorities; in the Army of the Rhine, promising men are drafted from units to divisional corps or Army schools. There are at home two schools for officer

    1391
    in commercial and technical subjects, each taking 200 officers at a time for a month's instruction. Two schools, at Oxford and Newmarket, have been instituted to give intensive courses in the art of teaching to officers and non-commissioned officers who possess knowledge but have had little or no teaching experience.
    Army education certificates will be given to men who attend classes satisfactorily, and a special certificate to men passing examinations in their subjects of an advanced standard; this latter certificate has been recognised by the universities and leading professional bodies as exempting from matriculation or the entrance examination. With regard to the second part of my hon. and learned Friend's question, all classes of officers and men may apply for instruction. Special arrangements are in force for the education of young soldiers, who attend classes as part of their military duties, as also do the men of the Army on the Rhine. Otherwise, no distinction is made, and the work actually going on includes alike elementary education, trade classes, work for the examinations of professional bodies, and work at a university level.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS (MECHANICAL TRANSPORT).
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the Secretary of State for War what was the number of officers and of other ranks serving in the Mechanical Transport of the Royal Army Service Corps on the 11th November, 1918; and if he can state how many of these have been demobilised up to date?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The strength of the Royal Army Service Corps (Mechanical Transport) in November, 1918, was 4,222 officers and 159,353 other ranks; the number demobilised to date is 1,020 officers and 43,250 other ranks.

    RELEASE APPLICATION.
    Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mrs. Aitken, 7, St. Leonard's Hill, Edinburgh, widow, in ill-health, recently made application for the release of her son, Private J. B. Aitken, No. 202641, 3rd King's Own Scottish Borderers, who has recently been on
    1392
    active service in France but is now stationed in Scotland; that two of the brothers of Mr. Aitken have been killed on active service; that his father died partly of shock occasioned by this loss; that this soldier is now the only surviving unmarried son of this widow, who will depend largely on his efforts for the future; whether, in spite of the foregoing facts, the Demobilisation Officer, 3rd King's Own Scottish Borderers, Lochend Camp, Dunfermline, refused the application for this soldier's release on compassionate grounds, at the same time informing him in writing that the officer of the Lowland Reserve Brigade had stated in writing that the soldier should be able to increase his contribution to the upkeep of his home from his Army of Occupation bonus; whether ha approves of this conduct on the part of the officer in question; and whether, in view of the painful facts of this case, he will issue instructions for the immediate demobilisation of this man?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Inquiries will be made, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result as early as possible.

    INDIAN ARMY.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for War of what units, roughly, the Indian troops in course of demobilization are composed; and whether, when their demobilisation has been completed, the Indian Army and the British troops serving in India will be up to normal strength and bear the normal numerical relation to one another?
    Mr. PRATT: The Indian troops in course of demobilisation come principally from those units which were raised during the War, and comprise all classes usually enlisted. The question of the post-war strength and composition of the Army in India is under consideration, and the Secretary of State for India is not at present in a position to answer the latter part of the hon. Member's question.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for War whether officers and men of the Indian Army serving in the Middle East (20,650), in Egypt and Palestine (42,750), and in Mesopotamia (63,000), are being returned to India as reductions are effected in the Armies of Occupation; whether these figures include officers and men of British regiments temporarily on the Indian establishment or are Indian troops proper; and whether the Indian

    1393
    troops (73,000) now being demobilised contain both classes or only the latter class of troops?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The figures referred to in the first part of my hon. Friend's question are the establishments of Indian troops to be maintained in the Armies of Occupation. The Indian troops are being reduced to these numbers. The officers are British and Indian belonging to the Indian Army and the men are Indian troops. I am afraid I do not understand the last part of my hon. Friend's question, as considerably more than 73,000 Indian troops are to be demobilised.
    Colonel YATE: Considering the large number of men of the British Army who are there, would it not be advisable to demobilise less of the Indian Army?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The composition of our forces depends on a certain proportion being maintained of Indian and British troops. That has to be maintained irrespective of the relative claims of British and Indian troops to demobilisation.

    MISS VIOLET DOUGLAS-PENNANT.
    Lieutenant-Colonel MALONEasked the Secretary of State for War whether a primâ facie charge has now been received on behalf of Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant; and whether he will now carry out his pledges given on the 13th March to constitute a full inquiry into the circumstances surrounding her case?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first question is in the negative. The second question accordingly does not arise.
    Lieutenant-Colonel MALONE: Is it the fact that no communication has been received?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. Communications have been received but they do not fulfil the condition which I made in the House and of which the House generally approved.

    PUBLIC AUDITOR (RETIREMENT).
    Lieutenant-Colonel MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he is prepared to make any further statement as to the grounds for retirement of the public auditor; and
    1394
    if he will say what steps have been taken to deal with the situation created by his retirement?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As at present advised, I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Islington East on the 31st ultimo.

    CENSUS OF POPULATION.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the War has made comparisons of population for fixed periods, of time of little value, whether the Government, in order to arrive at important data as soon as possible, will make all arrangements for taking a census of the population in 1920 instead of 1921?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am very sensible of the need fox accurate population figures as soon as possible. But I anticipate that the distribution of the population should be much more normal in 1921 than next year, and for that and other reasons, I think it will be better to adhere to 1921 as the date for the periodical census.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.

    APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN (by Private Notice)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to announce the constitution of the Committee which is to inquire into the old age pensions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A Committee has now been appointed, consisting of the following:

    Sir W. Ryland Adkins, M.P. (Chairman).

    The Right Hon. Sir Henry A. Robinson, K.C.B.

    Sir Arthur Pedder.

    Sir Alfred W. Watson.

    Sir Theodore Chambers, K.B.E.

    Ewan F. Macpherson, Esq., C.B.

    Lieut.-Colonel Nathan Raw, C.M.G., M.P.

    W. A. Appleton, Esq.

    H. J. Comyns, Esq.

    Joseph Devlin, Esq., M.P.

    1395

    J. H. Dunford, Esq.

    Major J. G. Jameson, M.P.

    Miss M. Cecile Matheson.

    Arnold Rowntree, Esq.

    G. R. Thorne, Esq., M.P.

    Stephen Walsh, Esq., M.P.

    The terms of reference, as already stated, are:
    "To consider and report what alterations, if any, as regards rates of pension or qualification should be made in the existing statutory scheme of old age pensions."
    Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will suggest to the Committee the desirability of getting speedily to work and making an early Report?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no doubt the Chairman of the/ Committee will take note of my right hon. Friend's desire for a speedy Report.

  PENSIONS ADMINISTRATION.

    APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE.
    Captain LOSEBY (by Private Notice)asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can yet say when he proposes to set up the Select Committee on the Administration, of Pensions in accordance with the promise he gave to the hon. Member for Salford (South) in November last?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee referred to will be set up immediately in accordance with the promise given by me in the last Parliament, and the House will, I am sure, understand that the setting up of this Committee does not indicate any doubt as to the efficiency of the Pensions Ministry. On the contrary, the Government are satisfied that the very difficult problems connected with this Ministry are being dealt with expeditiously and efficiently by my right hon. Friend and his Department.

    REPRINT OF ACTS.
    Captain FITZROY (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will issue a White Paper at the earliest possible moment containing a reprint of the Acts referred to in the Housing Bill and in the Land Settlement (Facilities) Bill.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have consulted my right hon. Friend, the Attorney-General, who shares my view that the issue of a White Paper is not necessary.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have ageed to—
    Representation of the People (Returning Officers' Expenses) Bill,
    Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the North British Railway." [North British Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
    And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Standard Life Assurance Company." [Standard Life Assurance Company Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
    Cavendish Clarke's Divorce Bill [Lords].
    That they communicate the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken upon the Second Reading of the Cavendish Clarke's Divorce Bill [Lords], as desired by the Commons, with the request that the same may be returned.
    North British Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords], Ordered (under Section 7 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), to be considered To-morrow.
    Standard Life Assurance Company Order Confirmation Bill [Lords], Ordered (under Section 7 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be considered To-morrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTSreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills the following Ten Members (in respect of the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill and the Scottish Board of Health Bill): Lieutenant-Colonel Bell, Mr. Britton, Sir Clement Kinloch-Cooke, Major Nail, Mr. Robert Richardson,

  1397
  Mr. Tillett, Sir John Tudor Walters, Sir Joseph Walton, Colonel Penry Williams, and Sir Frederick Young.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  DOGS' PROTECTION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee E.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [Bill 64.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Private Bills (Group A),
  Sir HARRY SAMUEL reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Chepstow Water Bill,
  St. George's Church, Oxford, Bill,
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Macmaster to act as Chairman of Standing Committee E (in respect of the Nurses' Registration Bill), and Mr. Rendall to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill and the Scottish Board of Health Bill).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MEMBER SWORN.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Henry Parry, Flint County, took the Oath and signed the Roll.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House if he can tell us what business is likely to be taken next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; and I can give the business which we anticipate taking until the Easter Adjournment. On Monday, we shall take the Housing Bill— Second Reading.
  Tuesday, continuation of Bill if it be desired, and the Ministry of Health Bill —Report stage.
  Wednesday, Ministry of Health Bill—Report stage and Third Reading.
  Thursday, Acquisition of Land Bill.
  Monday (14th April), Land Settlement Bill, and if that be ended in one day, the Adjournment on Tuesday, 15th April. If not, the Adjournment will have to be postponed till Wednesday.
  Sir J. HOPE: Will any time be given to the Scottish Housing Bill before Easter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I see no prospect of taking before Easter anything beyond those Bills I have named.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a promise has been made that the Irish Housing Bill would pass concurrently with the English Housing Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is introduced, and the fact that it does not have a Second Reading before Easter does not necessarily delay to any serious extent the final passage of the measure.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask, in view of the very heavy programme the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, whether there is any possibility of concluding the Second Reading of the Housing Bill on Monday if we suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The two Land Bills which are set down to be taken before Easter are of immense importance, and I think it will be found that we have not got more than three Parliamentary days to discuss them.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will be quite ready as far as the Government is concerned to
  1438
  consider that suggestion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—but I do not think it will be acceptable to the House. We must do our best to get through as much as we can before Easter.
  Lieutenant-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the Forestry Bill be introduced before Easter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No.
  Ordered,
  "That the Civil Services Estimates, 1919–20, Class 2, Vote 35 (Chief Secretary for Ireland), be considered in Committee of Supply."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

SUPPLY.— [7TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1919–20.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £49,604, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary in Dublin and London (including Grants for the Higher Education of ex-Officers, etc.), and of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums, and Expenses under the Inebriates Acts."—[NOTE.—£30,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not know that in the many years that I have been a Member of this House, and in which I have had often to discuss the 4.0 P.M. question of Ireland, I have ever approached the question and addressed the House under a more serious and anxious spirit of responsibility than I do to-day. Indeed, if I had been left to my own free choice, I would have preferred to have been silent. I do not claim—I cannot claim—to speak in the name of Ireland. The majority of the constituencies of that country have repudiated both the party and the policy which I represent; but the question is so serious, it involves such far-reaching controversies, at the present moment it is in so perilous a position, that I feel I cannot be silent. Ireland, of course, is my theme, and before I sit down I hope to be able to bring home to the minds of the House that there are larger issues even than Ireland involved in the question. I hope to be able

  1439
  to show that with the Irish question are bound up not merely the future destinies of the Irish people themselves, but the future destinies of this Empire. I will even go further, and say the future destinies of the world. I am encouraged to address myself to this question by several facts. I think there has been a gradual and almost universal growth of opinion that Home Rule must be granted to Ireland. I remember, in the course of the old struggle between Free Trade and Protecttion, that when the "Times" newspaper came out in a leading article with a statement that the Free Trade League was a great fact, everybody knew that the struggle was drawing to a close, and nobody was surprised that a short time afterwards that great newspaper was able to announce the conversion of Sir Robert Peel, who had been the Protectionist leader for many years, to the principle of Free Trade. The same newspaper to-day has, I think, given fair warning to all the world, including hon. Members from Ulster on the opposite side, that the problem of Home Rule is practically settled in the opinion of the majority of people in this country. This article criticised the action of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast, and some of his colleagues, the other day on the Proportional Representation Bill. The article goes on to declare that "it is time the question should be raised again, and not only that it should be raised, but settled. In principle, Home Rule has passed beyond the scope of discussion. While its character, its extent, and its limitation have to be reviewed afresh, we are all Home Rulers to-day."
  When one remembers the history of the "Time" newspaper in regard to the Irish Nationalist trouble and Irish National leaders, this is a very remarkable statement. I have re-read the articles in which the "Times" newspaper-used to deal with Daniel O'Connell in the days when he was the Nationalist Leader in Ireland, and "The Big Beggarman" was the most flattering title you could bestow on him. Most of us who have been in the struggle remember that the "Times" made a desperate effort—under different management, I admit—to destroy the character of the party and the policy of Mr. Parnell by publishing a forged document. This is the organ, with all its historic past, of violent and consistent opposition to Irish National claims. This is
  1440
  the organ that says, "We are all Home Rulers to-day." I also receive encouragement from the character of the present House of Commons. I believe, from some recent incidents, not including the one that occurred so recently as last night, that this House of Commons is going to give some surprises—whether pleasing or unpleasing to some of its leaders, as well as some of its critics, I do not know. I believe that on the Irish question it has an open mind. I believe that I express the opinion of almost everybody—not even excepting the hon. Members from the North-East of Ireland—when I say that there is in the House an eager and even passionate desire that this question should be settled. Most of the Members of this House do not, like some of us, remember the old rancours and the conflicting passions and interests of British parties in the Irish struggle. The majority of the present House of Commons have been free from these distracting influences. I therefore hope that I shall get a fair hearing and that I shall be able to bring home to the minds of the Members the realities of the rights and wrongs of this question, and though I may have to make some historical allusions to the bitter past, I shall do so with as strong control over my language as I can possibly exercise, and with no desire to arouse bitterness or passion in others.
  I have alluded to the fact that I am not now able to speak in the name of the constituencies of Ireland. To me the most disturbing as well as the most remarkable phenomenon of the day is that whatever else the policy of successive Ministries since 1914 has been, in one thing the policy has been a conspicuous success. That policy has destroyed for the moment the constitutional movement and the constitutional party in Ireland. Whether that is a triumph on which any British Government, and especially any British member of the Government, can congratulate themselves, I leave to the House to determine. What is the position of Ireland to-day? I do not know whether I should say that we have, as a few people may be inclined to say, a good Government, or as a majority of the Irish people of all parties might say, a bad Government; my complaint is that we have no Government. The Government is a Government that is apparently unable to make up its mind; it is disposed to let things drift towards the abyss of chaos till we have in Ireland, in a mild way and in a

  1441
  different shape, some of the disturbances that have brought ruin to the countries of Europe. We have on the one side widespread disturbances—on the other, severe and militarist repression. There is running to-day in Ireland a curious result of British policy. There is running a stronger anti-English feeling than I have known in my life. There is running in the United States of America to-day a stronger anti-English feeling than I have known in my life. There is a very strong anti-English feeling even in our own Dominions. I know Ministers of the Crown in our own Dominions who are in as violent hostility to the policy of the Government as I am, or as is any Nationalist in Ireland. In the paper to-day I found the speech of one of them, in strong, even violent language —it was at Sydney, I think—denouncing the policy of the Government. I took up a paper yesterday and I found that in New South Wales an Irish priest had been fined by a police-court for an anti-English speech. As for the state of feeling in America, I got yesterday from a friend of mine who was one of my most ardent supporters during my visit there—and there my principle was a principle of constitutional action as opposed to revolutionary action—that man wrote to me to say that the feeling of the Irish in America was approaching almost insanity in its violence and rage against this country.
  Some people may think that this is no new thing in Ireland—that it is not merely the chronic, but the immutable attitude of the Irish mind towards the people and the institutions of this country. I assure them they are wrong. I can speak with experience, and I can say that anti-English feeling is a tide that both ebbs and flows in Ireland. I have seen it in the height of its flood, and I have seen it at some brief periods ebbing till it almost disappeared. When I was a boy in Ireland Fenianism was rife, but when, in 1868, the late Mr. Gladstone began his policy of Irish reform I saw the beginning of a change. That change went on, not strong at first, but it went on until the moment when Mr. Gladstone made himself the protagonist of the Irish demand for self-government. During the years that that great and distinguished man was leader of the Liberal party, and adhered to Liberal principles, the feeling of bitterness and hatred towards England greatly subsided in Ireland. I can give my own testimony to the fact that it gradually and largely subsided even in America
  1442
  And it is much more difficult to have it subside in America than in Ireland. Nearly the vast majority of people of Irish blood and origin in America are either the sons or the grandsons of that vast body of the Irish population—nearly five millions—who were expelled from Ireland by famine, by eviction, and by all the horrors of the old landlord system, and there are scarcely any of these who did not hear at their mothers' knees the appalling story of the sufferings of that time, and these memories remain. I remember someone who told me how his three sisters had died on one of the death ships which were sent out from Ireland—the coffin ships as they were called—and that 300 or 400 people had died on the journey. That was the first thing he remembered hearing.
  The extraordinary thing is that I found in America during my last visit—and I have reason to recollect that very sunny Sunday on which I landed there, sunny so far as the atmosphere was concerned, but not quite so sunny so far as the psychology which I found around me was concerned— and it did not take me long to find out the difference. I said at the end of the evening that "so far as I can gather Irish feeling in America at this moment has undergone a process of what I may call racial atavism"—that is to say, whereas from 1885 and 1886, the time of Mr. Gladstone, when he was loyally and faithfully serving the cause of the Irish self-government he had at heart—whereas during that period there had been a gradual waning of anti-English feeling, a waning so great that I was able on platforms to plead for reconciliation between the masses of England and the masses of Ireland, a waning so much that I was able to suggest and to get carried a resolution holding out the olive branch of the Irish people of America to the masses of the English people—well, I came to the conclusion that that process had been interrupted. I came to the conclusion that the Irish race in America had undergone a process of facial atavism. They had jumped back from 1917 to 1846 In other words, they had jumped from the period of gradual reform in Ireland and gradual improvement of the relations and feelings between the two countries to the period of bitter and almost murderous hatred which was in Irish minds at the time of the Irish exodus. Therefore I contest the proposition that anti-English feeling has been a regular, steady, and,

  1443
  above all, an immutable attitude of the Irish in America. I have seen the fact I state in my own time.
  I want to ask the House why is it that this feeling has been changed? I want to make a statement which I dare say will be a surprise to some hon. Members of this House. That is that the attitude of Ireland to this country had not changed in 1914. I have reason to remember the historic afternoon of 3rd August, 1914. On that day my Friend Mr. Redmond made a speech which pledged Ireland, so far as he was able to pledge it, to support the Allies in this War because he regarded —as I did, and always have, I think, rightly regarded—the cause of the Allies as the cause of freedom against despotism, of justice against injustice. I remember very well when he made that speech. Old Members of the House may by this time have forgotten what were the conditions under which that speech was made. It was provoked, I think, by a statement made by the present Viscount Grey, then Foreign Secretary. Bather to the surprise of some parts of the House, the Foreign Secretary said that the one bright spot in the darkness was Ireland. That speech was immediately followed by the speech of the present Leader of the House, the Lord Privy Seal, who said that he had not only heard the speech, but that it was true, and he was glad to find it was so.
  There were twenty-five speeches made in the course of that day. To a large extent the country stood united behind the Ministry in the declaration of War and in the determination, since realised, to carry it to a successful end. Anybody who was present at that Debate of 3rd August and had gone away after it without having had the opportunity of probing the mind of the country would have left the House of Commons in the opinion that the policy of the Government, in sending the Ultimatum to Germany had been, if not repudiated, certainly violently criticised by the House of Commons. The fact was this: There were twenty-five speeches altogether, long and short. The House may be surprised to hear that of those twenty-five speeches fifteen were in criticism of the policy of the Government, some severe, some less severe. In the fifteen there were various forms of emphasis declaring against the intervention of this country in the War. I hope that will bring home to the mind of the House
  1444
  the enormous and epoch-making importance of the speech of Mr. Redmond. After the speech of the Foreign Secretary and after the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, as he then was, the first voice to hearten and encourage the House and the country in immediate intervention and determined and successful prosecution of the War, the first voice raised to agree to that policy, was the voice of the Irish Leader. Little he knew—and little I knew—when he made that speech guiding and encouraging this country in the great enterprise on which it had embarked that he was, owing to subsequent events by the very Government he supported, signing the death warrant of his own personal and political life.
  I am now dealing with the point that anti-English feeling to-day—the existence of which I admit—is permanent and immutable in Ireland. What happened after the speech of Mr. Redmond? He saw this country engaged in what every Englishman and Irishman knew to be a perilous enterprise—perhaps not so perilous and prolonged in anticipation as it turned out in the result. He saw an opportunity for an exhibition of anti-English feeling, according to the old doctrine, which is attributed originally to Daniel O'Connell, but really as old as Demosthenes. Without putting it into exact words it means: "England's danger is Ireland's opportunity." What happened? The response to the speech of Mr. Redmond was immediate, was deep, was widespread. Our young men rushed to the Flag. They went to every railway station in Ireland, with every mark of popular approval both of their course and of the policy of the Government towards which they were ready to contribute their lives. There was no band of young recruits that was not accompanied to the railway station by the parish priest, by the local political leader, by a procession, by a band! The War was as popular in Ireland as it was in England. When I come to my own people in England, Scotland, and Wales, I say that without Conscription, indeed, long before Conscription was proposed, the Irishmen of Lancashire, Yorkshire, and London rushed to the Front, not in thousands, but in tens of thousands.
  Mr. CAIRNS: What about Tyneside!
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Yes, of course. I thank my hon. Friend. I have no right to forget the Irishmen of Newcastle nor

  1445
  the splendid men of Newcastle-on-Tyne and Tyneside generally. One of the causes which has produced the transformation of feeling can be illustrated by Tyneside. A request was sent from there—and my hon. Friend will confirm it—to the War Office to raise an Irish battalion. It was refused Mr. Cowen, a worthy son of a great Englishman and a great friend of Ireland, put up £10,000 and the battalion was formed. Then a second was created, then a third, a fourth, and ultimately a fifth of Tyneside Irishmen who held their own in the worst, darkest, and most perilous hours of battle. My hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin) went all over the country, especially among his own people of Belfast, and by his own eloquent tongue was able to raise thousands of men to fight on the side of the Allies, which meant, of course, the side of England. Would that our statesmen at that time had had an ounce of foresight? Ireland threw herself into the arms of England in one of England's most perilous hours. She should have been taken to the heart of England. I remember the very evening of the speech made by Mr. Redmond. I saw that an opportunity, a golden opportunity, had come to the statesmen of this country to deal with the Irish question. Men, personal friends, and fierce political foes for ten, eighteen, or twenty years, who had fought election after election and spent thousands of pounds of money in fighting Home Rule came up to me, and declared that after that speech of Mr. Redmond they never more could feel towards Home Rule as they had felt in the past. If there had been a little prescience and judgment, and a little statesmanship in the men responsible, not merely for the Government but responsible also for the Opposition, here was the opportunity, by the assent of the majority of the House of Commons, even on that day, to win over Ireland for ever, and do away with that misunderstanding which still pursues the destinies of the two countries. What happened? I have declared, and I think I could prove it to anyone with a knowledge of the facts, that the policy of Mr. Redmond was not only accepted, but enthusiastically accepted by the majority of the people of Ireland. I have shown how the people of Ireland were rushing to the Flag. What happened? I do not know, but I have heard a good deal of the dark hand, of the hidden hand. I have not yet seen if any of
  1446
  my English friends find it in English affairs. I have not found it in Irish affairs; but it is there. Then the hidden hand began to work. There were 16,000 or 20,000 in the Sixteenth Division popularly called the Irish Brigade. My hon. Friend who took a large part in filling its ranks, made applications for commissions for some of his friends and every application was refused. Another Irish Nationalist Member did the same thing, and it worked out that although 98 per cent. of the rank and file of the Sixteenth Division were Catholics and Nationalists, 85 per cent. of the officers were Unionists and Protestants. Everybody knows these facts. I do not mention them from a sentimental point of view, but human nature is human nature, and even soldiers prefer that men of their own religion should not be excluded from the right to control them, because they profess another religion. But bad as that system was it did not work out as badly as it might have done. Unionists and Catholics, rank and file came into the common life on the drill ground, and still more on the battlefield, but all Ireland was watching, and the result was that the conviction which was expressed to me by Major Redmond became universal in Ireland, that there was a determination on the part of the military authorities in London to throw a badge of inferiority and exclusion on the majority of the Irish people who were Catholics and Nationalists. That, of course, was bad. That I think was one of the first things that began to give Sinn Fein some of the greatest strength which it ultimately attained.
  I now come to the next part of my statement. There have always been two conflicting methods by which Irish self-government could be attained. In my early days Fenianism was rampant, and revolutionary methods were regarded as the only means of obtaining self-government for Ireland. In those days those who came here, after having bought a constituency, I am not surprised that there was a decay of faith in Parliamentary efforts. Then came Mr. Butt and the constitutional movement. It will surprise some hon. Members to hear that when Mr. Butt started his party in 1870, of which we are the remnants to-day, he was stoned, hooted, and driven from his platform. I remember that he was standing as a Home Ruler at Limerick associated with Joseph Biggar a very prominent Member of this House, at a

  1447
  meeting held at Dumbarton or Manchester and they were met with stones and with nuts to prevent them speaking. Mr. Parnell, during the first years of his political activities was attacked by a remnant of the revolutionary movement, but in time Mr. Parnell and his successor, Mr. Macarthy, and Mr. Dillon and Mr. Redmond, were able to achieve so many great reforms that practically the revolutionary movement ceased to exist. A good deal of it was left, it is true, in New York and other big cities of the United States, but so low had the revolutionary movement in America fallen in the days after the constitutional movement, that I was able to raise in a single city in America more money for the constitutional cause than the revolutionary party were able to raise in a whole year. There was only one member of our party who became a Sinn Feiner, and he is a leader in the city of St. Louis in the United States. He vacated his seat, but he was snowed under by the man who represented the constitutional movement, and that movement would have been alive to-day if it had not been for you.
  There was another force which brought back the strength to the revolutionary party. Then there was the movement led by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson). Tire right hon. and learned Gentleman showed that the Irish people thought he was able to defy and beat the Sovereign, the Parliament and the electors of this country, and the weapon with which he was able to accomplish this was the gun. Is it a matter for surprise that when after we had won self-government for Ireland, after a struggle extending over nearly a century, because our struggle was born the day after the death of our Parliament, is it any wonder when we had won that struggle with the assent of the House of Commons and with the assent of the electorate of Great Britain, after the struggle by constitutional means had been won and by unconstitutional means had been nullified and destroyed, was it any wonder after all that that revolutionary method was more successful than constitutional methods.
  The story of Ireland would never be told if there was not a paradox in it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn was almost as much a hero of the revolutionary movement as he was with his friend in the North of Ireland, and they
  1448
  thanked him for liberating Ireland from the miserable, cowardly gospel of constitutional agitation and teaching the youth of Ireland the higher and nobler gospel of the sword. That is what accounts for the gradual growth of the revolutionary feeling in Ireland. That, alone, however, would not have produced it without the help of the Government. I do not accuse hon. Members of the Government of any deliberate policy in this matter, but if it had been deliberately intended to destroy the constitutional movement and create a revolutionary one in its place, they adopted the kind of methods and policy best calculated towards that end.
  Then there was the Rebellion. That in itself was not a very important event in regard to the number of people who took part in it, and it was not a popular movement at the time. The number of people in sympathy with it in Ireland was small, and if it had been treated properly the number in sympathy with it would have been smaller still. But when you send over your soldiers to deal with the people in a spirit of military dictatorship, when you really require the best statesmanship and the 'best tact of the best men of the country, when you have fifteen executions of young men, the whole spirit of Ireland is changed. You can find in history many quick triumphs of policy, but I defy you to give in the history of any country a triumph so wide and prompt as the triumph of the policy of execution which changed a friendly country into a hostile and rebellious country in the course of twenty-four hours.
  We have been constantly engaged in trying to build up our movement after the misfortunes of recent events, caused by those whose country we tried to save. Some of us engaged in that work started the negotiations of 1916. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn took part in those negotiations and so did the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin). I want to say again that my hon. Friend took great risks and he was given a very difficult and almost impossible task. As to us, we were given a task in which we were risking our political lives and a task in which, in my opinion, we lost our political lives. The agreement was that temporary exclusion should be given to six counties in the North of Ireland, and that the Irish Parliament should be brought into existence. When the right hon. Gentleman

  1449
  had beaten down all the great obstacles, passions, and suspicions of his own party, and when we had done the same, what happened? It was a difficult task. There was a Convention called in Belfast to agree to the compromise, which was addressed by the late Mr. Redmond, Mr. Dillon, and my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division. I think every bishop of Ulster was against the acceptance of this compromise, and hundreds of priests came there to vote it down. Owing to the eloquence and to the trust of these people in my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division, that compromise was carried by a great majority, and when both parties had agreed, when for the time being they had crossed the hideous chasm of hate that had divided them for centuries, when they had crossed the chasm of violent antagonism aroused owing to the Orange movement, when Irishmen of all sections had shaken hands on the compromise and agreed to try and create a new Ireland, down came the English so-called statesmen to break up the agreement, with the result that there was created a feeling amongst Nationalists that no claim could bind and no pledge could sanctify. Can you wonder that there should be an anti-English feeling in Ireland under these circumstances? That was the next step in the policy of triumphant destruction of the constitutional movement. But that was not the end of the story. You would have thought that would have been the end of this chapter of possible and impossible blunders. I should have concluded the chapter of the treatment of the Irish troops by reiterating the statement of the present Prime Minister, which was the epitaph on that chapter. He said that he was unable to defend the ineptitude, and even he might say the malignancies, of the War Office in dealing with Ireland. I wish that I could acquit the right hon. Gentleman of ineptitude and malignancies in his dealings with Ireland.
  Then we come to the change of Government. The Coalition Government was made still more remarkable by the execution of the Sinn Fein leaders. I do not dwell upon this part of my speech, but I must look at the contrast between the destinies of the two schools of revolutionaries. On the one side were the calcined remains of fifteen men who had been executed in Dublin, but the other school has brought one man to the Lord Chancellorship in England and another to the Lord Chancellorship in Ireland. We do
  1450
  not grudge these gentlemen their personal success. This other school has made two judges, one a peer, a very worthy peer—I need not say an intelligent peer, but an ornamental peer. It has made another baronet a member of the Government. This is a curious contrast between two kinds of revolutionaries in Ireland. Do you wonder that the majority of the Irish people have lost confidence and faith in British statesmanship? Then the present Prime Minister came into office. It was regarded as a good augury. He is the child of a small nation, and, so far as I know, he has been an avowed Home Ruler all his life. According to all the authorised and unauthorised biographies of him that I have ever seen, his first inspiration in his democratic career was derived by attending a lecture given by Michael Davitt. The Prime Minister's first speech was one delivered with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson) on one side and the Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Bonar Law) on the other—a somewhat strange association for a very old Radical Home Ruler, and the speech was very unsatisfactory. Through his means there was brought into existence an Irish Convention. I do not dwell upon the history of that Convention. I only want to allude to one instance in connection with it. A letter was sent to that Convention on 9th February, 1918, by the present Prime Minister, and this was the language which he used:
  "At the same time it is clear to the Government, in view of previous attempts at a 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."
  That was a remarkable letter which was sent to the Convention in the course of the proceedings. What did it pledge the Government to? It pledged the Government to the unity of Ireland under a single Legislature. What now becomes of the pretence that the Government are incapacitated from giving Ireland Home Rule because they cannot, owing to the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite, give Ireland unity under a single Legislature? If that be the case now, it was the case on 9th February, 1918, and if it were not true then it is not true now. The Prime Minister must have thought it true

  1451
  then or else he would not have pledged himself and his Government to the unity of Ireland under a single Legislature. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the objection is that I did not read the whole of it.
  Sir E. CARSON: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am very sorry if I interrupted him, but I was talking to my Noble Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil).
  Mr. O'CONNOR: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not interrupt me at all. I was only anxious to answer him if he asked me a question. What happened? Here was a direct mandate of the Prime Minister on the part not only of himself but of his Government to give Ireland unity and unity under a single Legislature, and an undertaking to carry that out. On a certain morning, I cannot give the date, either at the end of March or the beginning of April, Sir Horace Plunkett, whose services in this Convention can never be measured—at least that is my opinion, and the opinion of the majority of sane, broad-minded Irishmen in Ireland—went to Downing Street and presented the Prime Minister with a copy of the Report of the Convention, and on the Report of that Convention the Prime Minister had ample material to carry out the policy to which he had pledged himself in the letter of 9th February, 1918. That was his opportunity. If I were writing fiction, the next statement which I might put into the mouth of my imaginary character would be dismissed as violating all the laws of probability, or even possibility. But on the afternoon of the day upon which he received the Report for which he had been waiting, and on which he was pledged by that letter to propose the establishment of a single Legislature for a united Ireland, he came down to the House and proposed Conscription for Ireland. In all the annals of folly and tergiversation, I defy anybody to produce anything more foolish. I was in America at the time fighting the revolutionists. Nobody has got more of the slings and arrows of the outrageous Sinn Fein and revolutionary attack than I have. I was fighting them. It was in the middle of the apparently successful and irresistible push of the Germans against our front. What was my business there? It was, on the one hand, to uphold the constitutional movement so far as Ireland was concerned, and, on the
  1452
  other hand, to go from meeting to meeting of anxious Americans to tell them to be of good heart, because we would push through in the end, in spite of all appearances to the contrary. I think in that way I did something to encourage American patriotism.
  5.0 P.M.
  I was trying to reconcile Ireland to England at the very moment when the Prime Minister threw his bombshell and ruined all hope of reconciliation. I stayed a few weeks more, but I knew that from that hour my mission was destroyed. I knew that the Prime Minister had given over the Irish cause to the revolutionaries. The Prime Minister was warned when he introduced that proposal. He was warned by Mr. Asquith, and Mr. Henderson made a speech in which he said, "As your policy threw Russia into the hands of the Bolsheviks, so your present policy will throw Ireland into the hands of the revolutionaries." And he was right in both cases. That splendid and attractive personality whose disappearance from this House is the grief of us all, Sir Mark Sykes, gave the same warning to the Government. Mr. Dillon, the leader of a party not of seven Members, but of seventy-three, warned the Prime Minister that he was destroying the constitutional movement. The Prime Minister went on his mad course undismayed and unchecked. He did not add one Irishman to the British Army by his Conscription Act. He stopped recruiting altogether for the Army, but he did the work of recruiting for the Sinn Feiners. He sent tens of thousands of men who were wavering into the revolutionary camp, and he gave the last and deadliest blow to the constitutional movement. From that hour we have never been able to make way against the converts of the right hon. Gentleman to the gospel of revolutionism instead of constitutionalism. Where are we to-day? There is not an avenue—not one—which leads to the setting up of a League of Nations and the peace of the world in which Ireland does not appear. I have here a bundle of extracts from the speeches and messages of the President of the United States. He said:
  "This War had its roots in the disregard of the rights of small nations, and of nationalities which lacked the union and the force to make good their claim to determine their own allegiance and their own form of political life."

  1453
  At Washington's Tomb he said:
  "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."
  He asks, in his speech at New York
  "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?"
  Is not that a description of Ireland? Do you hold your control over Ireland to-day by any tie except the military power? Have you any right there to rule them except the right of force? Again:
  "Shall strong nations be free to wrong weak nations and make them subject to their purposes and interest? Shall peoples be ruled and dominated, even in their own internal affairs, by arbitrary and irresponsible force, or by their own will and choice?"
  And so I might go on. Very soon there will not be an avenue which leads to the temple of the League of Nations, and to the peace of the world, in which the path is not barred by the beckoning and accusing finger of unliberated and militarily governed Ireland. That was the opinion also of the Prime Minister at one time. I know it is said that we must not hold even a Prime Minister to a pledge six months after he has made it. That is a statute of limitations I must respect. It used not to be so when I was a younger politician, but the world has changed since then. When the right hon. Gentleman was pressing through the House of Commons his Conscription measure he was at the same time declaring to the House of Commons that he was determined to fulfil his pledge in the letter of 9th February, 1918, and to give Ireland Home Rule. Let me read some of the things he said:
  "I wish I could tell the House how vital it is (to give Ireland self-government). America—"
  He brings in America. I would like to hear the comments of the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) on the idea of bringing America into the domestic affairs of this country—
  "America, at the present moment, is coming to our aid after one of the most remarkable decisions ever undertaken by any Executive. The decision of the President of the Republic is not without difficulty. It was essential; it is the only way in which America can render practical assistance in this battle. It is full of difficulties for the Executive. I think, in these circumstances, they are entitled, I will not say to ask, because no Government can ask another Government to carry out domestic legislation of any particular character, but they are entitled, at any rate, to expect—"
  1454
  I make the Noble Lord a present of the difference—
  "from the Government of this country that we shall smooth those difficulties, and that, at any rate, we shall not increase them."
  That is my case. I stand where the Prime Minister stood in April of last year. The American Government had no right to ask —I will respect the susceptibilities of hon. Members opposite and I will adopt the word of the Prime Minister—to "expect" assistance from this country in making good relations between the United States and the British Empire.
  I say the successive acts of folly I have laid before the House have produced a feeling in America deeper and more widespread than in any period of the history of the two countries since the Civil War of 1865. What took place the other day? There was a Convention of the Irish race in Philadelphia, attended by old campaigners in the Irish movement, many of them known to me, and amongst those who attended was Cardinal Gibbons. I know no man in the United States who is more cautious, more restrained in language, and whose words carry more weight than Cardinal Gibbons. He is a man of great caution, of a fine mind. His words are listened to with equal respect on all sides. For, I believe, the first time in his life, Cardinal Gibbons appeared on an Irish platform and expressed his adherence to the policy of giving Ireland self-government. There was a debate in the House of Representatives, and the vote was 216 to 241 in favour of Home Rule, and on the very day when this debate took place there appeared, simultaneously with the account of the debate, a letter from the Prime Minister. It really was not meant to be comic, but it was comic. At the moment, so far as one can see, he was refusing Home Rule to Ireland. At the moment the House of Representatives was declaring, by an overwhelming majority, in favour of Home Rule for Ireland, the Prime Minister wrote a letter in which he said that nothing was more important and vital to the world than that America and England should keep step on the path to liberty. There are on the way now representatives of that State Convention to lay the case of Ireland before the Peace Conference. Why should not any nation have the right to lay its case before the Peace Conference?

  1455
  I come to my last point. I think the security and the honour of this Emmre are important, but more important than either is, whether the world is going to advance along the path of blood, and of national hatred and ruin to a better era of conciliation and peace. If the League of Nations does not come into a true realisation, then, in my opinion, all the precious blood—and some of it is that of the sons of men in this House—has been shed to a large extent in vain. I could quote from Mr. Beck, the most Anglophile, perhaps, of American citizens, a statement warning this country against anything that would excite the people of America and the people of England. I could quote a speech from the Secretary of War, recently delivered, in which, discussing the same question of the good relations between England and America, he declared that any antagonism or estrangement between these two nations would be the end of all things. And so it would. Who are going to be the guarantors of the League of Nations? The guarantors of the League of Nations must be the British Empire and the United States, and without their guarantee the League of Nations is a vision and a trap. You cannot have a League of Nations without close, intimate, friendly understanding and relations between the peoples of England and the peoples of the United States. You cannot have these relations unless you reconcile the Irish race. You cannot reconcile the Irish race in America without reconciling the Irish people. In refusing to reconcile Ireland you are estranging Americans. I leave to this House the choice between the two policies. One, in my opinion, leads to ruin and disaster for Ireland, for England, for the world. The other is the only one that will give some chance of the hopes we all have of seeing a better and brighter future.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: The speech to which we have just listened had a very familiar ring in the ears of those who, during the past ten years, have in this House or elsewhere been engaged in controversy over Ireland, and I suppose it was quite natural that my hon. Friend opposite should have thought it necessary to take an opportunity, in a new House of Commons, of encouraging what we may call
  1456
  a full-dress Irish debate for the especial benefit of those Members of the House who, probably, have not been giving much attention to this subject as my hon. Friend and myself have been obliged to do, and upon whom no doubt his eloquence was likely to make an impression. A great many topics which the hon. Gentleman has touched upon have worn rather thin in the Debates in this House. At the same time, I am very grateful to him for one or two omissions. One or two familiar topics are conspicuously absent from his speech to-day. I am glad to find, for instance, that the fabrication with regard to the supposed relations between my right hon. Friend and the Kaiser has dropped out of it. I also am glad to find that we have, apparently, seen the last, and heard the last, of the lie about Kuhlmann going to Ulster, and for these improvements—if I may so call them—I think we may be grateful. With those exceptions, a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said is extremely familiar. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is one of the most eloquent Members of this House. I remember that one very great authority laid it down that one of the great secrets of Parliamentary speaking was the faculty for the arrangement of material. That my hon. Friend possesses to the full. He arranges his material so successfully and cleverly that only that material appears at all upon the surface which can be useful for his particular ends, and all the connecting material which would tell against his argument is left out of sight. We had a good example of that at the very outset of my hon. Friend's speech. He was anxious to create a favourable atmosphere for his case in this new House of Commons by saying that, after all, the whole case against Home Rule was a thing of the past, that everybody had come round to his point of view and that effective opposition was entirely obsolete. Then he quoted the "Times" newspaper. The "Times" newspaper having apparently pronounced the dictum that "We are all Home Rulers now," the hon. Gentleman thinks that all is over bar the shouting. That is where my hon. Friend's great faculty for arrangement comes in, because, though he quoted that part of the "Times" article which said "We are all Home Rulers now," he was careful to say nothing about that other paragraph in the same article which said that Ulster

  1457
  had been made secure, and I have no doubt that the omission was not undesigned on the part of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Of course I accept my hon. Friend's compliments, but I cannot accept those I do not deserve. As a matter of fact, the extract I have does not contain that passage.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: That does not surprise me at all. I should have been exceedingly astonished if my hon. Friend's extract had included that paragraph. That is exactly the compliment I was paying to his ingenuity in leaving out that kind of passage from his extracts. Those who have heard other Irish Debates know that this is all very stale. We have had the usual reference to the speech which we all admired, the famous speech of the late Mr. John Redmond. We have had trotted out again all those grievances, imaginary or real, of the Irish recruits against the War Office, capped, as they always are, by the particular quotation from the Prime Minister who, at the time he spoke on the subject, was very alive to that side of the case. We have had the same menace held out as to the terrible uprising of opinion in America and the frightful consequences, not merely to Ireland or the British Empire, but to the whole civilised world, on account of this American opinion, which is not to be pacified except by granting my hon. Friend what he wants. Then we were told that the War was popular in Ireland at the beginning, and, of course, we were told that the fact that it became less popular was entirely due to the wickedness of the Government. We are told that the Government, by a wave of the wand as it were, created a hostile Ireland instead of a favourable Ireland, that it destroyed all the good effects of Mr. Redmond's speech at the beginning of the War and, as my hon. Friend reiterated time after time with great emphasis, destroyed the constitutional movement in Ireland, with awful consequences to the political Friends of my hon. Friend, which is a conspicuous feature of the present Parliament.
  We have had several Debates in which these topics have been treated, and my hon. Friends will agree that in these, for the most part, those of us who take what I may call the Ulster point of view have refrained during the War from challenging step by step, paragraph by paragraph, all those matters to which my hon.
  1458
  Friend has just referred. At this time I am not going to inaugurate a new course of debate by dealing with those matters-seriatim. I do that for two reasons, both of them good, first, because I have not the slightest desire in talking upon this subject to introduce any sort of bitterness or controversy if that can be avoided, and secondly, for a still better reason, because in my opinion the great majority of these matters, although they are no doubt of considerable interest and importance, are really irrelevant to the question of what we mean by the Irish question. There is, however, one matter to which I must refer, just to show, if I may, the skilful way in which the hon. Gentleman really manipulates, although he has no intention of so doing, the facts of history to suit his own argument. He was dealing with the subject of the rebellion in 1916. The Committee heard the eloquent way in which he described how in twenty-four hours that rebellion, which was undertaken by a few, and was only popular in a very small circle, was made the dominant view throughout Ireland. He said all that took place in twenty-four hours. To what did he attribute it? To anything but the right cause. There were really two reasons for that change. Everybody knew then who followed the matter at the time. No doubt it was an acute change by which the Sinn Fein attitude and rebellion became popular throughout Ireland. One reason was the well-intentioned but most mistaken visit of Mr. Asquith to Dublin at that time, which enabled the rebels to say that they had accomplished something, and the other reason, which was more important than that, was the speech made by Mr. Dillon from the other side of the House, which everybody remembers, in which he said that he approved of the action of these rebels and that he was proud of the youths who had shot down British soldiers in the streets of Dublin. Of course it was obvious that when the Leader of the Irish party publicly, in the House of Commons, expressed his approval and support of what had been done, it was the most natural thing in the world that public opinion in Ireland, especially the less well-instructed part of it, should take their cue from him and that the movement should immediately become popular.
  The hon. Member went on to speak of the compromise which was proposed by the Prime Minister, with regard to which

  1459
  negotiations took place very shortly after the rebellion. What an extraordinary account the hon. Member gave of those negotiations and their breakdown. He declared with all his powers of eloquence that the representative parties in Ireland had come to an agreement. His language was, "Here were Irishmen prepared for the first time in history to work together for the common good of their country, and what happened?" He pointed to the Government Bench and said, "The Government destroyed it; the Government turned it down." What are the facts? How the misunderstanding arose I do not know. That has never been explained. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman's political friends said they were never prepared, or rather said afterwards that they were never prepared, to come to an agreement which the representatives of Ulster could possibly have accepted. They were only willing to make a temporary and therefore a perfectly useless concession with regard to that portion of Ireland, and that had never been accepted by the representatives of that part of Ireland, and the moment it became clear that there had been a misunderstanding on that crucial point the negotiations broke down, not through any action on the part of the Government, but simply because of the obvious facts that nothing had been arranged to which either party had agreed.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: That is not the account of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. McNEILL: It is not my place to defend the Prime Minister. I do not know how the misunderstanding arose, but the facts, at all events, are totally different from the story told by the hon. Member.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: The Prime Minister said the Irish Members would have a right to call for his resignation because of the terms insisted upon by the present Leader of the House.
  Mr. McNEILL: The fact is that on the one side my hon. Friend and his Friends thought that the exclusion of the six counties, which was the basis of the arrangement, was to be temporary. That was a provision to which no accredited representative of Ulster could listen for one moment, because it was obviously futile. As soon as that misunderstanding became clear, the thing of course fell to pieces. The hon. Member was quite as far astray when he came to give an ac-
  1460
  count of the Convention. Several methods having failed, the proposal of the Prime Minister that there should be what is now known as partition not having found favour, we had the proposal for the Convention. There is the greatest possible misunderstanding with regard to that, and a great deal of misrepresentation with regard to what this Convention did and did not do. I believe that up to the present moment the Press has never been given liberty to discuss the whole matter and explain to the public what took place. Certainly the accounts that have been published have been far from complete or truthful accounts. I am afraid that my hon. Friend's attempt this afternoon has not added to our enlightenment on this subject. I am not going to criticise the merits of the Chairman of the Convention. I was astonished to hear my hon. Friend give his testimony, not merely personal testimony, to the action of the Chairman and say that that view would be widely shared among Irishmen who knew the facts. I thought everyone was aware that when Sir Horace Plunkett at the close of the Convention in the ordinary course was, as Chairman, going to prepare a Report, he could find no party and no group in the Convention who would trust him as Chairman to make a Report, and that they actually refused to allow him to put in the forefront of the Report a statement of his own. Without the leave of the Convention, if I am correctly informed, without any authority whatsoever, and practically flying in the face of all the instructions he had received from the Convention, not being able to make a report, not being able to write a preface, he wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, which was taken by the public, who did not know what had taken place, read it as if it was part of the report signed by the chairman, and comparatively few people read the very elaborate Blue Book, and a great many people contented themselves with reading this unauthorised letter, and, assuming from it that they had derived some knowledge of what had taken place at the Convention.
  May I say one word about the Convention itself, because there was a great deal said about the majority having arrived at certain conclusions, and it was asked why did the Government not act upon the majority report. What are the facts? Go back to the history of the institution of the Convention. The Convention was merely an attempt to bring together two parties

  1461
  in Ireland who had been at loggerheads. [HON. MEMBER: "Three!"] Three parties, but two mainly. It was really a continuation of the Conference at Buckingham Palace. It was an attempt to solve the Irish question, and although there may be some groups of representatives, roughly speaking, on the Irish question, there are only two parties, the Nationalists and the Ulster party. The object of the Convention was to try to bring those two parties together and arrive at a policy which both would accept. For weeks and months the Convention went on but the real crucial point never came up for discussion at all. A lot of minor matters were debated interminably, but when the real matter came up, whether or not there should be an Irish Parliament, for that after all was the gist of the matter, radical disagreement between the two parties immediataely became apparent. Therefore there never was anything in the nature of agreement in the Convention, and there was never anything which, in the ordinary sense of the word, could be called a majority report. My hon. Friend (Mr. O'Connor) lays great stress upon the passing of the Act extending Conscription to Ireland. He tries to persuade the House that that largely accounts for the state of Ireland to-day and for the destruction of what he calls the constitutional party. Surely we ought to observe some sort of perspective in these matters, and you cannot arrive at a decent perspective in a matter of this sort if you leave out of account the surrounding circumstances of the time just as the hon. Member speaking of what he calls the severity with which the rebellion of 1916 was punished leaves out of account the circumstances of the time. Here was this country engaged in the War, at a very dangerous stage of the War, a dangerous rebellion broke out, accompanied by a German landing in Ireland, an Irish traitor landed at Cork, and an armed rebellion broke out in the streets. Will anyone really say under these circumstances that such treatment as was accorded to the very small body of men who acted as ringleaders and who were executed, compared with the large number who were treated with very great leniency, can be called severity? It is equally true with regard to Conscription. The hon. Member described how he was at that time engaged in America in fighting for the constitutional movement and fighting for the favourable
  1462
  opinion of the Allied cause in America. I know he was doing all that. Then he says he was frustrated because at that moment the Prime Minister destroyed all his efforts by bringing in Conscription for Ireland. In other words, this terrible thing that was done was that the Prime Minister tardily, as many of us think, actually came to the House of Commons and proposed that Irishmen should bear their share of the War and make the same sacrifices as the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member did not tell us that. He gave a very different colour to it, and I think I might strengthen my side of the picture by going on to point out what my hon. Friend ignored altogether, that at least one quarter of the people of Ireland were passionately anxious to bear the same burdens and the same sacrifices as the rest of the United Kingdom, and that that quarter, the Ulster people, who were willing to assume that sacrifice and that burden, had already under voluntary enlistment contributed more soldiers to the Army than all the rest of Ireland put together.
  Captain REDMOND: When the hon. Member makes that assertion, which has been so constantly made in this House and in the country, does he refer to Ulster or to the North-East corner of Ulster?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Are you taking credit for all the soldiers from Ulster?
  Mr. McNEILL: I am not taking credit for all the soldiers from Ulster, but I hope the hon. Member is not taking credit for all the soldiers from Tyneside.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Do I understand that in this particular instance the hon. Member refers to the soldiers from Ulster as the soldiers who are political supporters of his or the soldiers who come from Ulster irrespective of politics and religion?
  Mr. McNEILL: Certainly irrespective of politics. I have no means of knowing what are their politics. All I am saying is that hon. Members claim not only all the soldiers who enlisted in the Southern provinces, but apparently all the soldiers and sailors who enlisted in the Army and Navy of Irish birth in all the rest of the world. A very large number of Irishmen who have joined the forces both in England, and Scotland, and in the Dominions, are soldiers who, so far as politics and religion are concerned, are much more in sympathy with the Ulster point of view. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

  1463
  It only shows that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Redmond) wants to have it both ways. Every Irishman who has enlisted in every part of the world is to be regarded as a Nationalist.
  Captain REDMOND: I entirely dissociate myself from that.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir F. Banbury): I do not think this discussion, whether Nationalist or men from Ulster are most loyal, has anything to do with the Vote now before us.
  Mr. DEVLIN: This is not a question of religion or politics. It is a question of fact.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It has nothing to do with the Vote.
  Mr. McNEILL: I quite agree, although I think it is a legitimate point, that a great deal too much can be made of it, and too much has been made of it perhaps by both sides. Throughout his speech the hon. Member spoke of the action of the Government in destroying the constitutional movement, and he has told us of the terrible consequences arising from that. Does he mean that he and his party are more constitutional than the Sinn Fein party, and, if so, in what way?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Because we came here and trusted this Parliament, which we never should have done.
  Mr. McNEILL: I have not seen any evidence of any particular difference in method or in aim between the two parties. It is certainly a very remarkable circumstance, which the hon. Member has not tried to account for, that within a very short period practically the whole population of the three provinces of Ireland have changed from calling themselves Nationalists to calling themselves Sinn Feiners. That is to say, they have altered their label at all events. Does the change of label represent any substantial change either in aim or in method? The hon. Member thinks the change is fundamental. He thinks it is a change, to use his own words, from constitutionalism to revolutionism. I am unable myself to see that great difference. Let me take the question of aim first. The aim of the Sinn Fein party, to judge by their speeches and writings, is the complete independence of Ireland. Does that represent a change of label? I do not think it does. The hon. Member has said the movement for Home Rule began the
  1464
  day after Gratton's Parliament was destroyed. I do not say there never has been any change made from that moment till to-day. No one more clearly pronounced that than the late Mr. Redmond, who said within very recent years that the aim of the party to which he belonged was the absolute and complete independence of Ireland. He said it in America. I do not know that he has ever said it in this House. Probably he was addressing a very different audience, with a very different object.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is that a quotation from the "Grammar of Anarchy"?
  Mr. McNEILL: No, it is not.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I will read some passages from the "Grammar" later on.
  Mr. McNEILL: I have no objection to the hon. Member reading any passages he likes. As he wants me to read the passage to which I refer I will do so. This is what the hon. Member said, speaking in 1902:
  "I know there are many men in America who think that the means which are adopted to-day for the good of Ireland ere not sufficiently sharp and decisive. I would suggest to them, would it not be well to give cur movement a fair chance, to allow us to have an Irish Parliament which will give our people all authority over the police and the justiciary, and when equipped with comparative freedom then would be the time for those who think we should destroy the last link that binds us to England to operate by whatever means we think best to achieve that great and desirable end."
  What he said in that speech was, first of all, that it was a desirable end to have complete independence of Ireland, and that he approved of achieving that end by whatever means. That is exactly the Sinn Fein position. The Sinn Fein position to-day is complete independence of Ireland by whatever means it can be achieved. The only difference is that the Sinn Fein party call themselves by a different name and they will not come to sit in this House. Is that a sufficient reason to justify my hon. Friend's "abundant evidence" as to the difference between the revolutionary party and the constitutional party to which he belongs, and which, he says, is being destroyed by the evil machinations of the Government in encouraging the revolutionary party. That is an extravagant travesty of the real facts.
  As to the terror about American opinion, I am not in the least impressed. I know that the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor) has

  1465
  been a great deal in America, and I do not for a moment deny that he is very much in touch with a certain section of American opinion, nor do I deny that the difficulty in the settlement of the Irish question is causing and always has caused a great deal of very undesirable friction between this country and the United States. I fully admit that. But we also have means of getting American opinion. We are not entirely cut off from America; we are not entirely dependent upon the hon. Gentleman for our knowledge of what people are thinking in America. During the last few years and the last few months I have met very large numbers of Americans in this country, some of whom are strong Home Rulers, and always have been, and I have come to this conclusion from what I have heard from Americans I have met in this country and from what I have seen in the Press as to what is going on in America, that so far from the animosity in America to this country increasing as the hon. Member would have us believe, the movement is entirely in the other direction. After the Americans went into the War there were two things which entirely changed their attitude as regards Home Rule and the Irish question. One was that they could not understand any more than we could understand the attitude of Irishmen, who professing loyalty and a gallant desire to help in the fight for freedom would not accept the same sacrifices as the rest of their fellow-countrymen. Another thing which the Americans could not understand was the agitation for resistance to the law which every American accepted perfectly readily and which every Englishman, Scotsman and Welshman accepted, and that that resistance was made effective by ecclesiastical assistance and by the use of spiritual terrorism which they thought had not been used in politics since the Middle Ages, These facts I believe entirely changed the opinion of America, and so far from being terrified by the menaces which the hon. Member holds out, my belief is that there is nothing we need fear so far as America is concerned.
  I think the hon. Member very seriously misjudges the British people if he thinks that the policy which he desires to realise is going to gain anything either in this House or in the country by resort to threats of that kind, of appealing to foreign opinion. I think the whole purport of the hon. Member's speech, and not for the first time, has been to persuade this
  1466
  House and the country that they are obliged to go in for Home Rule, otherwise they will have hostile America producing complications in the world situation which we dare not face. I do not believe that. The hon. Member referred to the League of Nations, and he has referred on other occasions to the watchwords of to-day in regard to oppressed nationalities, self-determination, and the rest of it. We who take the Ulster standpoint do not admit for one moment, although we have heard it asserted in this House time after time, that there is any sort of analogy between Ireland on the one hand and the oppressed nationalities on the continent of Europe, for which we have been fighting, on the other. If the Poles, the Czechs, the Slovenes, or any of the other people who have been brought up very often in debate as analogous to the Irish, had been over fed for fifty years in a free Parliament in which they were over-represented, if they had their peasantry enjoying an agrarian code that was the envy of every other country in Europe—
  Mr. O'CONNOR: When five millions have been driven out of the country!
  Mr. McNEILL: That is another story; it has nothing whatever to do with it. If their Press and their person were free, if their native and dead language had been encouraged and revived by being taught at the expense of the Treasury in the public schools—if those were the sort of conditions which prevailed in the countries which have been emancipated in this War, then we might have found some analogy between Ireland and those countries. The hon. Member cannot, without an abuse of language, draw an analogy between Ireland and these oppressed nationalities. When it comes to self-determination, he knows quite well that he is not going to allow self-determination in Ireland. He referred to the negotiations in 1916. What were those negotiations, and what did they propose? It was proposed that after this age-long conflict between two sections in Ireland who had not been able to arrive at any settlement in regard to their future government that those parts of Ireland which wanted Home Rule should have it on the principle of self-determination. Those who had fought for the maintenance of the Union for generations, under the stress of War, who were anxious not to be obstructive to the Government, gave up their insistence

  1467
  upon that maintenance, and were no longer chargeable with being anxious or willing to deny a settlement to other parts of Ireland. But they said, "If you are going to have self-determination for yourselves, then let us have it too." The hon. Member and his Friends, and the bishops of his Church and all the other forces which are in co-operation on that side, said, "No; we will not have it. Anything rather than partition."
  What does that mean? It means that the policy for which my hon. Friend and his party stands, and which he wants if he can to carry into the councils of the Peace Conference in Paris, and which he wants to impress upon the world, is self-determination for Munster, Leinster and Connaught, coupled with domination over us; domination over those who are outside their own borders. That is the sort of self-determination which I do not think the Peace Conference are likely to support. So far as I am concerned, and I believe most of my Friends are in agreement with me on this, although we have never sought partition, if we have to have partition we should dislike partition from England a great deal more than partition from the South of Ireland. When the settlement comes, as the settlement must come, it is upon such lines as that, true self-determination for all parties concerned, that I believe the only hope lies of a solution of this question.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: There is one sentiment which my hon. Friend uttered with which I entirely agreed, and it is that it is the business of this country, undeterred by the opinion of any other country, and unafraid of it, to determine our policy with regard to the constituent elements of our own country. That is perfectly clear, and, while I am not certain that my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in any way intended to threaten this country when he referred to the condition of American opinion to-day, I am sure he will agree with me, and with my hon. Friend opposite, that it is the business of this country, and this country alone, to settle her internal affairs on her own sole responsibility. Those who are new Members of this House will be glad to know there is nothing new in the speeches to which we have listened.
  Sir E. CARSON: It is all new to me.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Which speech?
  Sir E. CARSON: Both of them.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Then my right hon. Friend has forgotten a good deal, and let us hope that he is going to make a new beginning. My hon. Friend (Mr. McNeill) has spoken this afternoon with an eloquence, an earnestness, and a sympathy which he has seldom exceeded, but I was particularly interested in the concluding sentence of his remarks, when he uttered what I knew was in his heart and the hearts of his colleagues from Ulster, the knowledge that this question has to be settled, speedily settled, and undoubtedly settled on lines of self-determination. There is no doubt about that. I knew it would come; I waited for it, and it came at the end. There is that spirit, undoubtedly, in the leaders of all parties, certainly of the constitutional parties of Ireland. We have to consider this afternoon not what the past has been, not what are the bright hopes that have been shattered, but what is the position to-day. The present position is tragic. I had a letter sent to me a few days ago from a friend of mine, a distinguished author, one who has served four years in the War, a true son of Ireland, who has just returned there. This is one sentence:
  "Returning to the country after four and a-half years, I am really appalled by the scandal it presents of people governed by naked force; essentially the same system as in Belgium and in Germany; armed police, soldiers, machines, tanks, gas, etc.—all the hideous paraphernalia of war. The whole of it apparently to repress a people who are determined in some way or another, to attain their liberty."
  The Secretary of State for War told us that there are no fewer than 44,000 troops in Ireland. We all know that that cannot go on. Something must be done. This is the first opportunity which this House has had of getting from the Government a declaration of its policy. I hope that we shall get that from my right hon. Friend, in whose task we all, in every part of the House, extend to him our sympathy, while expressing the hope that he will be able to bear the heavy burden laid upon him and do something to lighten the darkness across the Irish Channel. What is the position there? Not only have you armed force, but, as always happens in Ireland, you have some comic relief. Sinn Fein Members of Parliament are showing a new form of gaol delivery and release in a form which occasionally suggests comic opera rather than serious dealing with the methods of justice.

  1469
  Something must be told to the House of Commons, which, after all, at the present moment is responsible. Parliament is responsible, and I ask my right hon. Friend to tell us, so far as he can bring his mind to the responsibility with regard to the military situation, what numbers of troops are there, how they will be used, what is the position of the judiciary? Because, after all, the news is censored from Ireland. We do not really know here what is going on through the Press. Now is our opportunity, and we ask the responsible officer of the Government that he shall tell the House of Commons frankly what is the position in Ireland and what is the policy of the Government with regard to it? I repeat it is impossible that the present position should go on. I do not wish at all to enlarge upon the difficulties of the situation. There they are. Everybody agrees as to them. No matter where you turn, you find the problem of Ireland continually cropping up. And we have need of an immense amount of moral force in dealing with these larger questions so long as Ireland remains as she is. It is perfectly clear that the Irishman himself cannot settle it. I was hopeful—we all were—after the tragedy of the rebellion of 1916, when the Convention was set up and within an ace, as far as we could judge, of a real chance of settlement being approached; but the tragedy broke out at the end. It has been tried over and over again, and I do not think that Conventions will ever settle it. It has got to be done by some people outside of Ireland.
  Sir E. CARSON: Force!
  Sir D. MACLEAN: My idea of government is that the only principle on which government can adequately be based is that there must be government by consent. But there must be the intervention of Parliament to deal with it. That is our responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Government at present in power, or of any Government, to deal instantly with this terrible problem. Is there any hope of the situation? I believe that there is great hope. While I confine the brief remarks which I have made on the present position, I cannot stop emphasising what I believe to be the only way, and a way that has never yet been tried, in Ireland, though wherever we have tried it in our far-flung Dominions beyond the sea it has succeeded. There are two difficult facts at present. One is the pledge to Ulster. I agree. And the
  1470
  other is the fact that the Home Rule Bill is on the Statute Book. I believe that if the Government firmly grasped the position and took risks not on the side of physical force, but with the great moral forces that are brought into the world today, a great and beneficent change would speedily take place. It is the only way we have not yet tried. We have tried every other way. Material advantages—Ireland is materially prosperous to-day: more materially prosperous than ever she was. It cannot be that. There is something far more deeply seated than that, and all history teaches us that the only way to cure that is by the application of the moral forces. If I may be allowed a quotation I would ask the House to remember the appeal of Macbeth to the physician:
  "Canst thou not minister to a mind diseas'd;
  Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow;
  Raze out the written troubles of the brain;
  And, with some sweet oblivious antidote,
  Cleanse the stuff'd bosom of that perilous stuff,
  Which weighs upon the heart?"
  And the reply of the physician:
  "Therein the patient
  Must minister to himself."
  Sir E. CARSON: I am not at all sure of the great futility of this Debate to-day. For my own part, on the lines that it has gone I shall hope to continue it for a very short time. Everybody knows that this question will have in some way or other to be dealt with by the Government at the end of the War. There is an Act upon the Statute Book—the Act of 1914. I am not going to take time to inquire into the way in which it went on the Statute Book, as to which I might have a great deal to say. It is accompanied, as my right hon. Friend has said, by a pledge by his former Leader, and I think his present Leader.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: My present Leader.
  Sir E. CARSON: Mr. Asquith?
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Yes.
  Sir E. CARSON: I have no doubt that he and Mr. Asquith will loyally carry it out. But since then by every party in the State there have been further pledges upon the same lines, and there is a specific policy on which the Government went to the country at the General Election contained in the letters that passed between the Leader of the House and the Prime-Minister and a large majority was returned, who, I suppose, at all events most of them, were satisfied with the arrange-

  1471
  merit contained in those letters. There for, I say at some time this question will have, I suppose, to be thrashed out. But the remarkable thing at the present moment is—it may be altered in the course of the evening—that I know of no one in Ireland who approves of the Home Rule Act of 1914. The Sinn Feiners repudiate it. What they conceive to be the miserable subordinate rights that were created under that Act, far removed to their thought from independence, was one of the most powerful factors in throwing over what has been called here for shortness the constitutional party. I do not think that the hon. Members opposite desire the Home Rule Act of 1914—indeed, I think the Leader of the party—
  Mr. DEVLIN: Who is he?
  Sir E. CARSON: You. I am not in your secrets, but I naturally selected the hon. Gentleman as he came from Belfast. He declared that the only thing that would satisfy him, and I suppose that is steering as near Sinn Fein as possible, would be what he calls "Dominion Home Rule." I think that I am right in that.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Right you are!
  Sir E. CARSON: That is very far removed from the Home Rule Act on the Statute Book, and, as someone used to say in this House, we are getting on. That is virtual independence, because everybody knows that to-morrow, if Canada or Australia were to decree that they should cut the painter with this country, no one would try to hold them. They are held by sympathy, loyalty, and affection to the Mother Country, and nobody would dream for a moment of using force to retain them. Therefore, they are independent. Therefore, the new complications that are arising now are something quite different from what was always the allegation in the controversy with reference to the old Act of 1914. It may be that from the lessons of the War, which we are always told to take, this country will make up its mind that Ireland is utterly unimportant in the event of war breaking out, or for any other reason that it may desire to cut the painter with Ireland and to say, "We will have no more to do with you. Go and do for yourself, and you can in a future war hand over your ports, whether on the West or the Eastern Coast to such people as may be the enemies of
  1472
  this country, though only twenty miles away from here." That may be so. But all that seems to me to be a matter which has to be considered when the Government proceed to say what they are going to do with the Home Rule Act which is now upon the Statute Book, and all I really wish to know this evening is this, and all I was going to say on the part of the subject is this, that I can find no one—and I hope that the Government will notice this—who is in favour of an Act put on the Statute Book no longer than five years ago, which took many, many years to frame, and as to which I have incurred great odium for the extreme course which I took in trying to prevent its being put on the Statute Book.
  One other matter only will I refer to. I have been challenged by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) with crimes in regard to what I did in Ireland in relation to the resistance of Ulster. I do not think any good is to be gained by entering into a justification of my position. It would take too long, and now it is past history. Let me say this much, that no one has yet quoted to me an instance of any country trying to drive out from its citizenship those who were contented and loyal so long as they were in it; and if ever resistance was to be justified on any ground nothing would justify it more, in my opinion, than that men who lived and believed in the citizenship of the United Kingdom should be told "notwithstanding that you are loyal, you must be driven out and handed over to those who hate you and are disloyal to the rest of the United Kingdom." What has been the development since? Has it not shown how right we were? Ireland is now showing her true colours, and the men you wanted to hand us over to, and for resisting which action you jibe at us, are the men who, in the darkest hour of your need, shot your soldiers in the streets of Dublin and stabbed you in the back at a moment when the vital interests of the country were in the scale. After all, I am of opinion that myself and others from Ireland have talked a great deal too much about this question in the past, and I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite as to whether, in the interim until these matters have to be again raised—whether in an acute form or more mellow form, I do not know which—it would not be well for us to turn to many of the shortcomings of

  1473
  the administration of legislation in Ireland while it is still under the Imperial power.
  At my election I gave pledges that I would do my best to get remedied a state of facts which are a disgrace to this country in relation to education in Ireland, and I hope that hon. Members who are expecting what I may call a fighting speech on Home Rule will allow me to say that at the present moment, at all events, I look upon the question of reconstruction in Ireland—the questions of education, of health, of housing, and many other matters—as of far more immediate importance than raising our old controversy under the Home Rule Bill. If I may I would say a word of welcome to the Chief Secretary, who has undertaken the most difficult office in the whole Government; and I say with all sincerity that until, at all events, these controversies again become acute I would ask him to try and be rather the friend of Ireland than the champion of its political parties; and if he will only be that, I think he will have already learnt that his hands are full with the many ways in which he can bring home a greater alleviation of grievances in Ireland. Education in Ireland is really one of the most lamentable matters one can bring up, and which we are bound to bring up and to press on this House. I know it is not a very interesting subject to the House, but, after all, it is one of those matters which go to the very root of society, which commences to operate on children at the very earliest age, and which must have regard not only to their progress and prosperity but to all the elements that go to make up the life of a good citizen. I read a speech—a painful speech—made a few days ago—on the 28th of last month—by Dr. Starkie, the resident Commissioner of Education in Ireland. Dr. Starkie has been a long time Commissioner and he gives the sad history of his efforts from time to time to have this question of education seriously gone into by representatives of His Majesty's Government. I will only quote one passage to show the way in which he has been met. The words are these:
  "Then came along Lord MacDonnell in 1905. He was full of hope and appointed two commissions and a single individual—Mr. Dale—who reported on all sorts of proposals. But there was no money for them forthcoming, and they had to be carried out for nothing. Then came Mr. Birrell, who kept them going with a few jests for nine years. … Then came Mr. Duke who was
  1474
  going to do everything, but whose record is that for even a simple matter he generally took six months."
  That is a statement by a very earnest eminent permanent official. Lately we have had two reports. I have not been able to get the one on Intermediate Education, although I have asked for it here in the House of Commons. The second was the Primary Education. I am very glad that the Minister of Education for England is here, and I am really obliged to him for being present, although I dare say his presence is quite accidental. He has done great things for this country. He passed two Bills last year, or at least he passed one and a similar measure was passed for Scotland. These two Bills were described by the Prime Minister as being the charter of education for every British child, however humble—the charter enabling him to reach the highest rung of the ladder. I asked at the time why neither of these Bills was applied to Ireland, and why nothing relating to or equalling them was passed for Ireland and I never got an answer. One of the things I pledged myself to do at the General Election was this, that I believed it to be entirely in the interests of Ireland that we Members representing Ulster constituencies, whatever the rest of Ireland might do, should, so far as was in our power, insist on every advantage given to Englishmen or Scotsmen in this Parliament being also given in the period of Reconstruction to our Irish fellow countrymen, and, at all events, if the people of the South and West did not want it it should be given to our Ulster fellow countrymen in the North. Education in Ireland is one of the scandals of the Government which stand out preeminently above all others, and I hope the Chief Secretary to-night—because after all we are upon the Estimates, and this is the occasion that the Leader of the House told us last week when I put a question to him was the proper occasion to raise this question—will tell us he is seriously taking into his consideration the very grave situation which has been disclosed by the Report on Primary Education with regard both to the teachers and to the pupils.
  Let me say that I have been for years struggling in this House trying to improve the condition of the teachers. Everything we have ever said on that subject is justified by the Report of the Commission appointed by the Government last year, and I do beseech my right hon. Friend

  1475
  this year without delay—and this does not require legislation—to accord to the teachers in Ireland the conditions both of pay and employment which are recommended by the Report of the Commission. It is all very well to talk of the children growing up disloyal and being this, that or the other. Why, they were taught by people who were ground down to a position almost of slavery by the wretched pittance with which they had to try to appear in a state of respectability before their classes, and then, when their work was over, they had to go out and, as best they could, try and scrape together money for the cleaning and carrying on of the schools. That has been allowed to go on— and why? Because hon. Members and myself were spending whole days discussing the question which has been introduced here this afternoon, while the necessity of really bringing up these things and insisting upon the Government giving to these people the same rights as are enjoyed by Englishmen was ignored. I am sorry to have to go into details of this kind—but there is more than that. The House will hardly believe it, but there are a number of teachers who were promoted and entitled to certain salaries. I have got the dates and particulars here, but I need not go into them, as I am sure my right hon. Friend knows them perfectly well. Although they were promoted, they were told year after year that they could not get the promotion pay until further funds came in. It was what they call in Ireland —and no wonder they do so call it—paper promotion. Some of these claims have been settled, but there are still remaining?—and they have been a pathetic sight during the War—many cases where it has been practically impossible to make both ends meet, and yet some of these men have been owed arrears of money for three or four years. I think the total amount only comes to £6,000 or £7,000. We were promised twice in this House that these men should be paid, and although the Board of Education in Ireland have applied over and over again to the Treasury to enable them to carry out the pledges of the Chief Secretary, the Treasury, which will give millions for many purposes, have refused to give these poor men this £6,000 or £7,000 up to this date. These paper promoted people have never got a shilling of the money, which is just as much their right as is the salary of the right hon. Gentlemen
  1476
  sitting on that bench their right. Therefore, I hope that the Chief Secretary tonight will put an end to that scandal.
  The Report of the Commission laid down that it was impossible to improve the education, having regard to the buildings and everything else, unless a rate is struck. You struck a rate in this country —I think it is nearly fifteen or sixteen years since you put education on the rates —and it is perfectly clear, as pointed out by the Commission, that you will make no advance until you do that. The way it is done now in Ireland is this. The Board of Commissioners write over to say, "We want so much," and the Treasury write back and say, "We can only afford so much," and, as Dr. Starkie, the Resident Commisioner, says in his Report, "No matter what glaring grievance wants to be attended to, I cannot attend to them, because I am only given so much, and I am told, 'Make it do as well as you can, and trust to next year.' "That is, let the schools be insanitary, as they are, and let the teachers be inefficient, as they are; and let the teachers be underpaid, as they are underpaid. Let it all go on, because we have other obligations, and we cannot afford some comparatively small amount until, I suppose, the National Debt is paid. There is a plain remedy suggested by the Report of the Commission, and it is that there should be a rate struck—a local rate. I do not exactly know, I have not been able to make out from the Report how they propose to raise that rate or who is to be rated, and I do not think it is clear by the Report. But let me say this, taking Belfast, which I know, and which I am bound to know most about, and let me ask the House to notice this. Belfast is a great industrial centre. Eighty-five per cent. of my Constituents, although I am represented by the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) as representing the aristocracy, are working men mostly in the shipyards. Belfast is a city which has entirely outgrown its clothes. It has really nothing there to be increased. In 1881 the population was 208,000, and it is probably 414,000 at the present moment, and growing every day. This House will hardly believe in a great industrial centre of that kind filled with those great working classes, who, I venture to say, have proved to be as worthy citizens of the Empire during the War as any others in the whole United Kingdom, and who contributed out of their population without any Conscription 42,000 or

  1477
  43,000—[An HON. MEMBER: "46,000!"]] — men, or one in nine, or something of that kind, and who built your ships and turned them out quicker than in any other yards in the Kingdom, and who built standard ships which were sorely needed, as we all know, in times of danger—will this House, believe that in that community at the present moment there are from 15,000 to 20,000 children who cannot go to school from day to day because there is no school for them to go to. I think it is a positive shame, and I have told the people in Belfast in no uncertain tones since I came there that it was their duty not to tolerate it for one moment, and if they could get it in no other way they must go down and never leave the steps of the Chief Secretary's Office until their claim is satisfied. What is the difficulty? There are from 15,000 to 20,000 children for whom there is no room, and eighty of the schools even that are there, insanitary and condemned, but still going on to the danger of the health of the children, and children are turned away by the medical officers from day to day on the ground that the existing schools are overcrowded.
  But there is something more. The Corporation of Belfast are quite willing to have a rate. The Chamber of Commerce and the Corporation have been working together and have evolved a scheme, of which I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has had a copy. There are nine Members in this House from Belfast, and nine out of the ten who have been returned at the election, and I give the hon. Member for the Falls the credit of being just as anxious about this subject as I am, are in favour of it. Therefore we are prepared in Belfast to have a rate. The rate recommended by the Committee on Primary Education will not do for us because it is limited to maintenance and upkeep. That will not do for us because we must get schools and more modern schools, and we know perfectly well we cannot come here asking for large Grants in the present state of affairs, sufficient to meet those wants. We are willing to pay for them ourselves if this Parliament will only allow us to do so. That is our whole demand. I may be met, and I will be met with this difficulty. It will be said: "Oh, but the rest of Ireland do not want it." Then give us the chance in Belfast, and what is more I firmly believe this. If you give us the chance in Belfast it will not be very long until the rest of Ireland
  1478
  imitate our example and come to ask for the very same power. I do beseech of my right hon. Friend to hold out to us this evening some hope that we may have this great commencement of some prosperity as regards education in one of the most progressive and most growing communities in the whole of the United Kingdom. There is a sectarian difficulty, I am very sorry for it. When I at the General Election at Belfast said I was in favour of a rate for education in Belfast I was at once denounced by a very reverend gentleman, one of the bishops. He said I wanted to introduce godlessness into Ireland. Heaven knows I do not. I do not want to interfere with that in the slightest degree, and I say here now in the most emphatic way that any way my right hon. Friend likes to come to terms with the Catholic Church in Belfast, so as to please them in regard to their schools, I shall not oppose it one iota. We want schools for our own children; we want new schools for those 15,000 children, and better schools for those at school, and so far as I am concerned you can settle sectarian differences any way you like, only let us have the schools. Let us have decent schools, let us have decent teachers, and let us not have these boys and girls and children wandering about the streets and growing up without any hope that education may give them. There is something more. I hope my right hon. Friend will also tell us that he will try, as far as Belfast is concerned at all events, to bring us up to date. By that I mean that he will give us all that is given to England and Scotland by what I may call the Fisher Acts. I hope so. What is happening at the present moment in Belfast? I am told that the bulk of the children, or a great many of the children leave school at ten years' old, or eleven years' old, pass out and nobody interests themselves very much about them afterwards, because that makes vacancies in the school in which, there is a long waiting list to try and get somebody in. I want those children to go on at school and to go on into continuation classes and to get the same chance as boys in England or in Scotland get, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us that that is his policy. But there is something more. We also want full power over our technical institute, which is most important in a place like Belfast.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Home Rule.
  Sir E. CARSON: I do not want to wait until we get Some Rule. I have been waiting thirty years, and I am afraid a great many boys have grown up ignorant during that time. The War has knocked a great deal of politics out of me, and I want to do my best to show some gratitude to the people who won the War. The technical institute is a very fine institution in Belfast, and I believe the best in Ireland. What happens? Nobody can go over this building without being delighted at seeing the technical instruction that is given there. What happens? It cannot expand. There is no money and no building. It is a large building as it is. I spoke to the head of the technical institute when I was over there, and I said, "Is it progressing," and he replied, "How can we progress; there is no room to progress. I had to turn 700 students away last year from the technical institute." I say that this Parliament ought to be ashamed of itself, and there again I say give us power to deal with it from our own rates. Belfast is quite rich enough to pay for these things, and they ought to be made to pay. Then again as regards the technical institute, I do indeed, with all the force I can command, beg of the right hon. Gentleman to take it seriously in hand. I am not in a position to deal with the Intermediate Education Report because I have not seen it, but I have no doubt my right hon. Friend will see what is there, and will have it considered. Just let me take one or two other matters. You will hardly believe it, but even as regards the blind and the deaf we are behindhand in Ireland. I have a Report here of an Advisory Committee on the Blind. Fortunately there are only a few hundred, but they are a very piteous few indeed. Here is what they say:
  "The position of the blind in Ireland is on an entirely different footing to that in England and Scotland. As a result of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Blind, etc., 1889, Parliament passed the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) (England and Wales) Act, 1893, and the Education of the Blind and Deaf Mute Children (Scotland) Act, 1890. These measures gave compulsory education to England and Scotland, while additional provision for secondary and technical education was included in the England and Wales Act, 1902, and the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908. In carrying out the enactments liberal financial assistance is provided by the Government and the local authorities. Boards of guardians also, under previous Acts, had full power to provide for the education, training, employment, and relief of the blind to any extent they might think fit."
  1480
  Not a single one of those Acts applies to Ireland. The Report goes on:
  "In Ireland nothing of a similar nature has been done, and the care of the blind has been left entirely to private charity, assisted to a small extent by grants from boards of guardians. The grants are only given in the case of the destitute poor and cannot exceed 5s. per week in the case of persons over eighteen years of age. There are no other grants applied for, either education, training, employment, or relief of incapacity."
  Ought we not to be ashamed? I might go on. I believe the teachers in the industrial schools get miserable pittances and no pensions; and as regards pensions, I do suggest to my right hon. Friend to follow the example of the English Minister, because I know very well that nothing has done more to improve the whole status of teachers than the Bill brought in last year, which put the teachers' pensions on such a satisfactory ground, and which I know has given a great deal of satisfaction. To make one more suggestion to my right hon. Friend, may I remind him that there is a university in Ireland? I am not going to ask for a further Grant towards it, because I might be making too large a demand; but will he see this, what I see I hope clearly, that with primary education, technical education, and a university in a great and growing community there is good material to work on? They ought to be so coordinated that the student who wants to do so, and who is of sufficient ability to do so, ought to be able to pass on from his primary education to his technical education and on into the university. We ought to have these three coordinated, and may I say that one of the best ways of helping would be that you should have a teachers' training college in Belfast? One of the most absurd things, it seems to me, considering the population of Belfast to be a tenth of the whole of Ireland, is that a teacher to be trained has to go to Dublin, while you could have the training college in Belfast directly in contact both with the technical institute and the university.
  Mr. DEVLIN: There is a training college in Belfast for teachers.
  Sir E. CARSON: I do not know it.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I can tell you all about it.
  Sir E. CARSON: I received a deputation when I was over there asking me to help them get a training college.
  Mr. DEVLIN: There is a training college for female teachers, and the teachers come from all parts of Ireland to this Belfast College.
  Sir E. CARSON: Is it a sectarian college? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] If so, they do not go to it, of course. The bulk of the people in Belfast—I mean three-quarters of them—are Protestants, and if that is a purely sectarian training college of course, they do not go to it.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Why do not they provide their own?
  Sir E. CARSON: I am not complaining that it should be sectarian; I am very glad it is so.
  An HON. MEMBER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the colleges in this country are sectarian too?
  Sir E. CARSON: Then let us have a sectarian one in Belfast also, but I do not know whether the hon. Member is right in his information. I should not have thought that that would have been admitted when I heard the Education Acts discussed here. However, all I say is—I do not want to raise any controversy—that the teachers who teach in the schools that are under managers who are Presbyterian or Episcopalian or other Protestant denominations have to go to Dublin to be taught, while at the same time there is the very best material and the very best organisation in the University of Belfast which could be utilised for that purpose. One point more about education. I really hope my right hon. Friend will refer to the Committee what I see they were not allowed to discuss before, and that is the merits of the managerial system. I see that Dr. Starkie says that if they had discussed it at all the roof of the house in which they were met would have been blown off. But the managerial system is really a great failure in Ireland, and I can assure hon. Members opposite who disagree with me on most things that even teachers in the Catholic schools are in many cases very discontented, as they write to me about the managerial system, about the methods of appointment, and, above all, about the method of dismissal. They complain over and over again—I have had letters from all parties on this subject—of the unfair way in which they are treated and that they have no remedy whatsoever. I hope my right hon. Friend, in considering the
  1482
  salaries of these teachers, will really seriously consider whether the basis of capitation grant cannot be altered. The teacher is paid not according to the number of his scholars, but according to the numbers who come, which seems to me the most absurd system that could be possibly suggested. I might say a great deal more about education, but I will not do so now. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what the Government are doing about housing. A housing Bill has been brought in for England, and I was told by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that there was to be one brought in almost immediately for Ire land. I hope it will soon be brought in. All I can say is that in Belfast there is a great dearth of houses, and with a growing population of that kind it is likely to lead not merely to great inconvenience but to a great deal of discontent and a great deal probably of illness. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is pressing on with that Bill, and I apologise to the House for detaining them so long with questions of this kind. I know they anticipated that I would rather make another kind of speech, as regards Home Rule, but—
  Captain REDMOND: It is a good Home Rule speech you are after making.
  Sir E. CARSON: That is not my view. I think we can get the money better out of the Imperial Treasury than we ever will out of a Sinn Fein treasury. However that may be, all I can say is that everybody knows I never cloak my views about Home Rule and never refuse to express them, but I do hope that in the short time that I remain in this House—and it cannot be very long—I shall have much more opportunity than I have had in the past of trying to do something real and tangible for the classes which I represent in Belfast, and I believe that by taking a line of that kind and trying to assist in obtaining for them the same advantages as are got in England and in Scotland, I will be doing far more service than ever I was by devoting my whole time to politics.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I should have preferred if it had been possible for the Chief Secretary to have spoken at this stage, but the Debate has taken a turn and matters have been introduced into the discussion this afternoon in a way which I think entitles me to intervene at this stage of

  1483
  the proceedings before the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. May I be allowed to say how deeply I rejoice that the right hon. and learned Gentleman bad the distinction of the presence of so many Members in this House when he delivered his speech, because I think it will be admitted in every part of the House, whatever the peculiar political distinctions may be, that a more powerful indictment of British rule in Ireland has never fallen from the lips of any hon. Gentleman than the speech which we have just heard. What was the picture that the right hon. Gentleman painted? He painted a picture of bad housing, of starved teachers, of neglected education, of shivering children, of an inflated British Treasury refusing to disburse a single farthing for the promotion of anything in Ireland. How long has the right hon. Gentleman been asleep? He constitutes himself to-night the vocal Rip Van Winkle of British politics. How long have teachers in Ireland been badly paid?
  Sir E. CARSON: Have I not often asked for better payment?
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. DEVLIN: But you were the master of the situation. We had no power. You are the master of successive British Ministries. The late aide-de-camp of the right hon. Gentleman, the late Marquis of Londonderry, was Minister for Education in England, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he could have secured the services of the Leader of the House to assist him in his Ulster campaign surely he would have sufficient influence with him to endeavour to extract from him some of those golden British sovereigns that would have brought some comfort to the shivering children and some advantage to the bad schools. But we are living in strange times, and instead of meeting the situation as it exists, instead of recognising as the whole speech of the right hon. Gentleman must have recognised that it is not by coming here to a Parliament over-weighted with Imperial and national concerns, and that it is not by coming here to an institution of seven hundred Members engaged in a never-ending competition for the precise interests that they stand for and for the universal interests for which the Parlia-
  1484
  ment stands as a whole, every one of those questions which have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman to-night are not questions for the Imperial Parliament at all, If ever there was a litany of grievances recited which could only be redressed by the application of native intelligence and local information, it is the series of grievances which have been mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his speech to-night. For forty years in this House Nationalist Members from Ireland have raised everyone of these questions. The right hon. Gentleman only omitted one question, and that was the question of sweated labour. In a spirit of intellectual forgetfulness he forgot that there was such a thing as sweated labour, and omitted that from the series of grievances under which the workers and toilers suffer in Belfast. But to come here now, at the eleventh hour, and to tell us that there was a cessation of political hostilities—I think that was his expression—that political passions and controversies were not acute, that it was a cold and placid moment in which to raise this question—well, I would ask the Chief Secretary, when he comes to reply, Are the passions in Ireland cold; is the political situation not acute? Do the right hon. Gentlemen, and also the hon. Gentleman who spoke before him and who, no doubt, has had very little association with Ireland, know that the country at this moment is in a political ferment unprecedented in its history? Do they know that passions are let loose, that feelings are embittered, that the whole spirit of the nation is in revolt; and that there is a universal spirit of irritation and discontent, not only throughout Ireland, but throughout the world wherever that universal race exists, for which there is no parallel in the history of the relationships between Ireland and this country?
  I am quite prepared to discuss education, the equipment of schools, the payment of salaries to teachers, and questions of housing, and I regard them not only as important but as vital to Ireland as to this country. But what is the good either of making fools of ourselves or of making fools of this House by saying that things are just precisely as the right hon. Gentleman would like them to be? I thought that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would have assumed the character that it has to-night because he led us to believe, in the course of a speech he delivered

  1485
  the other night, that if he had not reached the light he was coming very near it. In a speech the other night on the Proportional Representation Bill, he said, "I think I am becoming a Home Ruler." He has not made that declaration to-night in so many words, but he has made a Home Rule speech, and I do not think he was justified in condemning us for taking advantage of this opportunity to have a Debate, because if the moral progress continues, if the intellectual development goes on, he will be not only a Home Ruler, but a Sinn Feiner before very long. In the course of his speech to-night the right hon. Gentleman also quoted another eminent public man in Ireland, and a great administrator, Dr. Starkie. In my judgment Dr. Starkie is the prince of bureaucrats. He is the head of the educational system in Ireland, of the National Board, which is not responsible to Ireland, is not responsible to England, is not responsible to this Parliament, is not responsible to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and is not even responsible to itself. What did Dr. Starkie say? He said, "It was only lately I was asked by a Minister "—he was going to make a speech in Belfast. They are nearly all changing now in Belfast. When Dr. Starkie wanted to go and give vocal expression to this marvellous change in his mind he came to Belfast, a very good place to rear rebels against indefensible systems of government. He said, "Lately I have been asked by a Minister whether it was any wonder that teachers became Sinn Feiners," and he said, "I am thinking of becoming a Sinn Feiner myself, if the Irish Government continue to treat education as they have done for the last twenty years." As the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) says, we are getting on when the chief bureaucrat in Ireland—I regard myself as a mere, pale constitutional Nationalist—comes forward and proclaims himself to be a Sinn Feiner, and, above all places in the world, in the heart and centre of the great city of which the right hon. Gentleman is the political master. Indeed, we are in changing times when these are the" man-festations which we are witnessing in that country and in this. The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement of the educational case, hardly stated it fairly. He has stated that education is in a bad way in Ireland, and he says, "Oh, we do not care
  1486
  about the rest of Ireland. We want to deal with the educational problems in Belfast."
  Sir E. CARSON: No; I did not say that!
  Mr. DEVLIN: He said the rest of Ireland would not bother about it.
  Sir E. CARSON: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not misrepresent me, because I am a South of Ireland man myself. What I did say was, if in the South and West they were opposed to having a rate for the purpose of building schools and improving education, there was no reason why you should not have it in Belfast. I would like to see it all over Ireland.
  Mr. DEVLIN: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman, because I think I am justified in making the position of the Catholic minority in Belfast perfectly clear in this educational matter, that the Catholic schools in Belfast are as good and well equipped as you would get in any of these islands?
  Sir E. CARSON: Not all of them.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I know some are imperfect: I am taking them on the whole. In addition to that, there are no Catholic children in Belfast who have not got school accommodation; even in the poorest locality they have got it by putting their hands into their pockets and paying for it. Why do not the rich constituents of the right hon. Gentleman do the same? They could raise money to organise a rebellion, but they cannot raise money to educate their children. There was their chance, and they did not take it, and, because they refused to discharge their responsibility to their children in building schools out of their own pockets, they now come along and want to immerse the community in these religious conflicts and bitter internecine quarrels which have been the curse of our educational controversies in the country and in this House. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman this—because I would not have risen at this stage only that I wanted to make my position perfectly clear-every farthing that can he secured for improving Protestant schools, for securing the attendance of Protestant children, for making the schools more sanitary, for enlarging the playground accommodation, for paying better salaries to the teachers, for developing everything of which an educational system can be composed, will have my hearty

  1487
  support. But one thing will not have my support, and that is that the Catholic schools in Belfast shall be controlled by the Belfast Corporation.
  Sir E. CARSON: I never asked for that.
  Mr. DEVLIN: That is all the better. The right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I am not making that statement without good reason. There is a sanatorium school for tuberculous children a few miles from Belfast, controlled by the Belfast Corporation: 56 per cent. of the children there are Protestants, and 44 per cent. are Catholics. A vacancy occurred for a teacher, and they appointed a Protestant. Nobody objected to that. There was a vacancy for another school teacher, and a Catholic was proposed, but she was defeated. So two Protestant teachers were appointed at this school, although 44 per cent. of the children were Catholic. I am very glad to know that one of the most notorious bigots in Belfast, when face to face with the corporation the other day, was compelled to get up and say he was ashamed of them. But do not imagine, where the religion of the children is so sacred to the parents of the children in Belfast and in Ireland, that we are going to allow the religious interests of the Catholic children to be placed at the mercy of the Belfast Corporation. I tell the right hon. Gentleman, as I think it is only fair he should understand, that any attempt of that character will be received with the most violent hostility by those who constitute nearly 30 per cent. of the population of Belfast; and not only that, but a large percentage of the toiling masses of Belfast, whose labour and whose toil have done much to build up its greatness.
  I pass from that, and I come to what is really the vital question which this House has to consider. When Parliament opened there was, for some reason or other which I cannot understand, a passage in the King's Speech referring to Ireland. In the course of that speech it was stated that His Majesty hoped that shortly his Government would be able to suggest a strong and durable settlement of the Irish problem. My colleagues and myself endeavoured, in a series of speeches from these benches, to extract from the Government what was meant by that paragraph. The Prime Minister was not here, and the Chief Secretary was not here—that was not his fault—but we were told by the Leader of the House (Mr.
  1488
  Bonar Law) that no doubt we should get an explanation of that when the Chief Secretary came to the House. The Chief Secretary is now in the House. We trust to be able to secure from him some declaration as to what precisely is the policy of the Government, and what was intended by His Majesty when the words were placed in his Speech that his Government were prepared to introduce a strong and durable settlement of this Irish question. If ever there was a time when the need existed for a solution of this question, it is now. The first thing he should do, if he would bring about a strong and durable settlement, would be to clear away the old machinery, to destroy the old system. The right hon. Gentleman need have no hesitation about doing that. You may get speeches in this House from the Orange benches, from the Southern Unionists, from anybody and everybody else, but nobody will defend the present system of government in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has not been long in office, but I can assure him that if he were there from now until Doomsday, representing the present system of government, there is no single section of the community who, at the end, would present him with a bunch of withered primroses. Therefore, to come here and, as I have no doubt he will, to hold out hopes and promises, hopes of a housing scheme, hopes of improving our educational system, hopes of a Ways and Transportation Bill—about which I will say something in a moment—while all these things are important, it is like endeavouring to destroy a cancer by asking the patient to swallow some mild sedative. It cannot be done.
  The right hon. Gentleman and his Government may make up their minds to that here and now. Whether they do it now or later, it must be done. The whole system of government as it exists in Ireland must disappear. In its place there must be established a system of government that will not only have the respect of somebody, but will endeavour to have the respect of everybody. The right hon. Gentleman opposite made an important admission, that he agreed that this question would have to be settled. The Home Rule Bill was on the Statute Book, and there it would remain. Six months after the end of the War the Bill becomes law. But nothing is done. He said you are still face to face with the problem of Ulster. I have never denied there was a problem

  1489
  in Ulster. I have done my very best, and offered my puny contribution towards the solution of the Ulster question. I did not succeed. But one thing you must make up your minds upon, and it is this—partition is impossible! That, however, does not mean that there is no solution of the Ulster question. Hon. Members in this House have been told not once but twenty times that there is nothing to be done to satisfy Ulster. Is the House aware that in the Report of the majority of the Convention, composed of the Nationalist party, one of the clauses in our proposals was that the representation of the Unionists in Ireland should be 40 per cent. in the Lower House and 60 per cent. in the Upper House, and that when the two met together—when a difference existed between them—that the Unionists should have an equal number with the Nationalists. That is, that a quarter of the population should have half the representation and the other 75 per cent. of the Nationalist population would only have—
  Mr. MOLES: Whilst it is true that the majority of the Convention recommended 40 per cent. in the Lower House and 60 per cent. in the Upper House, may I remind the hon. Gentleman that the numbers in the two Houses were not identical, and there was no such proportion in the actual representation?
  Mr. DEVLIN: The hon. Member was not a member of the Convention. I was!
  Mr. MOLES: But the hon. Member forgets that I know what happened.
  Mr. DEVLIN: But you were not a member of the Convention.
  An HON. MEMBER: He had not fair representation!
  Another HON. MEMBER: Not fair, perhaps, from the hon. Member's point of view!
  Mr. DEVLIN: As a matter of fact, it worked out that when the two Houses sat together they would, I believe, have had a large majority, at all events they would have been equal. Everybody knows that the equality proposed was more equality than it appears on paper. Their friends are more wealthy and are better united than we are. They represent the rich classes, and the rich classes never divide. They may divide the spoils, but they do not divide amongst themselves. Therefore I say their representation was greater
  1490
  than their numbers. What more did they want] To us the unity of Ireland was a great thing. It was sanctified, not only by the passionate desire of Munster, Connaught, and Leinster to stand with Ireland, but by the fact that some of the most superb, the most glorious, and the most courageous fights for liberty against the domination of this country were organised by gallant Protestants whose names stand on the beadroll of Irish glory. Nobody wanted partition. The alternative to partition was to do what was eminently undemocratic in giving the minority in Ireland a representation of half when they were only one-quarter of the population. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman says that when the question comes up to be finally adjusted it must be on lines of partition, because Ulster demands partition, as it is the only safety and safeguard, I tell him partition would not be accepted, and that the proposals of the Convention is the only real solution of this problem. We hear a great deal about the 300,000 Protestants in the three provinces in Ireland. What I object to about the hon. Members opposite is that they are too selfish and too insular. They are selfish because they think they are the only people on earth. You would imagine that Belfast was the Ark of the Covenant. I am a Belfast man. Belfast is not such a great place, after all. It has its good points and bad points, just like every other city. It has its magnificent buildings, its palatial residences, and its great technical school. It also has its slums.
  Belfast has its sweated workers. It has its toiling and struggling women in our great mills and factories. It has very many evils; in some respects many more evils than some of your great industrial centres. But hon. Members believe it is the hub of the universe. I say they are too selfish and too insular. They talk about persecution, about belonging to the defenceless minority. Yet they would come to an arrangement and a settlement on this Irish question by which that powerful and strong dominant section stand there to protect their own interests, whilst they would desert to the tender mercies of the intolerable bigots and lions of the South of Ireland, who want to tear them asunder, these isolated Protestants in the other three provinces of Ireland. The Ulster Unionists would not have partition. The Ulster Catholics would not have partition. The rest of Ireland do not want

  1491
  partition. I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite in their own hearts do not want partition. They only use the argument, not because it is good in itself, but because it is a good political instrument to use. There is no safety and no safeguard for this loyal minority! I want to say there is the greatest safeguard and the greatest security to be found in the generous and tolerant spirit of the Irish people. These people who never were religious persecutors. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) has repeatedly stated in this House that he does not believe that there would be a persecution of Protestants. Apart altogether from that historical and traditional attitude there is this additional guarantee put in our Report of the Convention that for fifteen years at least you will have the right to have the same representation in Ireland as we have ourselves.
  Of course they do not want it! I put it to any English Member: "Would you want equality if you could get domination?" That is what exists to-day. Here in England you get the blame of misruling Ireland, whereas many of our rulers are Members from Ulster and occupy all the high places, and are provided with the various emoluments. You have the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He is a member of the Ulster Unionist party.
  An HON. MEMBER: He is not an Ulster man!
  Mr. DEVLIN: I know he is not an Ulster man. Do not make a debating point like that! Why is it when you want-able men you always have to go to the South of Ireland? How is it your leader is not an Ulster man? Why do you not have a man of conviction, instead of a man speaking with a brief, to guide your shady fortunes? Of course, when you want hard heads and hard fists, and, I regret to say, sometimes hard hearts, you go to the North When you want a skilful, subtle, political leader who can throw dust in the eyes of the innocent Englishman you bring a man from Cork. Therefore, I say you have the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. You have the Solicitor-General for Ireland, who is not an Irish Unionist. You have the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General. Perhaps he will permit me to say he is one of the most efficient and energetic public representatives in the House. He also is a Unionist. The most violent rhetoricians on the Irish Benches are made
  1492
  judges in Ireland. One of the paradoxes and one of the jokes of the British government in Ireland is that when you get violent and rhetorical Members representing Ireland, the more violent they become the more certain it is they will be put on the judicial bench. Therefore, to all these potential judges on the other side I say, If you want promotion, be as vituperative as you possibly can. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) says he is sick of British rule in Ireland. We know that in Dublin the President of the Education Department has become a Sinn Feiner. And of all the astonishing experiences I know of, here is what the "Morning Post" says about your government:
  "Castle government, as it is called, has long been an anomaly. The British Government, by appointing to the office of Chief Secretary party hacks whose services demanded recompense and who are utterly ignorant of Ireland, besides being naturally incompetent—"
  I should be the very last to make a charge like that against the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Everybody knows he is not a party hack. As a matter of fact I believe, although not that, he has got his coupon framed at home. I say, therefore, if this system of government does not please the hon. Member for the Duncairn Division, if it does not please Dr. Starkie, if it does not please the "Morning Post"—I thought any sort of government for Ireland would please the "Morning Post"—if it does not please anybody, why is it there? I do not believe, if you offered a reward of £100, that you would get a single intelligent man with a spark of conscience to say one word in favour of the Irish Government that exists to-day. What are we to do?
  We are just now at the conclusion of a great war. Great sacrifices were made in Ireland. We have been taunted on these benches that we played no part in that War. In these things the public memory is very short. I remember hundreds and thousands of my Constituents marching to the railway station to entrain for the South of Ireland to train and then to go out to fight. They fought, and they fought well. Their glory is described in the deeds of heroism publicly recorded about the members of the 16th Division. Are we to be told that there is to be a new world point of view after this War for every country but Ireland? Was this great battle waged on the plains of France and Flanders waged for the freedom of every small nationality except Ireland? Why was it not put into

  1493
  Mr. Wilson's fourteen points that this is a War for the right of small people to determine their destinies except Ireland. Ireland, the home of ancient civilisation, declared to be the land of saints and scholars that has sent its fighters and scholars and preachers and apostles, not only of spiritual ideas but of great democratic principles to lay the foundations of many of the great nations that stand as monuments to commercial and industrial greatness throughout the world, is the only country for which humanity has successfully fought where that principle is not to apply. It is no use imagining that Ireland can be governed by English principles. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) said in a speech in Belfast:
  "I am going now to have every Bill passed fm England applied to Ireland."
  Now how did the right hon. Gentleman put his policy into operation? The Transport Bill was introduced for England, and it was a grand Bill, or at least the Leader of the House said so, and as I did not give any attention to the matter I accept his words. On a question whether a thing is good or bad and where there is controversy or difference of opinion between the hon. Member below me and the right hon. Gentleman, I at once accept the right hon. Gentleman's judgment. The right hon. Gentleman says this Transport Bill is a magnificent measure. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn throw wide his arms and with loving tenderness take it to his bosom on behalf of Ireland? No, he denounced it in all the moods and tenses. He addressed the Treasury Bench on this subject as if we were looking at my humble self and says, "If you introduce this evil thing into Ireland I will fight it with all my determination." This is his first attempt to apply all Bills to Ireland.
  Then you introduce an English Health Bill. Is he satisfied with that? Not at all, because the whole Bill has been changed, and we have practically had to get a new Bill for Ireland incorporated in order that he may be saved from as little humiliation as possible. Why is not the English Housing Bill good enough for Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman rightly wants an Irish Housing Bill and a special Bill for Ireland, and strange to say that although-he denounces as anathema the Transport Bill, the Health Bill and the Housing Bill, he wants all these things settled, not by an Irish Parliament of his own countrymen, but by an English Par-
  1494
  liament of eminently respectable gentlemen gathered in this House who know as much about the affairs of Ireland as I do about the affairs of Timbuctoo. I am glad to say that when I make a special appeal for the separate and distinct treatment of Ireland I can call as eloquent witness to this view, the Member for Bury-St.-Edmunds (Lieutenant-Colonel W. Guinness), who said the other night:
  "Ireland differs from England in race, in temperament, and in social organisation, and that difference must be reflected in the legislation suitable for that country. England's meat is in many cases Ireland's poison."
  [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I think that is splendid, and if I sat up all night I could not have conceived such a blessed impeachment of British rule in Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman continued:
  "To force the same regimé of Government on both countries would be to create a grievance, and place it in the hands of the Separatists."
  It is different in temperament and social organisation, and yet we are to have all classes of English legislation applied to us. I will leave the hon. Member to argue that case with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn. In addition to this method of legislation, what have we in administration in Ireland to-day? Your name is a bye-word all over the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has told us, this figure of Ireland haunts your banqueting table, it clogs your progress, and it is responsible for countless misunderstandings between this nation and every democratic nation in the world, and to-day America, your great and powerful ally, who in the moment of your national fortunes, when you were face to face with the most critical situation in the War, played a great and glorious part in the war is absolutely essential for peace.
  You treat with contempt the judgment and verdict of the British electors on Home Rule twice declared. Have the views of your Colonies expressed in favour of self-government for Ireland dozens of times no concern for you? Are you going, because you have not the courage, to make the position of President Wilson and his great party almost impossible because of your refusal to do what I have said courage and imagination could do in twenty-four hours? You may ask me what do I want? That is a question very easily answered. When President Wilson issued his fourteen points he invited the Prime

  1495
  Minister of this country to say whether he agreed with them or not, and the Prime Minister accepted them as the basis on which the peace of the world should be built. What was one of these points? He said:
  "The reign of law based upon the consent of the governed and sustained by the organised opinion of mankind."
  Are you prepared to accept that principle for Ireland? I want an answer to that question. If you tell me you have difficulties and complications, etc., I will answer you again in the words of President Wilson:
  "These great aims cannot be achieved by debating and seeking to reconcile and accommodate what statesmen wish with their projects for balances of power and for national opportunities."
  You have here the demand and the reason why the demand should be conceded. You cannot go on as you are going. You cannot tell the world that you ask Englishmen and Irishmen to work together to kill militarism in Prussia while you have it in Ireland. Do you think you present a very dignified spectacle to the world when you include in the Peace Conference small nationalities like Montenegro and Serbia while you have Ireland in chains? You have 44,000 British soldiers in Ireland, and how many of them come back here as bitter Sinn Feiners as the people themselves? You have had controversies and discussions here upon the continuance of compulsory service in this country, and the Minister for War said, when he was reciting the places where the soldiers were, that there were 44,000 to 50,000 in Ireland. You may say that you need them there, but is that a tribute to your rule? Is it a compliment to your statesmanship, and is that a condition of things that should exist? If you have anarchy in the Government, you must have anarchy in the nation. It is a conflict between the two great forces—the moral force of a people rightly struggling to be free, and a physical and military force that always goes down, and has gone down, in this great world conflict, and will go down again, and I say that Heaven will bless the day for your sake, for Ireland's sake, and for the world's sake, when these high spiritual and moral principles will be established in Ireland.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I will try and make my observations as brief as I can. I do not think the hon. Gentleman who has just
  1496
  addressed the Committee with so much ability has really brought within his notice what is the new element, and the only new element, in the Irish question. It is, of course, perfectly true that the situation in Ireland is profoundly unsatisfactory, but there is a new element in the situation different from that so often discussed, very much in the same way in this House as it has been discussed to-day by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. We have heard speeches so charming to listen to, exactly like those, more times than I can remember. We have heard the same story over and over again, but we have not had the new element, which is that Ireland, by something approaching unanimity, has rejected what we call the federal solution of the Irish question. The voters in Ulster rejected it on the ground that they preferred the legislative union, but the Southern and Western provinces and Leinster have rejected it because they prefer now a different settlement fundamentally inconsistent with federalism, and what amounts to independence. That is the great new phenomena, and that is what it makes it worth while to have this discussion at all, and the only thing that makes it worth while to bring the question again before the House.
  That presents us once again with a problem very difficult of solution. The Leader of the Opposition (Sir. D. Maclean) says we must find an answer. The question is, Can we find an answer? The hon. Member for the Scotland Division all through his speech assumed that the way was open, and that it was only our obstinacy that prevented a settlement. We often hear language of that kind, but it is untrue, and we shall never make any progress in dealing with this subject unless we recognise that it is not the perversity of Unionist human nature that creates the Irish question, but the circumstances of the case. It is a conflict of various opinions, and to suggest that there is something within the reach of Parliament which we could adopt any day, and that we are too obstinate to adopt it is to miss the whole point. You will not get through a closed door by saying it is an open one. It is possible that it is closed with a lock of which the key may be found.
  Mr. DEVLIN: You may break it open.
  Lord H. CECIL: Now the hon. Member is going over to Sinn Fein. I do not think

  1497
  you will break it open, because that has been tried several times and has failed. What is it that has produced this very remarkable phenomena of the rejection of the federal solution by the Irish people? My right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) said with perfect truth that no one now is in favour of the Home Rule Act, and they are not in favour of the Home Rule Act, not, I suppose, because they particularly object to that federal solution, but because they are against all federalism. I do not think that it is at all surprising, considering that the attack that the Irish people have always made against the Union is that it is inconsistent with Irish nationality. Obviously, federalism never has been and never can be a solution of a claim of that kind, because federalism is suited to a claim of provincial self-government, and is in contradiction to national self-government. The contradiction has been written in letters of blood in the history of the events in America some fifty years ago. The whole controvery between the North and south was whether South Carolina and the other States had a national claim to self-government or a mere provincial claim, and after a long struggle it was ultimately decided that they only had a provincial claim, and must continue to form part of a federal system. That being so, what prospect is there that we can find a solution satisfactorily to the Irish people? How shall we set about finding a solution which will be satisfactory in the new circumstances? I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for the cot land Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) helps us with his interesting account of how the present situation arose. He thinks that it was because the War Office was tactless, or because my right hon. Friend threatened resistance to Home Rule, or because the Convention was discounted—
  Mr. O'CONNOR: And because pledges were broken.
  Lord H. CECIL: And because pledges, as he thinks, were broken. I believe that the explanation is quite a different one. As I read the signs of Irish opinion, there is a body of opinion—not a very large body, but a very enthusiastic and sincere body—which is absolutely absorbed with the idea of Irish nationality, and will accept nothing less than complete independence. But a much larger body of opinion, only abstractly agreeing with the national claim, and until quite recently at
  1498
  any rate with only a very slight and superficial interest in it, have been brought over to the side of the Sinn Feiners, not because they hope it will achieve independence, but because they want to destroy Home Rule. They want to destroy the prospect of getting that which is at their very door, because the Home Rule Act is upon the Statute Book. Nothing but that, I think, is sufficient to account for so large a movement. To suppose that the Irish people would be driven to rebellion, and would be driven to reject all their old leaders or representatives, merely because the War Office had been tactless, or because they thought that faith had not been kept with them, or for some similar grievance, seems to me to argue great effects from ludicrous causes. On the other hand, if you say that what the Irish do not want is a federal solution, their attachment to the Sinn Feiners becomes natural. They adopt the extreme independent position, because they know that it is the most certain way of wrecking the Home Rule Act and destroying the federal solution. I believe that to be the attitude of a very influential body in Ireland, the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. They profoundly dislike the federal solution and the Home Rule Act, and they were delighted, when the opportunity came their way, to combine with the extreme Sinn Feiners to destroy what seemed to be the threatened solution. If my theory of the Irish situation is right, we must wipe out the whole of the British attempts to solve the question since 1886. We must go back to where we were when Mr. Gladstone first advocated his celebrated policy. The whole foundation of Mr. Gladstone's policy was that his solution was the solution that was asked for by the Irish people, and was a solution which there was every reason to hope would be accepted as a final settlement by the Irish people. Destroy that and the whole basis of his argument is destroyed. If Ireland does not want federalism any more, then we must go back to 1888, and we must re-study the question as it was then.
  I think it is reasonable to say to the hon. Member who has just addressed us that you cannot ask the British people to adopt suddenly, and, as it were, on a year's notice, so tremendous a change as the grant of Dominion Home Rule, which I gather is what he desires for Ireland, when, for aught we know, in some years' time some other demand may be acceptable

  1499
  to the Irish people. As long as it was possible for hon. Members to say, "We have always asked the same thing; we have asked it for thirty years; grant us this one thing for which we have always asked," there was an argument, whether conclusive or not, certainly weighty, and peculiarly suited to appeal to practical people like the British people, for granting that demand which had been so consistently made. But this demand is a wholly new one. No one can say whether the Irish, if they adhere to it to-day will adhere to it ten years hence. As my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) reminds me, the mass of the Irish people make a demand which goes further. They demand positive independence. Can you grant positive independence? Can you, consistently with the safety of the British Islands, give an absolutely independent Parliament to Ireland? I suppose that even the hon. Member with all his dislike of partition would not go so far as to say that we should force Ulster under an independent Irish Parliament. And even if you separated Uslter from the rest of Ireland you would have enormous opportunities, with an enemy country in Ireland, made available for attacks upon the East Coast whenever a quarrel happened to arise between the Irish Government and the British Government. I do not think that you can reasonably ask Great Britain to concede absolute independence to Ireland, but I am sure that the argument for the absolute independence of Ireland, as things now are, is much stronger than the argument for Home Rule or any form of federalism, because it is the demand of a large number of the Irish people. It is said that we cannot face Europe, or America, or a League of Nations, while we have this question unsettled. Sometimes I have heard it represented that we may suffer an intolerable humiliation because the League of Nations may undertake themselves to settle the Irish question for us. I should bear that humiliation with great resignation. If the League of Nations want to settle the Irish question, by all means let them settle it. I sometimes imagine how they would go to work.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Would the Noble Lord agree to let it go before the Peace Conference?
  Lord H. CECIL: I do not think that would be a very judicious course, especially
  1500
  in the interests of the Peace Conference. I try to imagine how the League of Nations would set about it. They would probably select some very eminent juristic statesmen, Swiss, Spanish, French, American, Brazilian, and so on—probably the President would be a Swiss statesman because the Swiss not only have a high reputation for detachment but also for the learning of their statement—and these men came over here and begin by an initial course of study in the history of Ireland, and they would read all the Blue Books relating to the Irish problem. They would proceed to Ireland and meet all the leaders of Irish opinion, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson), the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin), the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), those who used to be in Parliament, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Healy, and Mr. O'Brien, the new Sinn Fein members who decline to sit here, the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. De Valera), and very likely our only lady member (Countess Markeivicz). They would see these various leaders of opinion in Ireland. They would probably see various eminent divines, the moderator of the Presbyterian Assembly, the head of the Methodists, the Lord Mayors of Belfast, Dublin, and Cork, all the great municipal leaders, and Sir Horace Plunkett. They would talk to all these gentlemen, and they would find that there was a vast number of different solutions of the Irish question put before them. Each adviser, while strongly recommending his own solution, would treat with supreme contempt the solution of everyone else, and, whenever these learned Gentlemen ventured upon a solution of their own, they would be told by all their advisers, "You do not know Ireland." Any observation of anyone outside Ireland regarding the Irish question is always received in the same way. He is always told "You do not know Ireland." These distinguished foreigners would ultimately come to the conclusion that it was quite true that they did not know Ireland, that it was also true that no-one else knew Ireland, and that Ireland, indeed, was a province of the unknowable. Disheartened as they probably would be, they would come back and set to work to formulate their own scheme. Presently it would be published, and then all these gentlemen who never agreed together before, would combine to explain

  1501
  that of all the many schemes for Irish government it was the very worst and the most unworkable. Thereupon, the deputation in indignation would go back to their own countries, Switzerland, Spain, America, France, Brazil, and so on in a rather bewildered state of mind, and nothing in the world would ever induce them again to meddle in the government of Ireland. I myself am not apprehensive of the League of Nations.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Does not the Noble Lord think that, perhaps, when they had gone through all this experience, they would say to each other, "We ought to let these people settle it for themselves"?
  8.0 P.M.
  Lord H. CECIL: Very likely they would say that very early in their investigations, but they would find at once that was exactly what the Irish people were not willing to do. The essential thing in the Irish question is to force the Irish people to recognise the hard facts of the case: the Ulster difficulty, the Sinn Fein aspirations of the South and West of Ireland, the strategic necessities of Great Britain, and the national dangers that might be presented by the loss of Ireland. Those are the hard facts. The facts of the case must be recognised, and we shall make no progress until the Irish people face the difficulties and have a settlement which really does take account of the facts. They are always saying, "We must have this, that, or the other," but they do not define the settlement that they want. If they do, one-half of the nation instantly rejects it. Therefore, the suggestion that I make is this: The Home Rule Act should be suspended for five years in order that during those five years an effort may be made to settle the Irish question. Let there be assembled provincial councils in the four provinces of Ireland. That is the way that you can get out of the difficulty that Ulster will not sit with the other provinces. Let the three councils, if they like, sit together and Ulster sit alone. Let them then proceed to propound whatever scheme they think proper for the acceptance of this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman says that the Convention failed, and it is no use trying the experiment again. I think the Convention was full of instruction, even held as it was, but I think it would have been much better if it had been a formal representative assembly, and had sat in public. I do not believe in working democratic institutions except
  1502
  on a democratic basis. I never heard so astonishing a suggestion as that put forward by the hon. Gentleman, that you should have a Parliament for Ireland, and that you should so construct that Parliament that, in the ultimate division between Unionist opinion and Nationalist opinion the minority of one-fourth should carry a question as against three-fourths. Does he really think that such a system could be worked? Unionists are perfectly satisfied with what they have got. They say, "Let us remain as we are."
  Mr. DEVLIN: "And hold what we have!"
  Lord H. CECIL: They do not even say that. They say, "Leave us alone, at any rate," and the hon. Gentleman says "No, you must not have partition; you must come in and join in a nationality which you repudiate." That is the fundamental unreasonableness of the Nationalist position. My suggestion is that these councils should be set up to face the situation. Let them debate the whole of the moods and phases until they can get a scheme which does not threaten Ulster or the independence of Great Britain, and which, at the same time, satisfies the other three Provinces. I see not the slightest ground for thinking that anyone else can find a solution. The situation is really insoluble in terms. What would satisfy the three provinces is absolutely inconsistent with the safety of Great Britain on the one side, and the liberty of Ulster on the other. There may be such things as insoluble problems even in politics, but we shall get no good by reverting to the old plan of Great Britain propounding a solution, and Ireland rejecting it. Let us try the alternative, and ask Ireland to find a solution, and then we will consider whether we can accept it. That will educate the Irish people in the facts of the case, and it is only by loyalty to facts that you can solve this or any other great question of politics.
  Mr. CLYNES: Hon. Members with whom I act on this side of the House listened with interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) I think it can be said that, at least, there is in this House one party—it may be small in numbers, but it is not without some influence, and, I think, not without some prospects in the country—which is united

  1503
  in the desire to meet tie claims of Ireland embodied in the Act which was passed by such large majorities in this House, and which received the approval on more than one occasion of the electorate of the country. The Noble Lord who has just addressed us has given us a very diverting and very interesting exposition of the difficulties which beset this question. He explained, as is usual, with very great resource and very great skill what are the fundamental causes of the trouble, but really I cannot accept the suggestion which he made as being any more serious than the mood of some of his earlier observations. To suggest that you can get a settlement by doing nothing for five years, except leave it to others, and to hang in a state of suspense the Act which is now on the Statute Book for that term of five years in the hope really that something will turn up, is a suggestion in keeping with the merriment created by many of his equally interesting observations. If we are to take his speech as being wholly serious, it is then nothing more than a doctrine of despair, leaving us no prospect whatever of reconciling the different conflicting elements in this century-old Irish controversy. The Noble Lord, for instance, pointed out that at present Ireland would not have the present Act on the Statute Book—that no party would be satisfied with such a settlement. If that be true, surely the fault is ours; it is the fault of this Parliament, the fault of this country. Certainly it is not the fault of the Irish people, unless it be by a withholding of their rights for so long a time the terms for the settlement of the Irish question were run up and were stiffened because of the manner in which the more modified demands were denied years ago. It is the common thing, I believe, of all of us, to think—although I do not want so to consider this great question—in the terms of bargaining, and to ask for more than we are likely to get. That was true in the case of South Africa, the last of the greatest examples of how people can be satisfied and reconciled by meeting their national demands for self-government. In that case they demanded independence as full as the most extreme Irishmen might ever have demanded. We met their demands by giving them a condition of self-government, with which I am certain at about the same time Ireland would have been well content.
  1504
  It is not true, therefore, that there is not an opinion in Ireland—a very considerable body of opinion indeed—which might not be reconciled to the acceptance of the conditions of Home Rule embodied in the Act on the Statute Book at this moment. I am not sure that we can always treat this great question as one which will have to be settled upon a basis of reason and arguments. Surely, if that were the case, the procession of reasons which formed the burden of the speech of my hon. Friend who began this Debate would have convinced us of the necessity of meeting the Irish claim on lines similar to those which are being demanded. A great many emotions, sentiments, traditions, and aspirations, however, are factors in a question of this kind which are even stronger than the factor of reason or argument. The House, I am sure, heard with very great pleasure the general lines of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson), and I agree with the description already given of that speech, that it was perhaps the most powerful indictment of rule in Ireland from Westminster that this House has ever heard—an indictment, no doubt, unconscious, as I cannot imagine the right hon. and learned Gentleman was deliberately destroying all those beautiful pictures which he and others have often painted in this House when the country had to be told that the conditions of government which existed in Ireland so long produced happiness, prosperity, contentment, and all the material advantages which a modern people can desire. I have listened to speeches in this House in which we have had the most virulent denials of allegations that there were slums in Belfast, or that the people were not wholly satisfied with the conditions under which they existed. We welcome these admissions, because we shall better be able unitedly to apply a remedy when there is a unanimous admission of the evils which abound in all these great cities.
  I want to address to the representatives of the Government in the House at the moment the feeling of the Labour party with regard to the serious neglect of the Government in not only not attempting to deal with this question, but in not even giving any indication of an intention to deal with it. The Prime Minister, as has been already mentioned, gave at the General Election a general assurance to

  1505
  the country that this Irish question would be one which would be taken in hand. I remember that in the forefront of the Speech from the Throne, when we began our work this Session, there was a paragraph full of hope and generous promise of some intention to do something. Yet the country, despite the state of things in Ireland, evidently growing daily worse, is left in darkness as to whether the Government is really serious in this matter or whether they are no more than drawing upon the good faith and the patience of the people. In view of the development of the state of things in Ireland, the Government can trifle too long, and play really too much with this subject. Having some association with organised Labour in this country, I want to express my own feelings of the effects of what is now happening in Ireland, and what has been happening for more than a year, upon the future trend of Labour action in this country. So far as I see it, lawlessness and unconstitutional action have received every encouragement from the inaction of our Government, until now the party which stood for constitutional action and for law and order in the affairs of their country and in the affairs of its Government, was nearly destroyed at the polls, and the party which treats this country and this House with contempt, and refuses to come near it, has received the support of the great majority of the Irish people. Lawlessness is being encouraged, I repeat, by the Government' neglect of this troublesome subject, and the fact that it is so troublesome, and presents so many difficult aspects, is all the greater reason why statesmen who have now such an immense majority behind them, who have such great influence in the country, and who are undertaking to do for so many of their peoples in all parts of the world what Ireland asks should be done to Ireland—I say such statesmen should no longer neglect this difficult question and allow this unconstitutional procedure to continue.
  I have been frequently to meetings in connection with labour questions, and have spoken in support of the proposals of the Government on many labour questions, and in regard to the League of Nations, the procedure of the Paris Conference, and other matters, for which the Government is responsible, and frequently I have been arrested in what I have had to say by shouts from the audience,
  1506
  "What about Ireland?" To very large masses of the working population the position presents itself in the light of our going to very remote parts of the world to give the blessings of freedom and self-government, whilst we deny them to our near neighbour from whom we received very practical and substantial help during the course of the War. The picture of Ireland at this moment, so far as I understand it from the figures that have been given to me, and the facts which have been admitted, is not very different from those days when there was a succession of insurrections and serious instances of disorder, which had to be put down by the 50,000 bayonets on which former statesmen in this country relied. I believe that the military force at present in Ireland for the purpose of keeping the Irish people in order is larger than it has been for a considerable time past. It is certainly much more effective and formidable and in possession of materials of war previously unknown as the instruments of suppressing disorder in that country. Really, are we to wait till these two parties or until these two sections of the Irish population have completely exhausted each other or until they have fought this out, or until they have produced some settlement that can be considered and receive the sanction of this House? That is a method of government never applied in the case of any other country or in the case of any other difficulty in this country. Supposing the Government were to apply to labour and industrial difficulties in this country the same doctrine they apply to Ireland, that of letting the parties fight it out, leaving them alone and seeing if somebody else can settle it. The Government dare not apply that procedure to the internal and comparatively small industrial and domestic difficulties of this country. Accordingly as the Government are obliged to intervene and become responsible for what is done in the settlement of those difficulties here, they cannot with any credit to themselves any longer shirk the obligation which the Irish situation imposes upon them. We have heard some reference to the position of Ireland at the Peace Conference, and the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) drew a diverting picture of what might happen if the case of Ireland had to be left for settlement by a League of Nations. I have heard

  1507
  it said very frankly at gatherings of working men, at which very, few Englishmen were present, that the attitude of the Government towards Ireland in this matter is either one of inexplicable inconsistency or of actual hypocrisy; for how can we claim to be, as actually we are, the defenders and protectors of the smaller but troubled nations in other parts of the world, using our great resources and our position of being almost at the head of the family of nations in order to settle, we hope for ever, the claims of those smaller and comparatively unknown peoples—how can we claim to undertake that duty, as being a natural and proper duty of a great Power, and yet be guilty of the inconsistency or the hypocrisy of refusing to concede similar conditions of safety and self-government to the Irish nation?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Does that mean independence?
  Mr. CLYNES: I am not arguing for independence. I am not at this moment, nor is any other member of the Committee, able to go into the principles and certainly not into the details of the special form of self-government which should be conceded to Ireland. I am complaining of the claim of the Government to be a neutral party in a matter of this kind instead of courageously attempting to deal with it themselves. Instead of doing that in this most difficult and most urgent question, they are protecting and sheltering themselves behind the plea that it is the business of somebody else to produce a scheme for them, which they might consider and accept. If I might offer my own comment on the question of self-government for Ireland, I should say that in respect of Ulster, as was said by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, the plea was for a united Ireland, governed by the collective rule of the people of Ireland, under conditions which would give the amplest and fullest safeguards to those who claim to represent Ulster's interests and rights. I do not know that any other section that is a minority in this country has ever had the same offers, of effective safeguards as the minority in Ireland. I admit that there are peculiar circumstances which entitle them to press that claim, but this minority had no right to take the stand it did in the Irish and Home Rule agitations prior to the War. That stand was "No Home Rule for Ireland!" It was
  1508
  not merely that they claimed certain things for themselves; they claimed to deny certain things to other people. I believe that there is a growing common interest between Ulster and the other parts of Ireland. The speeches we have heard in other Irish Debates, and particularly the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson), indicate that the grievances of Irishmen are being recognised by Irishmen themselves as being very much the same. They have similar grievances about education, about the financial arrangements between Ireland and this country, and with regard to industrial and slum life. Irishmen may be trusted to find some reasonable measure of agreement in an Irish Parliament when these matters are considered.
  Lord H. CECIL: What they want is Irish nationality. It is not a question of slum life; it is a question of Irish nationality.
  Mr. CLYNES: Without proposing to go into that point, I say that the Government might well try something else than that which the most extreme section of opinion in Ireland is at this moment disposed to deny. So far as we are trying to meet a national aspiration, we should try to meet it from a standpoint that we would expect anyone else to treat our own view of nationality. If Englishmen had been treated as Irishmen have, if their land had been governed by some other Parliament and some other people, if they had suffered through recent generations, as Irishmen at least believe they have suffered—
  Mr. DONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what way they have suffered?
  Mr. CLYNES: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the Committee earlier in the evening when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division spoke. If there has been no misgovernment of Ireland, if Ireland has been well, skilfully and effectively governed, then the results of good government in Ireland are strange if the picture drawn for us this afternoon is true, as evidently that picture is true. You have in Ireland the very greatest reason to complain of industrial conditions, educational conditions, and financial and other conditions. But even if

  1509
  there was nothing whatever to complain about, I would even go this far, if Ireland presented to us an example of a perfectly governed and contented country, that would not dispose of what we might surely term the national aspiration, the national claim, the desire to govern oneself. Is it true that, at any rate speaking of civilised people, any one civilised country has yet been so very good as to be entitled to govern another, as to be entitled to withhold from another the right of self-government? I think we may trust the view of the masses of Irishmen themselves as to what they have and as to what they have not, and their view is that they will not have self-government until they can govern themselves in their own country, in their own Parliament, and be responsible to their own people for all those daily domestic and other affairs which materially affect the well-being of that country. So that we do not dispose at all of the national aspiration and of the just demand of the Irish people by stating that they are not now placing their claims so very high as to actually want the national aspiration to be met by conceding to them an extreme form of government which was, perhaps, never previously in the mind of British statesmen who have faced this question. It is clear to us that resistance to English-made law is hardening and is extending in Ireland. Ireland is, to a very great extent, an agricultural country. It has trading interests interwoven with our own. During the War she supplied us with a considerable quantity of the food which we required. Ireland was as well paid for that work as any other section of agriculturists in this country. Ireland is perhaps at this moment materially, as a matter of pounds, shillings and pence, conditions of unemployment and industrial outlook, better off than she ever was and yet in face of that increased and improved material prosperity you have a more dissatisfied and angry Ireland at this moment than ever. That then is the problem which this country has created for itself, and that is the problem which the Labour Members tell the Government ought not to be avoided or evaded, but ought to be faced, because unless it is faced in a sympathetic and broad-minded spirit so as to meet the proper and natural demands of the Irish people, the difficulty now great enough will be greater still in the immediate future.
  Mr. T. W. BROWN: Taking part in this, my first Debate in this House, I must own to a feeling of very great disappointment because when we came to discuss questions that affect Ireland I had hoped that the old routine which we have had so often, and which has so often been discussed in this House and out of it, would have been dropped and that some of the really material and vital issues which are affecting Ireland to-day would have come up for discussion, and that we in Ireland would have had the benefit of the assistance and guidance of many English Members in getting rid of many of the grave problems which affect us in that country to-day. It was therefore very disappointing to find the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor) going back over the old trail once more and giving us the history of grievances which had better be forgotten, and not one word did he say about the present problems which effect practically everyone of the people in our country at present. There was one bright moment in the Debate when the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) turned to some of those problems in which we are all vitally interested. When I was returned for my Constituency it was very much on the lines that I would devote at least some of the time in the House to those problems which the right hon. Gentleman opened to the House today, and that I would do what I could to see that legislation was passed for Ireland on those lines. It was, therefore, very disappointing to me also to find that the right hon. Gentleman's proposals dealing with education, housing, and social legislation generally were looked upon by many hon. Members as if he were running away from the old issue of Home Rule. And although the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) did deal with one or two of those questions, we have come back once more to the old question of what is to be done to settle Ireland. I listened with some measure of amazement to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes). I never could understand why it is that members of the Labour party in this country do not better appreciate the Irish question. I do not know why they do not come to Belfast and do not come to the Members who represent Belfast and to the employers of labour. If hon. Members would come to Belfast and there meet the labourers, many of whom come from the Clyde and from the Tyne, and when they came were as Radical as any Member of this House, they would

  1511
  find that they have retained every bit of their radicalism and are just as radical now as when they left England or Scotland, but on one point they are very clear and strong. That is, that they are sound Unionists, and the great backbone of the Unionist party in Ulster is the Ulster Labour party. I was very much struck indeed by what the right hon. Gentleman said about the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson). He referred to the picture which he had drawn of what took place in Belfast, and argued from that that at any rate it was an admission that there was misgovernment in Ireland. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in that respect. Would he also argue, from the fact that a very remarkable and very excellent Education Bill was passed for this country no longer ago than last year, that there had been great misgovernment in this country in the matter of education up to last year? We are living in a very progressive age. The Act that was good fifteen or twenty years ago may be quite out of touch with the sympathies and feelings of the people to-day, and because we are asking that we also should progress in those matters, that when you are getting a new Education Act for England, an Act that is placing your education on a much higher plane than it has been hitherto, we also should receive some of these same benefits, it is no argument that up to this we have been misgoverned in the matter of education, but it is an admission that our ideals of education to-day are higher than they were ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago.
  The right hon. Gentleman also was wondering, does this country intend to trifle or play with this Irish question? Let us take it as seriously as we can. The right hon. Gentleman "would like to see this Irish question settled. Granted. With whom are you going to settle it? If there is going to be any settlement it must be with the bulk of the Irish people, and the great bulk of the Irish people, at present not represented in this House, are Republican. Their sole aim is a Republic. They will take nothing less than a Republic. Everything less than a Republic for Ireland was turned down at the Convention, and nothing less than that will satisfy the Sinn Fein party. If you grant them Dominion Home Rule, if you grant them a federal Home Rule you are not satisfying the Irish party.
  1512
  You are not putting an end to dissatisfaction, you are not putting an end to agitation in Ireland, you are simply staving it off for some time. The only way that you can settle the Irish question, the only way that you can put an end to the agitation which is going on in the Sinn Fein party at the present time, is by going the whole hog and granting Ireland a separate republic. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is going to trifle and play with Ulster. If they are trifling and playing with Ireland, what is he going to do with Ulster? He has suggested that he would give Ulster certain safeguards. I can see no greater admission of the futility of trying to settle the Irish question in any such way as is proposed than the fact that he considers it necessary to offer safeguards to Ulster. There is only one way in which there is a reasonable hope of settlement of this Irish question, and I respectfully submit that there is only one way in which we can hope to put an end to political agitation in Ireland, and that is by increasing the welfare of that country. By industrial prosperity, and by that method alone, will you put an end to political agitation. You cannot have in any country a growth of its industrial prosperity unless you have at the same time protection for its industries, unless you have protection for the administration of the law, and unless you are certain that capital when it is invested in that country will be protected by the forces that govern that country. Can we say at the present time in Ireland that industries outside a certain district have any protection whatever?
  Not knowing the lines that this Debate would take, I looked carefully through the Irish Estimates. I was foolish enough to think that this Debate was going to be on the various sums set out in the Irish Estimates. Two of those sums I will call to the attention of the Committee. One is the amount for police—£2,185,000 during the next year. I notice that that is an increase of about £750,000 over the sum allocated for police last year. I wonder whether that increase in the amount to be given for police purposes means that there will be an increase in police efficiency during the coming year! Does it mean that a man in Ireland will be able to go out at night to visit a neighbour and know that when he comes back his family will be in A the same condition as when he left them?

  1513
  I wonder if it means that the police will be able to attend to their duties in such numbers that there is not the slightest danger of the whole of them being wiped off the face of the earth without a moment's notice! I wonder if it means that those Government servants in Ireland who are trying to attend to their business and trying to see that law and order is properly maintained will receive adequate protection! I must ask the House to bear with me and to excuse me if I speak in this matter with some little feeling. On Saturday last a great personal friend of mine, a man to whom I had to look up physically and in every other way, a most charming fellow, one of the most charming personalities in Ireland, was alive and well. On Sunday morning he lay dead in his own house, shot through the window. His only crime was that he loved to do his duty. I hope that when this sum of £2,000,000 odd is granted for the police force in Ireland that it will be spent in such a way that there will be more adequate protection for those in that country who are seeking to do their duty and who intend to do their duty. If two millions is not sufficient for the purpose, then I hope the House will increase it. Whatever may be the cost it will be well-spent money if it brings to Ireland and to the Irish people a feeling of satisfaction that behind them they have a power which, so long as they are doing right, will protect them and will save them from death or from injury.
  Another sum to which I would allude is the amount to be spent on prisons. It is a very small amount, but it is very suggestive, because our prison administration has recently been inquired into. I understand that the Report is ready to be presented to this House and I am awaiting it with great interest. What I suggest to the Irish Government is that they can never have a settlement of Irish affairs, and they can never have a settling down of the people in Ireland to look after their own business so long as it remains possible that a criminal who is convicted and sent to gaol to-day may to-morrow hop over the wall and disappear from his prison surroundings altogether. Therefore, I would say that if this sum of £182,000 which is allocated for prison administration is going to be provided so that we may have a proper system of detention, by all means let us have it. If is is not sufficient, it is must be doubled or trebled, then by all means let us double or treble it. I only hope that in the coming
  1514
  year we may not have any more Debates after the order of to-night's Debate. I hope that the old conditions, the old animosities which have so long separated people in Ireland and kept them from working together for Ireland's industrial prosperity, will be forgotten. I hope that when next we have an Irish Debate, Irishmen in whatever part of the House they sit will be found working together with one common end, and that to improve the industrial position of Ireland and to get for Ireland as much as we can in the hope of making the Irish people a happy and united people.
  Lieutenant-Colonel ARTHUR MURRAY: I desire to congratulate the hon. Member on his very eloquent maiden speech. I wish I could agree with everything he said. He began by saying that he was disappointed at the course which the Debate had taken. He wished that the House had turned more to the really vital problems affecting Ireland. The hon. Member has quite forgotten that Ireland at the present time is not only an Irish question but it is a British question, an Imperial question and an International question, and it is for that purpose that the Vote for Ireland was put down to-day. I desire to take part in this Debate as one who has voted for all the Home Rule measures and resolutions in the three preceding Parliaments, and who now gives his support to the Government of the day as what is known as a Coalition Liberal. I wish as far as possible to abstain from making a controversial speech—I think the subject is much too grave for that—and if I give utterance to anything with which hon. Gentlemen opposite disagree, I hope they will believe me when I say that I do not say it with any desire to score a party point. My chief reason in rising is to give expression as a Coalition Liberal to my anxiety regarding the Irish policy of the Government. I speak only for myself. But I know there are other Members who act with me who hold the same views. I realise full well the immense responsibilities of the Government at the present time. Nothing should be done to weaken the hands of the Government in the very difficult negotiations that the Prime Minister is carrying on in Paris, but what I wish to urge upon the Government, namely, that they should embark upon an attempt to arrive at a just settlement of the Irish question, cannot weaken the

  1515
  hands of the Prime Minister. On the contrary, its effect would be quite the reverse.
  The Prime Minister stated last year that a settlement of the Irish question was a War measure of the first importance, and so now is its settlement inexplicably bound up with the successful solution of all the problems of peace. I do not wish to travel over familiar ground which has been traversed already by some hon. Gentlemen to-night, but I may say this, that many of us who heard the moving speech of the late Mr. Redmond in August, 1914, were filled with hopes of a new era in the relations between Britain and Ireland. Those hopes were not fulfilled, and if only to allow us to appreciate the facts of the situation I say quite frankly—and those of us who are not Irishmen can say it better than those who are—that the fact that those hopes were not fulfilled was not the fault of Ireland. I do not think that we ought to forget that fact. I believe that, had the Government of the day listened to the advice given them by the late Mr. Redmond, Ireland would have played in the War a part second to that of no other portion of the British Empire. But the advice given by Mr. Redmond was not followed, with the result that the situation which at that time was full of hope gradually and finally developed into one in which Ireland became to all intents and purposes during the War a subsidiary theatre of operations.
  In submitting my case, I must briefly traverse a little of the old ground. This brings me to the year 1918. In that year an attempt was made after the declaration of the Prime Minister from that bench to draft a Home Rule Bill. Time after time during last year it was said that the Home Rule Bill would be introduced, but, for some reason or another, it never saw the light of day. Perhaps history will relate the contents of those drafts, and will tell us why it was an agreement on a Bill was never reached. Public opinion will then be able to do what it is unable to do now—to judge which section of the Coalition Government was more responsible for failure to arrive at an agreed Bill. Speaking, at any rate, for myself this evening, I am bound to say that the failure on the part of the Government to introduce a Home Rule Bill last year gave rise to the feeling that that section of opinion in this country which is opposed to self-government in Ireland had gained the day, and
  1516
  that the liberal principles which in their application laid solid the foundations of the British Empire had given place in the case of Ireland to the theory and practice of the firm hand. I do sincerely hope that I am wrong. I earnestly hope that the Government have it in mind, as was urged by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) a few minutes ago, to consider forthwith the solution of the Irish question.
  I cannot agree with those who say that this matter ought to wait. From the domestic, Imperial, and international points of view, it becomes daily more necessary to settle the Irish question. Most of us in this House and in the country hope that after the War there will be created some international machinery in the shape of a society of nations which will prevent war, or at any rate make it difficult to embark upon hostilities. Some hon. Gentlemen may say that that is impossible, but at least let us make the best effort we can in that direction. If that effort be successful, it is essential, as was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division who opened the Debate, that there should be the fullest possible understanding and friendship between the British and the American peoples in order to ensure the fruitful operation of the League. If, on the other hand, the effort is not successful, which I devoutly hope will not be the case, it is equally if not still more important that that friendship should be developed if the peace of the world is to be assured. The British and American peoples, both peace-loving peoples, standing together without any alliance, can do much to guarantee that peace, but so long as the Irish problem remains unsettled there will be great difficulty in the way of developing this understanding.
  My excuse for introducing America into this Debate is that during the latter stages of the War I spent some considerable time in that country and was able to watch the currents of public opinion there, and, before I go further, I would like to say that I would not desire to justify any action on the part of America which could rightly be considered as an interference with British domestic affairs. On the other hand, I suggest that our judgment should be tempered by the consideration that on both sides of the Atlantic we come of the same stock, and that just as one member of a family

  1517
  takes an interest in, and not infrequently very severely criticises another member of the same family, so ought we to recognise that there are special reasons for the interest that America takes in the Irish problem. I hope lion. Gentlemen who sometimes suggest that we are guided on Irish matters by threats from America will agree with me in that. It is in reality the spirit of freedom born of their British heritage which makes most Americans Home Rulers. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), who suggested this evening that, so far as America is concerned, the fact that in their opinion Ireland has not played her part in the War has changed American sentiment in regard to Irish Home Rule. I do not think that to be the case. It is quite true there is a section of American opinion which does consider that Ireland has not taken her proper part in this War, but that section of American opinion believes, as do many of us here, that that is due to the mishandling by the British Government of Ireland, and it is not considered that self-government for Ireland should be delayed on that account. Even if it be said that the Irish question is no concern of America, that is no argument against the settling of it. If, on the other hand, a settlement of the Irish question will bring America and ourselves closer together, surely that is an added argument for settling it.
  9.0 P.M.
  I do not wish to develop at any length the arguments that might be adduced for the settlement of the Irish question from the Imperial point of view. Opinion in the Dominions on this matter is quite unmistakable. The settlement of the Irish problem would strengthen the bonds of Empire as much or more than any other action the Government could take. It has been said to-night that no attempt to settle the Irish question can be made under existing conditions. I submit that that is a counsel of despair and a continuance of the policy of drift, which has been so fatal in the past. If the Government is sincere in its desire, expressed last year—and it is doubt as to this sincerity that gives some of us cause for grave concern—if the Government is sincere in its desire to grant Home Rule to Ireland, it should announce without delay that it intends to frame a Home Rule measure to which all reasonable men in Great Britain can give their support. There is no excuse for the Government delaying in this matter. It
  1518
  has been suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), and by other hon. Gentlemen opposite, that until Ireland can herself find some method of agreement the Government should take no action at all. But I submit to the Government that need for action in this matter is urgent from every point of view, and perhaps the Chief Secretary will, in the course of his remarks to-night inform us whether or not the Government intend forthwith—not at an early date, not as early as possible—we have been put off with such phrases before—but that they intend forthwith to consider this question and endeavour to arrive at some settlement of it There is no reason whatsoever why, because the Prime Minister is in Paris, the members of the Government who are here should not put their heads together in order to attempt to arrive at a settlement. I hope the Irish Secretary will be able to give the Committee a satisfactory answer in this connection. But if he is unable to do so, if he informs the Committee that the Government propose to continue to follow the policy of drift which it has pursued in the past, I hope he will also tell us whether that view of the situation is the view taken by the Prime Minister, for if it be so, then I think it is eminently necessary to say that the Prime Minister, in holding that view of the situation is the view will be straining the loyalty of some of his Liberal supporters almost to breaking point.
  Mr. LYNN: As a new Member of this House I crave its indulgence. If I have not learned anything new from the speech of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool I have at least derived considerable amusement from it. As he repeated the ancient litany of imaginary Irish wrongs I could not help thinking that he was an excellent example of English tyranny For something like forty years he has been interned in this benighted country. His Celtic spirit rebels because he is forced to become the associate of Prime Ministers to listen to the unintelligible jargon of those whose daily thoughts are concentrated on "bulls" and "bears" or to watch the frivolities of Mayfair. The rustle of a duchess's petticoat may make or unmake Governments, but for the hon. Member for the Scotland Division it simply brings back the glories of Queen Maeve and the time when it was dishonourable for an Irish King to die in

  1519
  his bed. The plight of the hon. Member must touch every sympathic heart. The only parallel which I can find for his case is that of Joseph in Egypt. There has been a good deal of talk to-night with regard to Irish nationality. I hate to have to prick a fairy bubble, but truth forces me to say that Ireland never was and is not to-day a nation. You might as well speak of Lancashire or of Middlesex or of Yorkshire as a nation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or of Scotland."] Well, Scotland has a great many of the characteristics of a nation which were never present in Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "A great many are present in Ireland."] I understand that the first speech of an hon. Member is allowed to go on without interruption. Personally I have no objection to interruptions provided that they are relevant, but I do object to irrelevant interruptions. If any hon. Member of this Committee can convince himself that Ireland is a nation, then I think it follows that there are two nations in Ireland. If the Southern Nationalist claims to have a right to separate from Great Britain, surely the Northern nation of Ireland, the Ulstermen, has a right to remain part and parcel of Great Britain. We only ask for ourselves the right to remain part of this Empire, in the building up of which we have taken an important part. The truth of the matter is that the Irish Nationalists are trying to build up an impossible future on an imaginary past, and that is not a very successful thing to attempt.
  We have heard from the hon. and gallant Member who last spoke a good deal in regard to American opinion. One would imagine that all American opinion was in favour of Home Rule for Ireland; but the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the American people take not the slightest interest in Ireland except occasionally at election times, when the Irish vote in America is used in much the same way as it is used in some English constituencies—to force people to become Home Rulers, not from conviction, but from expediency. I have only two observations to make with regard to America's attitude to Home Rule. The first of these is, as I have said, America has no right, and the bulk of the American people have no desire, to interfere in our affairs. The second is, that America had a war of over three years' duration rather than allow her
  1520
  own country to be dismembered. Are we to dismember our country at the dictates of an outside country? I think not. Who are these people in America who are carrying on the agitation? They are the people who for the first three years of the War did a great deal to assist our enemies, and who were only compelled by coercion—and the American people know how to apply coercion—to submit to the laws of America and to submit to support the Allies. I noticed that during the Debate to-night very little was said with regard to Sinn Fein. I think that aspect of the question requires more attention than it has received. It is not the fault of the Sinn Feiners that their attitude is not known. I, of course, disagree with them, but I am free to admit that they have honestly and openly declared their principles. We have got to get back to 1903, when we find that Sinn Fein was originated by Arthur Griffith. Arthur Griffith, in the formation of that movement, held a Convention, and at that Convention it was stated that
  "The most important of all matters was the anti-enlisting crusade …the Irish Nationalist who entered the English Army or Navy deserved to be flogged."
  The anti-recruiting movement was only too successful, because the Sinn Feiners were working on soil that had been carefully cultivated for thirty years by Nationalist agitators. They were also helped in their agitation by reason of the fact that in 1906, at the dictation of the Nationalist party in this House, the then Government repealed the Peace Preservation Act and from that time onwards large quantities of arms and ammunition were brought into Ireland. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind, and I do so because so many taunts have been thrown across the House at us about our arming in Ulster, that we did not start arming in Ulster until the Nationalists had been arming for eight years, and not until it was absolutely imperative that we should arm, not only in our own defence, but in defence of the Empire. It is only necessary to follow the movements of the Sinn Fein conspiracy from 1903 until the present day to see that their one aim was to overthrow Great Britain. Roger Casement, a gentleman who had been heard of and who was> the beau ideal of the Nationalists for some years, was knighted in 1911. At that time Roger Casement had already entered into traitorous relations with Germany. [An HON. MEMBER: "So

  1521
  did others!"] The hon. Member, I presume, refers to Ulster. The first relation we had with Germany was on the 1st July, 1916, when, for the first time the Ulster Division broke through the German ranks. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the gun-running?"] We had relations with Germany on several occasions like that. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the German rifles?"] I am not going to enter into that. As I said, in 1911, a long time before the gun-running, Roger Casement was in alliance with Germany. Casement realised, as Napoleon had realised a century before, that the country that controlled Ireland controlled Great Britain and he wrote, and he knew what was coming:
  "In this War Ireland has only one enemy. Let every Irish heart, let every Irish hand, let every Irish purse be with Germany."
  "Irish Freedom," a paper to which Casement contributed, wrote:
  "If, then, Ireland lends her aid to Germany and Germany wins in a war with England, Ireland will become an independent nation."
  The Sinn Feiners were well informed long before the War that the War was coming. I would ask hon. Members to note this. It was written by Sinn Feiners early in 1913, a year before the rifles were brought to Ulster:
  "The mighty British Empire is on the verge of destruction. The English live in daily terror of Germany. War between Germany and England is at hand."
  Yes, those people knew what they were writing about. They were in close touch with Germany. I now challenge the Government to deny that Roger Casement was in the pay of Germany from 1911, and that Germany had sent large sums to Sinn Feiners in Ireland from 1911 onwards for the purpose of fomenting rebellion, and that German spies had been in Ireland for some years before the War, and had formulated plans which the Sinn Feiners were to carry out during hostilities, and that secret wireless installations were established, and that German submarines were supplied with petrol and other necessaries, and that large quantities of arms and ammunition were landed on the West Coast of Ireland for the use of the Sinn Feiners, and that elaborate arrangements had been made for a German landing in Ireland. We are entitled to some information from the Government as to the extent of the help which Sinn Feiners gave Germany during the War. I have tried on two occasions since I entered this House to drag some information out of the Leader
  1522
  of the House with regard to this matter. I was not successful, but I hope I will be more successful with the Chief Secretary, and that he will tell us something with regard to the relations which he knows existed between the Sinn Feiners and Germany. Why cannot our Government be as frank with us as the American Government have been with the American people on this subject? I will tell you why. It is because they are ashamed of some of the incidents that happened. For example, after the War started the Irish Nationalists wanted to bring some arms and ammunition into Ireland, and Mr. Asquith gave instructions that facilities were to be given for the bringing in of those arms. Those arms were landed in Dublin, and were stolen, by the Sinn Feiners, and were used afterwards for shooting down British soldiers and Irish policemen. Probably that is one of the reasons why the Government are afraid to go into the question of Sinn Fein. If you establish a Parliament in Ireland that Parliament must of necessity be controlled by Sinn Feiners who have shown themselves the enemies of our country. Are you going to place Ireland in the hands of people who during the War did what they could for the overthrow of Great Britain? Unless people are bereft of all common sense they never would agreed to do so. I have no hesitation in saying in all sincerity and emphatically that to establish a Parliament in Ireland would be an injustice to Ireland and an act of treachery to Great Britain.
  Lieut.-Colonel WALTER GUINNESS: Certain of the speakers to-day seem to be suffering from the usual Irish complaint of living in the past rather than in the present. The only constructive proposals we have had put forward from the Nationalist Benches were, firstly, that we should go by President Wilson's fourteen points, and, secondly, the proposal of the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) that we should base ourselves on the Irish National Convention, but the National Convention, where the Nationalist party played a very conciliatory part, was absolutely repudiated by the people of Ireland at the last election, when they refused to return the Nationalist party, and instead sent as their representatives a party which had no part nor lot in the Convention. Therefore, I think it would be a waste of time to think of conciliating Ireland by adopt-

  1523
  ing a proposal which the electorate has emphatically refused. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division gave us a diagnosis of the revolutionary movement in Ireland. This movement is really nothing new. It has certainly changed its symptoms, but whether they are seeking their ends by methods of violence or by methods of the Constitution, the driving force of the anti-British party in Ireland has always been separatism. The Nationalist party used to be separatists. Their followers in this respect have not left their leaders, but their leaders, so far as they are not now separatists, have left their followers. The Nationalists were repudiated by their former supporters in Ireland as soon as they showed those supporters that they had become moderate and were content to accept a system of Home Rule within the Empire. In fact, the hon. Member for the Scotland Division gave us the strongest confirmation of that when he said Mr. John Redmond signed his political death warrant when he took up a pro-British attitude at the beginning of the War.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: That is quite wrong. That is not the statement I made, and I cannot allow it to go unchallenged. I said he signed his political death warrant after he had made that speech, when he was betrayed by the country, by the men, and by the cause in whose favour he spoke.
  Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Anyhow, we have got to face the present, and the Sinn Fein movement is no longer actuated in Ireland as it was for so many years by harmless literary coteries and by a lot of gentlemen of academic eminence. It is now frankly an anti-British and anarchistic movement. Captain Stephen Gwynne said quite recently that Sinn Fein was more and more committed to Bolshevism, and I will not weary the House with quotations, but will just give one, and that is of Countess Markievicz, because this shows the connection not only with Bolshevism but also with Germany. The Countess Markievicz, speaking at Cookstown, said the Bolshevists were friendly to Ireland, and they had told a delegation of the Irish Republican party that they would support Ireland at the Peace Conference. "We have also a treaty with Germany. That treaty guarantees Ireland as a free and independent republic." I do not agree with the hon. Members opposite who think that
  1524
  in view of these facts the electorate of this country are prepared to hand over the control of Ireland to such forces. We have got quite enough difficulty in Ireland to control disorder as it is, without handing over the Executive to people who are openly going to use it for wrecking the British connection. To set up, as is now apparently proposed, an Irish Parliament separate from this country, and without any counterpoise in the shape of the loyal sentiment of the North, would be a certain way of getting complete separation in a very few years. I do not wish to pursue this subject any further, because after all this is the only opportunity we shall have to get a little information about Irish administration.
  I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do to maintain order in Ireland. There was a very horrible crime committed the other day at Westport. An Irish resident magistrate, Mr. Milling, was shot in his house, and very little notice of it has been taken over here, as is usual. It was first said he had been wounded, quite a common occurrence in Ireland. Why was this gentleman shot? He was shot as a result of a deliberate propaganda which has been going on in Ireland. A Member of this House, Mr. W. Sears, was prosecuted for having on 11th December at a Sinn Fein meeting delivered a speech inciting those present when occasion arose to "shoot the military, the police, and the Government officials, as the moonlighters did similar good work by shooting landlords and bailiffs in the eighties." And Ireland has been flooded with leaflets, from which I will only give one quotation. This is a leaflet seized in Cork recently, on the. 20th March:
  "The man who drives the police ear or assists in the transport of Army supplies, all these having assisted the enemy, must be shot or otherwise destroyed with the least possible delay. In short, we must show that it is not healthy to be against us and that those who are not going to be against us must be with us."
  By allowing this sort of thing to be circulated in Ireland the authorities have led up to the kind of occurrence which is now taking place in Westport. The murder of Mr. Milling is not the only case. Since the troops were withdrawn from the Westport district there have been at least three brutal and murderous attacks in the streets of that town, to try and intimidate those who were not friendly to the Sinn Fein cause. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he withdrew these troops

  1525
  from Westport. I understand he was warned over and over again of the certain results of taking away this protection which was needed by the loyal inhabitants of Westport, and in spite of that the troops were withdrawn in January.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): I was not in office in January.
  Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: I did not mean his personal responsibility, but the responsibility of the Department which he is administering. No doubt he has the information, and it has been brought to his notice that these representations were made. I would like an explanation of the extraordinary laxity of prison administration in Ireland. It is turning the law into contempt to see the kind of performances which go on among prisoners. At Belfast Gaol, at the end of last year, disturbances took place in which about £3,000 worth of damage was done in destroying stairs and balconies. The authorities took the mildest measures against these people. They first turned out the light and turned off the water, but it was represented, I understand, that this was inconvenient to the rioters, and so they turned the light and water on again, and they finally yielded the full political rights which had been enjoyed before, and promised as soon as possible to remove the prisoners, if they wished, to an internment camp. As anybody who knows the Irish people might have guessed, this only encouraged them, and three, weeks after we had another demonstration, when the prisoners began wrecking another wing of the prison. On that occasion they did, I think, only a small amount of damage, about £300. That is not the only kind of trouble we have had in Irish prisons. We find that prisoners can escape without any trouble whatever. There were four cases recently. In England it was on a smaller scale. Apparently they had to take a little trouble to get out of prison in England. On 16th March, in Ireland, Mr. Barton, M.P., escaped from the Mountjoy Gaol, leaving a note behind saying, that owing to the discomfort of the place he felt compelled to leave, and asking the Governor to keep his baggage safe until he sent for it. You would imagine that the Government would take the trouble to prevent this happening again, but less than a fortnight afterwards twenty more prisoners, including two Members of this
  1526
  House, escaped from the same prison by means of a rope ladder. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some explanation of these extraordinary performances, which are having very bad effects at the present time in Ireland. Although it is the duty of the Government to maintain law and order in Ireland you have sent over a series of Chief Secretaries who have apparently been selected for their complete ignorance of the Irish question, with the only result that they have been made fools of. I hope we have departed from this, and that we have now got a reformer in Ireland and not merely a dialectician. We hope that although the right hon. Gentleman is a barrister, his Celtic blood will prevent him making those idiotic mistakes of which his predecessors have been guilty, and he has a golden opportunity because, in the absence of the Sinn Fein representatives, he will be able to stop talking and get to business. Much bitterness has been aroused in the past by raising unrealisable hopes, and I trust he is going to say at once that Ireland is not going to get Home Rule, or anything else, as a reward for rebellion. We have to make up our minds what reason there is for change in Ireland so as to satisfy Irish unrest. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Irish majority,"] But the Irish majority, judging by their representatives, want complete independence. So the hon. Gentleman, apparently, wants to give Ireland complete independence. I thank him for his frankness, but I do not believe that that is the wish of the majority of the House. I think most people in the House wish to give Ireland what they want, short of independence, but they do not realise that neither partition nor Home Rule within the Empire is going to satisfy the unruly in Ireland.
  If you cannot satisfy the extremists, you must concentrate on reform that is really needed in the country, and there is a very fertile field in reconstruction. Sinn Fein, so far, has been a really negative programme, and we can add to their difficulties by bringing forward social reforms which they cannot really oppose. If you bring forward any constitutional change, they will tear it to ribands, and you will give them a great opportunity for further agitation. There is a great need for small changes in private Bill legislation in Ireland, and I hope we are going to have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the promised measure will be

  1527
  shortly introduced. We want better health administration, because, although the Health Bill has been amended to include Ireland, it does not go anything like far enough. In Ireland, the dispensary doctors are terribly overworked, and about anything between 40 and 60 per cent. of the population depends on them. One sees a dispensary doctor aged seventy-five looking after an area of about twelve miles square, and I do not know really whether I am sorrier for the dispensary doctor or for the people whom he has to look after. The only way out of it is to raise the status of this overworked service, and to put it on a national basis. We have got a death-rate of 16·8 in Ireland against 14.4 in the rest of the United Kingdom; we have the highest tuberculosis death-rate, and a rapidly falling birth-rate. If the Government would devote themselves to these kind of questions, instead of trying to bring in a constitutional change, they would be able to dish the Sinn Feiner. I remember, in my early days, that one used to hear a doggerel in Dublin, which said that the Irish were
  "fighting like devils for conciliation and hating each other for the love of God.'
  No doubt they will go on doing that. Political unrest will be a national sport, but I do beg this House to avoid giving legislative prizes for these political diversions.
  Captain REDMOND: I do not intend to detain the House at very great length by going over any of the points which have been dealt with by the speakers in this Debate. I am inclined to agree somewhat with the expression of the last speaker in the early portion of his remarks, where he stated that, after all, what we had to look into now was the present and the immediate future, and not to dwell too much in the past. It is sometimes said that Irishmen are inclined to dwell too much in the past. After all, I know that the past, especially the Irish past, has not a very nice taste in the mouths of British Ministers, but it is perfectly true that there may be reason for our dwelling in the past. We cannot discuss the present or the proposals of the future without, at any rate, a reference to the past. At the present moment what are we up against in Ireland? The country is in a state such as ft has never been in before. It is almost, I believe, on the verge of revolution. Who is responsible for the state of Ireland?
  1528
  Who is responsible for the government of Ireland. Is it the members of one particular political party in Ireland or another? No. The government of Ireland is conducted by and is the sole and only and proper object of the British Ministers in this Parliament, who insist upon the conduct and continuance of a system of government averse to the majority of Irish people. At the present time there is a Home Rule Act upon the Statute Book. It was said this afternoon that nobody in Ireland was in favour of the Home Rule Act. That may or may not be so. Nobody in Ireland may be in favour of that particular measure, which at the time was acceptable as a means of transferring the wishes of the people into legislative effect, but which, owing to the efflux of time and to the change of conditions, especially financial conditions, brought about by the War, would undoubtedly have to be considerably amended, financially and otherwise, to fit the case.
  The fact remains that the Home Rule Act is there. It is true there is a Suspensory Act in existence, the terms of which are that the Home Rule Act is, by Order in Council, to come into operation at a fixed date at the end of the War. That being so the question I have to ask the Government is this: Do they propose to do anything in regard to the government of Ireland? If they do, do they propose to repeal the Home Rule Act or do they propose to put it into operation? If they propose to repeal it let them say so once and for all. Let them have this much courage at any rate, boldly to tell Ireland and the rest of the world that she has been fooled, that they have played the confidence trick upon her, and pledged the word of the British Parliament, of the British electorate, and of His Majesty the King, whose signature is affixed to the Home Rule Act, that that all now counts for nothing, and that Ireland is to be blatantly, grossly, and openly betrayed; that the voluntary sacrifices which were made by Irishmen in the War are to count for nought, that Irish blood has been spilt in vain for Ireland and merely for the benefit of small nationalities in other parts of the world! Let them openly and avowedly make that assertion; then we will think something of them. I do not imagine that they will do this. They will say they are going to put the Act into operation? I do not think they will take that course either.
  I myself do not for a moment see why, if they have any desire whatsoever for the

  1529
  future of Ireland—and after all they are always professing that they have some desire for it, though they give very little manifestation of the desire—why they could not come forward and put the Act into operation, subject to the modifications necessary owing to the effluxion of time and the conditions brought about by the War. It will be said that the then Prime Minister pledged an amending Bill. Very well. Let the Government come along with their amending Bill—which will be necessary owing to the facts I have mentioned. Let them propose to the House a fair solution of this question. I fear that that will not be the case. No; what will happen will be the same old story. We will not be told that the Government are going to repeal the Home Rule Act, nor to put it into operation. We will not be told that they are going to bring in an immediate solution or device for settling the Irish question. We will be told that, owing to the lamentable state of affairs in Ireland, nothing can be done. We know very well the nature of the reply to expect. But if the conditions are such—and I for one certainly do not deny that the condition of affairs in Ireland was probably never more serious—if they are in such a deplorable state, who is responsible? The beautifully vicious circle the Government are constantly travelling in! First of all, owing to the state of affairs brought about by the malignity of the War Office and the stupidities and blunders of successive—not successful—Chief Secretaries and their associates—this state of affairs has been brought about. Once the Government have brought about these conditions, they say, "Ah, now that we have brought about these conditions, of course, we can do nothing until they improve." Therefore they keep gaily sailing round in this delightfully vicious circle.
  What I am particularly anxious to know to-night from the Chief Secretary it, Has the Government got any Irish policy at all? I heard one hon. Member say in Debate that he "did not say it was a bad Government in Ireland nor a good Government: so far as he can make out there was no Government at all." I must say I am very largely in agreement with that hon. Member. I do not really know if there is any Government in Ireland. I do not know who the Government are. I do not know what their policy is. I do not know what is their programme. I do not think they know themselves! Let me give the Committee
  1530
  an instance of what happens, and of the utter futility, lack of purpose, lack of coordination, and general objective throughout the whole system of government in Ireland. At Newry the other day a friend of mine was making a speech. He was interrupted. I suppose a great many of us have been interrupted in our speeches. He paid no attention to the interrupter. I do not know whether or not he was able to hand his speech to the Press. However, he made no complaint. Within ten days of this occurrence, at a late hour at night, three men were hauled out of their beds, brought under arrest before a magistrate, and subsequently sentenced to six months' hard labour.
  An HON. MEMBER: What for?
  Captain REDMOND: For interrupting a public meeting contrary to the Defence of the Realm Act. Is that a serious way to deal with Ireland? Are these pinpricks—because they are nothing else!—a serious way of tackling a serious situation? I heard a story of a countryman of mine down at Cork the other day, although I do not vouch for its accuracy. An Irishman was going merrily along the footpath and someone shouted out, "Three cheers for the King's cousin." He was arrested and he got six months' hard labour. That may be high policy and statesmanship, but it does not go very far towards reducing the present state of Ireland to a normal and proper condition. We are told owing to the present condition of Ireland that nothing can be done. We may be told that a few sops will be handed out, such as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dun-cairn outlined this afternoon in his extremely able Home Rule speech. They may give us better houses, and even the Treasury may become munificent, although that needs a stretch of the imagination. They may go on handing out doles, they may give us housing and better schools and a better form of education and anything else they like, but hon. Members from Ulster know as well as I do that not one of those questions will ultimately affect He inherent demand that there is, and always will be, in Ireland for a recognition of the national right of the people to govern themselves according to their own ideas on their own soil, and in their own country.
  I do not know whether many hon. Members have read the petition, which was taken notice of rather considerably in the Press, and it was signed by about 150

  1531
  officers from Ireland who had served in the Army. It was a petition to the King, an unprecedented course for officers to take if you like, but they had an unprecedented case. In this petition they made out that they, as Irish Nationalists, enlisted in the Army at the outset of the War on the understanding that they were fighting for the cause of small nationalities in particular, and democracy at large, and that by so enlisting they were ratifying on their side, at any rate, the treaty which had just been cemented between the two countries by the placing of the Home Rule Bill upon the Statute Book. In the course of this petition they called upon the King to have this question placed before the Peace Conference, and why did they do so? For this reason, that they had come to the conclusion, owing to the action of British Ministers during the War, and owing to the flagrant transgressions and breaches of faith, that there is no hope, at any rate in the present Parliament, of this question being definitely and properly settled, and that the fairest and quickest and best means would be to refer it to the Peace Conference. In the course of this petition they say:
  "In our opinion, Ireland as a nation has been robbed of her treaty rights, and the Irish people as a race reduced to the position of helots by the withholding of that which in virtue of their citizenship they had won by constitutional action. Of those for whom we speak, the survivors feel that their reliance on the Home Rule conpact was ill-founded, and that their comrades who have given their lives in that reliance have made a sacrifice fruitless up to the present of benefit for the Fatherland that they loved. We appeal to Your Majesty, under these circumstances of unprecedented difficulty, for a sympathetic consideration of the cause of your Irish subjects. We submit that, under present conditions, it is in accordance neither with expediency nor natural justice that the issue between the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain should be finally determined by Your Majesty's Ministers."
  I am not going to read any more of this document, but I want to impress upon hon. Members if it is within my power to do so, the feeling of tens of thousands of Irish Nationalists who voluntarily joined the Army at the outbreak of hostilities on the understanding that by so doing they would be offering up their lives, if necssary, for a cause which was embodied in the Home Rule Act, which had been placed on the Statute Book. It is no use mincing words, and I say that we feel they have been cheated out of the lives of their comrades. The relatives and friends
  1532
  of those men who went to the front and fought, and many of them sacrificed their lives to the cause of the Allies, feel that that cause was a sham and that they have been grossly betrayed by British Ministers and British statesmen.
  I am very anxious to hear what the Chief Secretary has to say, but I am most anxious to know if the Government has any policy what that policy is. I want to know if they are going to put forward that policy at all with anything like power and determination, or whether they are simply going to indulge in pious hopes amounting to nothing in the future, as they have so often done in the past. We have beautifully expressed pious hope about the future of Ireland, but, as we say in Ireland, "Soft words butter no parsnips." We have had pious hopes in the King's Speech, from the Chief Secretary and from the Prime Minister, but it does not do simply for the Government to say that they mean well towards Ireland, and in a most patronising manner declare that Ireland has some right to exist and that they will not hinder it from existing in the future. We want to know: Are the Government going to shelve their own responsibility in regard to Ireland, because the responsibility rests with this Government and with this Government alone. I therefore call upon the Chief Secretary, and upon the British people as well, to tell the Irish people once and for all what they have made up their minds to do, if they have made them up at all, in regard to Ireland in the future.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope the Committee will allow me now to reply to the various speeches which have been made in the course of this afternoon and evening. Before I come to the main points which have been raised, which are two in number, namely, the reconstruction problem in Ireland and the general Irish policy, I should like to draw the attention of the House to one statement which was made by the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down (Captain Redmond). It was one of those statements which become so distorted when once they cross the Irish Channel. He referred to one outstanding example of malpractice and incompetence on the part of the Irish Government in a case which occurred the other day in the town of Newry. He tried to frighten the House into consternation by telling us

  1533
  that three men for asking questions at some political meeting were sent to six months' hard labour. [An HON. MEMBER: For heckling!] I made it my duty to look into this case, and I found that these men were simply bound over for six months to keep the peace. The moment the responsible magistrate in charge of the case had given that decision they could have walked out of the Police Court free men. That is the way that facts are apt to be distorted when Irishmen discuss their own affairs across the Channel.
  Mr. DONNELLY: Might I rise to a point of Order? I reside in the town of Newry, and I beg to say that the right hon. Gentleman must have been wrongly informed. The alternative sentence inflicted, not upon three men but upon four men, was six months' imprisonment. They were put under a rule of bail, and they refused to give bail. The alternative sentence was six months' imprisonment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir F. Banbury): The hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I think the House will agree that my statement of the case was perfectly fair. As a matter of fact, they were not charged with heckling the distinguished Irishman to whom my hon. and gallant Friend referred. There was a charge made against them under the Defence of the Realm Act of trying to incite breaches of the peace. That was the charge, and it was upon that charge that they were tried.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Did not the police witness, when examined for the prosecution, say that there was never any danger of a breach of the peace?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know whether he did or not.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Well, he did.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: If my hon. Friend will put down a question, I will do my level best to give him an answer.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: It is a scandal worthy of Prussia.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Let me first deal with the reconstruction problem, which was adumbrated, first of all, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson). He laid very great stress not upon the past
  1534
  but upon the present and the great problems of the future, and I cannot help thinking that the whole House must have heard, with great satisfaction the great desire which he expressed to see the town of Belfast particularly, and indeed the whole of Ireland, in a better condition than it has been in the many years that have gone by. I need hardly tell him and the House that I approach the problem of education with the greatest possible sympathy. At the same time, knowing as I do the history of education in all parts of the country, and especially in my own native land, I approach it with awe. I know how much education means in the history of any country, and I take a pride, a legitimate pride, in that my own native country recognised that fact many centuries ago. Until quite recently it had twice as many universities as any other country in the Empire, and its system of education, avoiding at all times the pitfall of religion, brought it to the forefront of the nations of the world, and to-day, by the splendid effort of my right hon. Friend and colleague the Secretary for Scotland—the same also applies to England, by the efforts of my right hon. Friend and colleague the Minister for Education—Scotland has even overcome the pitfall of religion, and, so far as I can gather, there is no grievance among any denomination with regard to education across the border.
  I wish it were my lot to see education on the same footing in Ireland. After all is said and done, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin), Ireland was the island of saints and scholars, and did more for education, culture, and religion in the early centuries of civilisation than any other country or island in the world. The tendency, however, in Ireland, as it is in all Celtic countries—I feel it in my bones—is to dwell upon the traditions and greatness of the past. That is a very good thing to do, provided that you do it within reason. But if you are going to keep in the forefront of the industrial competition of life you have to be careful. The modern always overcomes the ancient in the industrial struggle, unless it be in the case of wine. I speak, as I say, about education in Ireland with awe. I am not even responsible in this House for the defects of education in Ireland, though I seem to be responsible, for I get all the blame, for everything else. When my

  1535
  right hon. Friend asks me a question about education in Ireland all that I can do is to stand up and read a carefully prepared answer, prepared by somebody else, as best I can. I should like during my term of office in the Irish Government to see someone in this House who would be responsible for all education in Ireland, and when I say that I realise the enormous importance of education, particularly in a country like Ireland, and I also realise the right which the representatives of the people of Ireland ought to have to demand from the Minister responsible in this House an explanation of the defects of the educational system or of anything else. I have made it my duty, so far as I could in the short time I have occupied this office, to try to understand the educational system in Ireland. I have been fortunate in having had the opportunity of reading the two admirable Reports which have just been submitted to me—one on primary and the other on intermediate education. I wish the terms of reference, as my right hon. Friend has suggested, had been wider in scope and less circumscribed, and that while dealing with the very important points with which these two Reports dealt, these eminently qualified and representative Committees had also a direction to discuss the situation in its wider and broader aspects. But still they have come to very valuable conclusions, and I propose to ask a Departmental Committee of experts to consider these two Reports, and to see what proposals can be formulated for me to embody in a Bill which I hope to introduce.
  The two points, in my judgment, that ought to be considered—and I was interested to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Dun-cairn Division emphasise these two particular points—are these. The first is whether a central authority represented in this House is not desirable to coordinate the three existing departments of education in Ireland, namely, primary, intermediate and technical education; and secondly, whether any rate should be levied for purely educational purposes. I realise, as my right hon. Friend has realised, and as my right hon. Friends on these benches have realised, that extraordinary advance has been made in Ireland with regard to the
  1536
  striking of a rate. It says a good deal for the common sense of the members of those great Committees that they should have taken a step in the right direction. For of all things to which the people of a country should attend first and foremost, I know of nothing to compare with education. I should like this Committee to consider whether the rate should be a national one or a county one. I quite realise, as was adumbrated in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Falls Division, there may be a great difficulty, but I am hopeful that the spirit of conciliation, which I noticed in his speech and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Duncairn Division, will lead to great results, and that it will be my joy and satisfaction to see a great system of national education established in Ireland. I need hardly say I for one would not be a party to what is called in Ireland "Godless education." In my judgment, it could easily be provided for in any Bill which is brought forward that the religious atmosphere and the control of any school, whether Protestant or Catholic, should be left as at present and should be preserved as at present. I notice my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division nods his head. I am quite convinced that if he uses his great influence in his own territorial district to ensure this, he will be a proud and happy man to realise the effect of his own wisdom.
  Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what I nodded my head at?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I thought my hon. Friend was in thorough agreement with my appeal to him to continue the spirit of conciliation which I saw existed between himself in the matter of education and my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I do not want to be misunderstood, but I nodded my head at the sentiment expressed by the right hon. Gentleman that there would not be interference with the present managerial system in Ireland.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I was not talking about that. There are some points, I realise, which can be given effect to administratively, and I will make it my business to see if I can bring them into effect as speedily as possible. I am quite convinced that one thing we have got to

  1537
  see to is this. It is not to be expected that education can be good in any country if teachers are poorly paid. If a teacher is poorly paid, if he has got hardships at home—and I have had many cases of extreme hardship brought to my notice by teachers in well-known schools in Ireland—he is bound to have his mind embittered, and if his mind is embittered, it is bound to be reflected in the teaching given to the children. And I am not at all sure there may not be feelings of discontent emanating from that source. The other point which my hon. Friend raised and drew special attention to at the end of his speech was the question of housing.
  Sir E. CARSON: There was a small matter to which I referred—now an old and a pressing matter—and that is the question of the paper-promoted teachers?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: As my right hon. and learned Friend will understand, till I see the paper and find out all the facts of the ease, I do not like to make a definite promise, but I will give this promise, that I will make it my duty as soon as ever I can—possibly to-morrow—to have the whole matter looked into.
  Sir E. CARSON: I am much obliged.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I was not surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend drew my special attention to the housing conditions in Ireland. It is a problem which did not escape my attention. Indeed, it was the very first problem which occupied my thoughts when I took office in Ireland, and I set myself to see what could be done, and done quickly. On its rural side in Ireland, great progress has been made with regard to this problem by the Labourers Acts, and it is a cheering and an attractive side to anybody who visits Ireland to see the countryside dotted with clean white houses in which men can fitly dwell. I think that as many as 50,000 of these houses have been built. I cannot, however, discuss that scheme at the present moment. But it was a scheme for which generous terms could be given. The conditions demanded that generous terms should be given. Agriculture in Ireland was, and is, the great industry of the country. It had to be fostered. It was necessary to have labourers on the land, and if they were housed well they would work well, and their children would begin life with a fair chance morally and physically. It paid the State to give generous terms to ensure this alone,
  1538
  though it had of necessity to do so for the more material reason that wages were low, and high terms of repayment were impossible.
  On the urban side, the problem is even more urgent, and more urgent in certain parts of Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Report after report has disclosed the appalling conditions which, in my judgment, are a disgrace to civilisation. Filth, squalor, congestion, rack-rents—these are not the concomitants of a wise and beneficent civilisation. They are the allies of death and disease, of immorality and vice all over the world. But in Ireland they are that and something more. They are the allies of Bolshevism and Sinn Fein. No man can have but an embittered feeling if, morning, noon, and night, he has to carry on his occupation surrounded by brutal conditions of life, which he feels have been thrust upon him by a power which he is too weak to fight single-handed. The problem of housing is largely a problem of health in the family or in the State. A good house, with all the associations of a home, is the most effective weapon, in my judgment, to secure the sanest outlook on life, and is the best guarantee for the moral and physical well-being as well as for self-government. In Ireland there are in existence separate housing enactments which have created a housing tradition. I had to consider what scheme would beat fall in with these without losing any advantage to Ireland and with the securing, if possible, of some advantage. I hope I have been successful. I came to the conclusion that the system in the English Bill was not at all suitable to the conditions in Ireland. The towns in England where housing is most required are wealthy, industrial centres, and an addition upon the rates for the ratepayers there would have been no great consequences. But in Ireland, with three or four exceptions, the towns are very poor, the rates are most oppressive, and already the losses upon the building schemes which have been carried out have been very large. In one case the loss has been so great as 1s. 8d. in the £, and, as the Committee has reason to know, the rates in the great City of Dublin are as high as 16s. 10d. in the £. I had, therefore, to find a means which would give an equivalent relief to the ratepayers in Ireland to that given in England, and which would enable housing schemes to be carried out without any loss to the rate-

  1539
  payers if the schemes were economical, appropriate to the needs of the people, and if the houses were built, on clean, healthy sites. Such a means, after the most careful consideration, has been found. It has been calculated that a Grant equal to the rent charged and collected for the house would provide the difference between the actual rent which people might reasonably be expected to pay and the economic rent, which would include loan charges, repairs, insurance, upkeep, management and collection. For example, if you take a house which cost £550, the economic rent sufficient to pay all charges would be 15s. If the reasonable rent charged and collected were fixed at 7s. 6d., the State would pay the remaining 7s. 6d. It can also be put in this way: If the rent charged and collected is £25 a year, the State will give a grant of another £25, namely, will pay £l for every £l of rent charged and collected by the local authorities. As the Committee may remember this problem was discussed at great length by a representative Committee of the Convention, and this was the conclusion at which they arrived:
  "The general conclusion at which we have arrived is that the number of houses to be erected in urban areas as soon as circumstances admit of the work being carried out may be put at £67,500; that the total cost will be approximately £27,000,000; and that it will be necessary for 50 per cent. of the loan charges to be borne by the central Government."
  It must be clear that the rent payable for the house must bear a certain proportion to the cost of the house. Otherwise there would be a danger of the house being let at too low a rent, which would mean really a form of out-door relief in aid of low wages. I am quite convinced that no trade unionist would tolerate such a system. I hope that the proposal I now make for Ireland is an eminently fair proposal. It is clearly a proposal which is better than the proposal presented to the Convention, for it is 50 per cent., not only of the loan charges but of all the other charges—upkeep, maintenance, and insurance. I was glad to find that deputations which I met in Ireland on the question of housing thoroughly agreed with my scheme so far. But my difficulty came when I had to discuss the raising of the loan by the local authorities. At that time I suggested that they should raise the money locally from the Irish banks. I have not yet been forgiven, either in the public
  1540
  Press or in the pulpits, for making such a statement in Ireland. As a matter of fact, the statement was made to me by a very distinguished Belfast man who told me that the Irish banks were full of money. Consequently, I thought, when the Treasury told me that they would not finance any scheme, that the proper place for the Irish corporations and local authorities to find the money was from the loyal Irish banks.
  Sir E. CARSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Savings Banks, of which the Treasury have control, have £105,000,000?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: That is very likely. I am going to tell the Committee what proposals I made to the Treasury. In any case, the Treasury really met the Irish people with a very worthy anxiety to deal fairly with them, and made the following proposals: They agreed to lend money at market rates to all the local authorities whose rateable value is less than £200,000 a year. There are only two towns in Ireland which have a greater rateable value than that, namely, Belfast and Dublin. I have every hope that those two cities, with the very good securities which they can give to the bankers, will be able to raise the money locally. If not, I must do my level best to approach the Treasury again, but I am convinced that any corporation which has good security could easily raise such a loan. We want to make this scheme as cheap and economical as possible, and with that in view we have offered a prize for the best plan for a cheap house in three grades of houses. I am glad to think every house will provide for a bath room and a wash-house. There is no reason, therefore, why the local authorities should not at once begin to cope with the demand for 50,000 houses. If this scheme is loyally carried out with due regard to economy and health, I hope we shall have helped in no small degree to promote the strength and happiness of the people of Ireland.
  I know I am expected to say a few words about general Irish policy. I could not help feeling that even Irish Members speaking in this Debate about the condition of Ireland were far away from the realities of the case. It is quite clear, in my judgment, from the feeling of the House, that no outside authority can interfere with us by intervention or otherwise in the solution of our

  1541
  own Irish problem. The hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) asked me what was meant by the statement in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. If I remember aright, that speech said that His Majesty viewed with grave anxiety the condition of Ire land, and until that condition was changed there could be no durable settlement of the problem. It is quite clear, in my judgment, that so long as the condition of the country is what it is, a condition which has been thrust upon it by irresponsible men within its own borders—
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Thrust upon it by the Government, and well they know it.
  Mr. MACPHERSON—no steps can safely be taken by the Government to alter the present system of government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Redmond) said the country was near a state of revolution. It is not my duty to judge the past or to consider who is responsible for the past. It is my duty now to consider the present and, as far as I can, to judge the future. The hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) told the Committee that we did not understand the condition of Ireland, that it was not placid, that it was not cold, that anyone who knew anything of Irish life had to deal with "Passions." He made a brilliant speech, but he never said a truer word in the whole course of it. My right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) asked me directly why we were keeping the military in Ireland and how many we had now. With regard to numbers, the Secretary for War stated those the other day. When I tell my right hon. Friend—and I hope he will appreciate the fact as I go along—that political unrest in Ireland continues unabated, and that outrages of the most cruel and unforgivable kind continue to darken Irish life, he will understand why we need the military to maintain law and order. Let me give some examples. They are from the latest reports, and I have taken them indiscriminately. In Galway shots are fired through the house of an honest man because his children are attending a school which has been boycotted by Sinn Fein. In Clare, the Estate Commissioners are threatened that if they give land to ex-soldiers they will be shot. In the Tipperary district, which we unhesitatingly proclaimed on account of the
  1542
  brutal and callous murders of two policemen, we published a proclamation asking for information as to the murderers. That was pulled down and in its place a threatening announcement was made that if any man gave any sort of information of any sort or kind with regard to these brutal murderers he would be shot. The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds gave some quotations Here is a proclamation published as a counter attraction to our proclamation in the district; a proclamation which recites the death penalties, and so forth, for everybody who in any way gives any sort of information to lead to the capture of the perpetrators of this heinous act. Here let me say that nothing could equal the courage, the bravery, the endurance of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the military who act under extreme provocation and only in accordance with their orders; and so long as I and those who act with me are in the Irish Government, we shall do everything that lies within our power to see that they are supported in any action which they legitimately take. Then there is the splendid behaviour of the resident magistrates who are determined to see justice clone whatever the consequences to themselves. All responsible people are shocked that the other day a distinguished member of that body, the Resident Magistrate of Westport, Mr. Milling, was brutally attacked and mortally wounded.
  I am glad that one hon. and learned Member to-night, the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Brown), passed an encomium upon him, and that relieves me of what would have been a most pleasant duty. He did so in a maiden speech of great brilliancy—a maiden speech which I feel sure will place him high in reputation in this House. We all expect great things of him in future. While I am referring to maiden speeches let me also mention the maiden speech of another Irishman, the hon. Member for the Woodvale Division of Belfast (Mr. Lynn). I cannot, of course, be expected to agree with everything he said; but I am quite convinced of this that he said it with great skill and with great brilliance and that he too has a great position of importance marked out for him in his own party and in this House.
  To come back to my recital of the Crimea and the audacity of the Sinn Fein

  1543
  party let me say that the Government itself the other day was threatened with a State entry of a so-called President of a so-called Irish republic, a republic which as the late Mr. John Redmond—one of the great men of the day, in my judgment—said it was both impossible and undesirable.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: He does not need your praise.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: He always got it from me and he always appreciated it. The attitude of His Majesty's Government on that occasion was clear and definite This was the first overt act of defiance of a body which was opposed to responsible constitutionalism. It was regarded as such, and there was no hesitation on our part to show that the Government would act, and act effectively, against those who made any such attempt to usurp a power which they could neither honour in the breach or the observance. In Ireland it is fatal, as I know too well, to make a promise which you cannot fulfil, or a threat which may turn out to be meaningless. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked me whether I was going to maintain law and order? I am determined neither to make a promise nor a threat, but so long as I occupy the office which I do occupy, which was not of my seeking, I am determined, so far as I can, to maintain law and order, to preserve the rights and liberties of law-abiding citizens, and to see that those who desire to carry on their daily toil on farm or in factory can do so unharassed by the thought of the terrorist or the assassin.
  Ireland to-day is one of the most prosperous countries in the world. At no time in its history was the bank depositor so numerous or so affluent. Save for the gallant dead who gave their lives freely in the cause of liberty Ireland has passed through the crisis of the world practically unscathed. With this successful materialism some may go so far as to say that it is in danger of losing its own soul. Whether that be so or not it can only preserve its soul if it frees itself from the shackles of unreason and aberration which seek to bind it. The menace of Sinn Fein, self-centred and selfish, with its cruel and wanton allies, of oppression and tyranny, with its enemy association, and its hatred of constitutionalism and those who represent it can ensure
  1544
  no progress for the country which it seeks to govern. It can only alienate sympathy. It can only maintain the deadlock, which it has produced and fostered. It can only stifle industry and initiative and hamper industrial and social development. The Gracious Speech from the Throne could have but one meaning and one meaning alone. The enemy of Ireland, wherever he may have been in the past, is not now without the gates but within the gates. The main body of opinion in Ireland is inflamed, menacing, scornful of compromise, accepting outrages as argument, and openly and ostentatiously defying law and order. If she continues to be rent as she is by contending forces, no self-determination upon constitutional lines is possible. If there is self-determination offered to Ireland again we know what that self-determination would be. It would be republicanism, Sinn Feinism in the rankest form. If she continues to give daily and hourly proofs that life, property and peace and even the harmless enjoyment of her people are not safe in her keeping, she makes it daily more difficult for the Imperial Government to explore all practical pathways, as they are prepared to do, to give a generous settlement of her problem which was never more pressing than it is to-day.
  Mr. JOHN JONES: My only reason for intervening in this Debate is that I happen to be a native of God's own country and, judging from the concluding part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech evidently it is not a country in which he desires to remain. We expected this evening to hear from the authoritative report of the Government some definite statement as to the solution of the Irish question. The legislation of the past may be forgotten. I left Ireland thirty-four years ago a bare-faced boy. I am not talking about any bareness of other parts of my anatomy because most Irishmen have generally been bare in other parts as well as their face when they left their native country. I want Members of this House to remember that while you may get an Irishman to forgive you cannot always get him to forget, and although the past may not always be palatable to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, it always remains with the Irishman as something which he is compelled to remember. We have heard a good deal to-night about the problems of Ireland and matters of education, hous-

  1545
  ing and other questions which are generally dealt with by the local authorities on the spot. Are we to understand that Ministers of the Crown have to get up in this House after hundreds of years of British government in Ireland and say that they have made such a horrible mess of the whole business that Ireland is an eye-sore even now to the rest of the British Empire? Sinn Fein! I hate Sinn Fein as much as any one on the Government benches. As a Trade Union official I have had to travel to Ireland in connection with the work of my own union and I have been met not merely with antipathy to Englishmen and England, but antipathy to their own countrymen who have lived here for generations and who have assimilated some of that cosmopolitanism which I hope will not become a too uncommon quality. We are all human beings, whatever our nationality, and in recent years I have found in the composition of Irishmen no more original sin than in people of other nationalities. But simply because of the way in which they have been betrayed, cheated, cribbed, cabined and confined and denied their rights constitutionally they have become absolutely sick unto death of the continued broken pledges and promises of successive British Governments.
  I have come from a fairly mixed constituency, which has sent here a fairly mixed Member. We have in that constituency Orangemen and Lemonmen, and it is a most peculiar thing that whilst these men carry from all parts of Ireland a very strong prejudice, religious and otherwise, yet they work together in factory and workshop and they assimilate and come together, they co-operate and fight for one of their own to represent them here and to help to solve the problems which affect their lives, and I say this—that what can be done in England by blending nationalities together can be done in Ireland by a wise policy on the part of those responsible for its government. I suspect there are some people who are not really opposed to vested interests, and want to perpetuate vested prejudices, and so long as they can keep Ireland divided on matters racial and religious everything in the garden will be lovely, and they will continue to rob the people as they have done hitherto. I am not an advocate of the Green Flag waving over green people. I do not recognise an Irishman as better than an Englishman. I recognise that we are all about as good as each other. Bad as they are and good as we are, they are
  1546
  as good as we are and we are as bad as they are. Nationality ought not to be brought into it, but prejudice has been kept alive by people who hope to profit thereby. Why do we hear from the Government nothing but that they propose to use bullets? We have heard to-night about outrages in Ireland, but the whole history of Ireland for 300 years has been a history of outrage.
  All the crimes that can be levelled against the majority of the Irish people are always being brought, but there has not been a word said here by the people who ought to know the position of the outrages that have been committed against a people rightly struggling to be free. Why is rebellion in one part of Ireland denounced and proclaimed whilst in another part it is looked upon as if it were a visitation from God, and to be recognised as one of the virtues I You have heard to-night about Sinn Fein and Germany. I have no love for Sinn Feiners. I have fought Sinn Fein and Bolshevism. I am going to continue to fight against Bolshevism. I believe in constitutionalism. My idea of constitutionalism is that the people of a nation constitutionally expressing themselves by means of the vote have the right to govern the nation according to the will of the majority. Whatever hon. Gentlemen on the other side may say, we are still a nation. We who have left Ireland believe, and there is not an Irishman but believes, that Ireland has all the qualities and rights that entitle her to demand treatment as a nation. Therefore I want to say as an Irishman living here, and not prejudiced against any man because of his antagonism or racial point of view, that the Government to-night have confessed to the whole world through their mouthpiece, the Chief Secretary, that however things may change, the more they remain the same.
  The same old story will have to be told at the Peace Conference. We can settle the troubles of Esthonia and of Poland and of the Czecho-Slovaks, and for the whole world, but for God's sake do settle the serious problem at our own doors. I want to say as one who did my little bit to help to win victory for democracy, and to try and make Europe safe for democracy, and to win the war for humanity against Kaiserism it is a poor thing here to-night, speaking not merely as an Irishman but a democrat,

  1547
  that the Government of this great Empire have nothing better to offer Ireland than less brains and more bullets. Why is Ireland so disaffected? Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen might think it should be disinfected, and that as a result of misgovernment a certain amount of Sanitas would not be out of place. I want you to realise that so far as we are concerned we have pledged ourselves to the League of Nations, not a league of diplomatists or of people who are to rig the world, but a league of the people to make it possible for humanity to enter into a higher state of civilisation. With due deference to my opponents, if Ireland cannot be shown to be a country worth governing, and a country fit to govern herself, well then I venture to suggest that all your theories of government fall to the ground, and your right to take part in the administration of Europe in the future becomes absolutely untenable. I would ask hon. Members to take into consideration that you are dealing not merely with Irishmen in Ireland. In every great industrial centre in Great Britain some of us are working amongst men of Irish blood, and amongst the descendants of Irishmen, and who are looking forward not to Sinn Feinism or a revolutionary movement which is unconstitutional in its inception and conception. They believe in democracy. They believe that the people of this country are generous in their instincts and desire to do justice to Ireland, and they expect that the Government of this country will recognise the democratic instinct, and instead of threatening us as to what they are going to do if we are not good boys that they will come forward with statesmanlike proposals, and justify their claim to be a Government in reality. You have tried to govern Ireland for over 300 years by the methods adumbrated here this evening. It has proved to be a miserable failure. The best speech delivered to-night against the Government of Great Britain in Ireland has been delivered by the representative of the British Government in Ireland—an absolute confession of miserable failure. Because that confession has been made, we on these benches, as Labour men, declare ourselves the friends of every country struggling rightly to be free, and we are willing to give every possible assistance we can to the constitutional representatives of Ireland to make that country not a sore upon the body politic, but one of the brightest gems in the
  1548
  British Crown, which she could be if we only translated into actual legislation those fine theories we have heard from the Treasury Bench to-night.
  Major HILLS: The speech of the Chief Secretary, sympathetic though it was on all social sides, has profoundly disappointed us, for what did he offer us? As he told us, the Government have no solution to give for the Irish problem. I will ask the Committee to consider where we stand. There is a Home Rule Act on the Statute Book. Is he going to accept the advice of my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University and repeal that Act or suspend it for five years; if not, what is he going to do? I put this simple question to my right hon. Friend and the Government. Either the Government have got a policy or they have not. If they have not got a policy, it is the bankruptcy of British statesmanship. If they have got a policy, in God's name let them tell us what that policy is. I am not impressed by threats of external influence, and when my right hon. Friend says with a great deal of show of resistance that he will not yield to outside authority and that he will not submit to the dictation of the U.S.A. or any other Power, I entirely agree. It is not President Wilson I am afraid of. The danger lies nearer home; it is our own consciences and our own hearts. How can we go into the League of Nations, how can we honestly, without hypocrisy, accept the principle of self-determination, without at the same time dealing with the Irish question? We seem to have gone a very long way back tonight. We had hoped from what we knew of my right hon. Friend to have something better than he has given us. All that he has said, all the instances that he has given of disorder in Ireland, all the regrettable occurrences which have happened in Ireland, all call for something more than he has given us to-night. I ask the Committee very earnestly, can we leave things where they are? I do not accept, all that the hon. Member for the Falls Division said, but I ask the House to remember that all through the War he has, with one possible exception, which the House may remember, not thrown himself on to the side of the opponents of this country, and when it is said that he has played the game of our enemy, as is often said, I ask the House to remember that he has staked his whole reputation, he and the late leader of that party, on the future of the British Empire, and the

  1549
  fact that that party sits there now few in numbers, is due to the mistakes and, indeed, to the betrayals of others. What are we to do who believe we have fought for the freedom of small nationalities, who believe we have fought to establish Poland, the Czecho-Slovaks, Montenegro, and all these small nations? Are we possibly going to face, not criticism from President Wilson or from our friends in the Uuited States, but criticism from ourselves? I do hope that before the Debate closes we shall get something more than we have got to-night, for unless we do it is an admission either that the Irish problem is quite insoluble or that the present Government are incapable of solving it. I do not in the least say it is easy of solution. I speak to-night with great diffidence; I do not think anyone would want to speak on a subject of this sort, because he must feel a great sense of responsibility. But this is a case in which the House generally, and this Committee in particular, can give a lead to the Government, and show them that they will not stand away paltering with a great cause like this. They must find some better solution than they have up to the present. It is no use telling us that they had put down revolution here and preserved order there and moved 44,000 troops into this and that district. It is not that that we want to know. We want to know that they are thinking and intending to bring before this House some permanent solution of this great problem. I do not ask them to be supermen. We all know how essentially difficult this great problem is, but surely we are entitled to expect something better than we have got to-night, and I believe from what I know and what I have seen of my right hon. Friend in this House, if he would cast aside the shackles which I believe have burdened him to-night, he could do something better. For, after all, he is akin to the Irish race by national and racial sympathies, and I am inclined to believe—at least, I hope it is the case—that he is burdened by instructions which he feels it impossible to disregard. I have said all I have got to say. I merely rose to say that I, as a Unionist, find the present position perfectly intolerable. I feel that we cannot go on as we are, and that the Government must find some solution.
  Sir JOHN BUTCHER: As an Irishman and as one who, I expect, has studied the Irish question at least as long as my
  1550
  hon. Friend who has just spoken, and who, at any rate, has lived in Ireland a good deal longer, I desire to express my most profound dissent from the strictures which he has passed on the policy announced by His Majesty's Government. As an Irishman—and I think I may speak in this matter for the great majority of this Committee—I have listened with extreme satisfaction to the extremely manly and courageous speech of the right hon. Gentleman this evening. We know him, and we learned to trust him and to look on him with confidence when he was at the War Office, and from what he has said to-night, I am confident that we shall learn to look on him and his administration in Ireland with equal confidence. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary showed that he had already mastered many of the Irish problems of reconstruction, and is going to deal with them in a manner which will command not only the assent of Unionists, but, I hope very much, the assent of Members of the Nationalist Party, and indeed of all parties in Ireland. Because, after all, these social reforms should not be party matters, either here or there. There was no part of my right hon. Friend's speech which will be greeted with greater satisfaction in England, and also I trust in Ireland, than the part in which he said that he was going to maintain order and administer the law. The administration of the law is the first duty of the Government in every country. If there is any country where slack administration of law leads to disaster it is in Ireland. I think Members know that as well as I do.
  Then on the political question, my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last (Major Hills) expressed dissatisfaction that the Government had not produced a solution. I should like to know his solution. It is no use coming here and shouting Home Rule. We have had enough disasters in Ireland by experiments in constitutional changes. Let us pause well before we make another experiment which will cause uneasiness and distrust and produce mutual friction and hatred between this country and Ireland. Let us produce no more of these experiments. Let us wait until the state of Ireland is such, and the unity of Irishmen is such, that we can produce a measure which will command some substantial support amongst the different parties in Ireland, at the same time safeguarding the

  1551
  interests of Great Britain. I should like to know what my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. Does he suggest that the majority of the representatives who were returned to Ireland at the last election should have their way, and that there should be an Irish Republic? I do not see any assent to that proposition. May I ask him or any other gentleman—are they in favour of Dominion Home Rule; in other words, of an absolutely practically independent Ireland with command of the harbours and ports, and the military and naval positions in Ireland, and which can cut itself adrift from this country at any moment it likes?
  I do not see that there is much assent to that proposition! My hon. Friend, if I may call him so, for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) made a speech to which we all listened with interest, if not with admiration. We have listened to that speech a great many times before. How many more times?
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Nobody is more tired of it than I am.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: I hope the hon. Gentleman will repeat that speech because it does prove to me that he has no solution to put forward. Yet he comes here and says, "Make a great constitutional
  1552
  change." Is he in favour of the scheme suggested, I think, by the hon. Gentleman opposite, namely that we should leave it to the League of Nations or to the Peace Conference? I was delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend that England has not fallen so low that a matter of her internal affairs is going to be brought before the Peace Conference or the League of Nations.
  All these solutions which have been brought forward to-night are either dangerous—as many of them are, or useless, or perhaps both—then I say it is no use coming to this House and talking of constitutional change. Let us do what, after all, is the duty of the Government. Let us maintain law and establish better social conditions in Ireland. Then we have had—
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  Adjourned at One minute after Eleven o'clock.

  BRITISH MUSEUM (TRUSTEES).
  BRITISH MUSEUM (TRUSTEES).
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (HOPS).
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (HOPS).
  CAPITAL ISSUES.
  CAPITAL ISSUES.
  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (WAR BONUS).
  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (WAR BONUS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  BUTTER PROSECUTION, BERMONDSEY.
  BUTTER PROSECUTION, BERMONDSEY.
  MARMALADE (UNREGISTERED CUSTOMERS).
  MARMALADE (UNREGISTERED CUSTOMERS).
  COST OF LIVING.
  COST OF LIVING.
IRELAND.
  DUBLIN CASTLE (MESSENGERS).
  DUBLIN CASTLE (MESSENGERS).
  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (DENTISTS).
  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (DENTISTS).
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  BLACK SEA FLEET (HOSPITAL SHIP).
  BLACK SEA FLEET (HOSPITAL SHIP).
DEMOBILISATION.
  MESOPOTAMIA EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  MESOPOTAMIA EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  APPEAL TRIBUNAL.
  APPEAL TRIBUNAL.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  NORTHAMPTONSHIRE REGIMENT.
  NORTHAMPTONSHIRE REGIMENT.
  WAR DECORATIONS (VOLUNTEERS).
  WAR DECORATIONS (VOLUNTEERS).
  RETURNED SOLDIERS (FURLOUGH).
  RETURNED SOLDIERS (FURLOUGH).
  SOLDIERS (LEAVE).
  SOLDIERS (LEAVE).
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (CLOSING).
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (CLOSING).
  GRENADIER GUARDS (3RD BATTALION).
  GRENADIER GUARDS (3RD BATTALION).
  EGYPTIAN FELLAHEEN (MEDICAL SERVICE).
  EGYPTIAN FELLAHEEN (MEDICAL SERVICE).
  SERVICE MEN (MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS).
  SERVICE MEN (MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS).
  PRISONERS OF WAR MISSING.
  PRISONERS OF WAR MISSING.
  GOVERNMENT WORKS, CIPPENHAM.
  GOVERNMENT WORKS, CIPPENHAM.
  SOLDIER'S GRAVE (PHOTOGRAPH).
  SOLDIER'S GRAVE (PHOTOGRAPH).
  SURPLUS ARMY HORSES (SALE).
  SURPLUS ARMY HORSES (SALE).
  CORRESPONDENCE (CENSORSHIP).
  CORRESPONDENCE (CENSORSHIP).
  SOLDIERS' CLOTHING (CHARGES)
  SOLDIERS' CLOTHING (CHARGES)
  OVERSEAS SOLDIERS (REPATRIATION CHARGES).
  OVERSEAS SOLDIERS (REPATRIATION CHARGES).
  ARMY PRINTING (ASSISTANT DIRECTORS).
  ARMY PRINTING (ASSISTANT DIRECTORS).
  HAY (GLOUCESTER APPLICATION).
  HAY (GLOUCESTER APPLICATION).
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
  ARMY OFFICERS (PAY).
  ARMY OFFICERS (PAY).
  OFFICER PRISONERS (EXPENSES).
  OFFICER PRISONERS (EXPENSES).
ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
  PAY.
  PAY.
  RATIONS.
  RATIONS.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (PAY).
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (PAY).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ACTING PAYMASTERS (GRATUITY).
  ACTING PAYMASTERS (GRATUITY).
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS (PRIVATE CARTER).
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS (PRIVATE CARTER).
  ARMY NURSES (GRATUITY).
  ARMY NURSES (GRATUITY).
  SOLDIERS RETURNED FOR MUNITION WORK (GRATUITY).
  SOLDIERS RETURNED FOR MUNITION WORK (GRATUITY).
  LABOUR CORPS (PRIVATE J. JONES).
  LABOUR CORPS (PRIVATE J. JONES).
  DELAYED PAYMENT.
  DELAYED PAYMENT.
  SURPLUS ARMY STORES (DISPOSAL).
  SURPLUS ARMY STORES (DISPOSAL).
  RETURNING SOLDIERS (CLOTHING AND KIT).
  RETURNING SOLDIERS (CLOTHING AND KIT).
  TUBERCULOUS SOLDIERS.
  TUBERCULOUS SOLDIERS.
  AIR MINISTRY (STAFF).
  AIR MINISTRY (STAFF).
INDIA
  SOLDIERS' CLOTHES (WASHING CHARGES).
  SOLDIERS' CLOTHES (WASHING CHARGES).
  INLAND NAVIGATION (MINISTER'S POWERS).
  INLAND NAVIGATION (MINISTER'S POWERS).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  BRITISH VESSELS (ALIEN SEAMEN).
  BRITISH VESSELS (ALIEN SEAMEN).
GENERAL ELECTION.
  FORFEITURE OF CANDIDATES' DEPOSIT.
  FORFEITURE OF CANDIDATES' DEPOSIT.
  GREAT BRITAIN.
  GREAT BRITAIN.
  IRELAND.
  IRELAND.
  ASSISTANCE OF THE BLIND.
  ASSISTANCE OF THE BLIND.
  RAILWAY SERVICE, LONDON AND EDINBURGH.
  RAILWAY SERVICE, LONDON AND EDINBURGH.
  RAILWAY COMPANIES (RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE).
  RAILWAY COMPANIES (RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE).
  FISHING PERMITS, CARDIGAN BAY.
  FISHING PERMITS, CARDIGAN BAY.
  FISHERY INSPECTORS, WALES.
  FISHERY INSPECTORS, WALES.
  TOWN-PLANNING REGULATIONS.
  TOWN-PLANNING REGULATIONS.
HOUSING.
  HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING (APPOINTMENTS).
  HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING (APPOINTMENTS).
  PROFESSIONAL FEES.
  PROFESSIONAL FEES.
Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SOLDIERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (RETURNING OFFICERS' EXPENSES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend (Viscount Peel), who is unable to be present to-day, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. The details of the measure have already been fully explained to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

ENEMY ALIENS AND DEPORTATION.
LORD LAMBOURNE LORD LAMBOURNE rose to ask His Majesty's Government if an assurance can be given that all the 4,000 enemy aliens
102
who have expressed a desire to remain in this country will be afforded an opportunity to appeal before deportation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the interest shown by your Lordships in the Question put by the most rev. Primate Monday, March 24, and the subsequent debate, have led me to hope that a similar indulgence may be extended to me to-day. I do not for a moment believe that the same weight will be given to my opinions as was given to those of the most rev. Primate, and I will therefore trespass as shortly as I can on your Lordships' time. It will be necessary for me to refer now and then to the remarks made by the Earl of Jersey, who represents the Home Office, and who replied to the Question of the most rev. Primate. I was glad to notice that he began by saying that the Secretary of State does not question the general principle that those who have abused the hospitality of this country should be no longer allowed to remain here. Let me assure the noble Earl that I associate myself entirely with that, and I venture even to say that there is no man in your Lordships' House who would not echo the same sentiments.
But it is not on account of those people, or those cases, that I venture to-day to trouble your Lordships. It is because there are other classes of cases, and it is on their behalf that I am pleading. Nobody can accuse me of being what is called pro-German. I, in common with many of your Lordships, have lost all that was near and dear to me, but I feel there is a question of justice concerned in this. I received a very proper rebuke from Lord Buckmaster when I said that we ought to endeavour to do justice first to the individual and then to the country. He most properly pointed out that it is not possible to do justice to the country and to do injustice to any man.
I should like to quote a case which I have here, and which is the class of case I am venturing to plead for. It is the case of an alien enemy who had been in England for thirty-eight years, and who had married an English wife. He bad four sons, and all of them volunteered in 1914. One became a sergeant, two became corporals, and one remained a private. The sergeant and corporals were all wounded; the sergeant three times. This man was exempted by the Advisory Com

103
mittee in 1915, but as he lived in a prohibited area—I think it was Darlington—he had to remove. Then he got a wire from the War Office to say that his eldest son, the sergeant, was seriously wounded and not expected to live, and that he was in hospital at Darlington, which was the prohibited area for this individual. Being naturally anxious about his son he caught the first train to Darlington, went direct to the hospital, saw his son, with whom he staved an hour, and then walked directly back to the railway station, taking the first train home. On his way to the station he was recognised by a local detective, who knew him when he lived at Darlington, and he was summoned for entering a prohibited area without a permit. The local stipendiary did not fine him, but gave him six months' imprisonment; and on the termination of this sentence he was arrested without any reference to the Advisory Committee and was interned at Knockaloe, in the Isle of Man. While there he was served with a notice that he was to be deported. He appealed to the Advisory Committee, which, fortunately for him, was then in existence, and they at once advised, not only that the deportation order should be cancelled, but that he should be at once released. During the whole time of his living in this country he had been a faithful and law-abiding citizen. He had given the whole of his family, not under conscription but voluntarily, for the service of this country. If the papers are correct in saying that any alien enemy who has been convicted of an offence is to be immediately deported without appeal, this man will probably be deported without any appeal at all. That, my Lords, is the class of case in which I am interested and for which I am pleading to-day.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD LAMBOURNE: I do not expect that the noble Earl will be able to answer in respect of this particular case, because he cannot have any knowledge of it, but when he appeals to us not to help those who have abused the hospitality of this country I think he will see that they are not the class of men whom your Lordships or myself have in mind when we consider this question. So impressed was the noble Earl with this remark that he repeated it not once or twice, but three times, so that he evidently was under the impression
104
that the most rev. Primate was pleading for an alien who had violated the laws of hospitality, and that I also was doing so. I hope he will take my word for it and realise that these are not the men we are pleading for. The noble Earl said—
"I am sure that we all wish to see even Germans treated justly."
Justice is all I ask for this class of men. He also said—
"There were many cases in which individuals were interned and went into internment without registering any protest whatever, and without appealing for exemption."
As I remarked, there were numerous cases of men who did not appeal because they understood, and I rather understood myself at the time, that when they were interned they would certainly have a chance of appealing against that internment before they were repatriated.
What I would like to ask the noble Earl is this. I confess that I am asking it because I have heard very disquieting rumours on the subject of the deportation of aliens, and that men are being deported in great numbers. Let me quote an answer to Lieut.-Colonel Hall in the House of Commons on April 1, 1918. Mr. Shortt then said—
"The numbers repatriated from the internment camps since the Armistice are 20,500. As regards the last part of the Question—"
that was as to how many have been repatriated since November 18—
"repatriation is still in progress."
But I understood from the noble Earl that it was the decision of the Government that no repatriation was going to be made except in the case of those who asked to be repatriated, and that no repatriations were to be made until these men had been heard on appeal. But there is no Committee sitting, and there is nobody to hear appeals. We have been told several times that a Committee will be appointed, and I venture to ask the noble Lord if he can give me any answer on this point. Of course, he can only give the answer that he is instructed to give, and that is part of the difficulties I find in debating in your Lordships' House.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD LAMBOURNE: I want to ask when this Committee, which I understood was to be presided over by a Judge of the

105
High Court and to be a similar Committee to the last one, is going to be appointed. There are at least 5,000 cases, but reduce that by 50 per cent. and it would give 2,500 cases to be heard, and if any justice can be done—and I am sure if these people are brought before an Advisory Committee justice will be done to them it will take a very long time. I would urge upon the noble Earl that this Committee should be appointed without any further delay.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD LAMBOURNE: There is another question which I feel it to be useless to put, but it is one which nevertheless I am bound to ask. Is this Advisory Committee to be over-ruled in its decisions by the Executive or by the Home Secretary, or is its advice to be taken? In the case of the last Committee our information was that there were cases in which we were overruled. Is this new Committee to be an Executive Council with power to carry out what it decides? There have been cases, I cannot help thinking, in which justice was hardly done to a man, because the Advisory Committee, remember, had the advantage of seeing the man himself, and of forming an opinion of what sort of a person he was, and that is a very great advantage. They also had the advantage of hearing what he and his witnesses had to say, while the decision of the Home Secretary—if he is the one who over-ruled the Advisory Committee—could only be given on paper evidence, and after considering the facts on paper before him. It is difficult for me to carry the Question further. I know that the noble Earl will say, "I cannot answer any of your Questions, you have only put down a certain Question on the Paper, and to that my answer must be confined." That is the difficulty I am in. I confess that. I am new to your Lordships' House, and do not altogether know how I can get round that. I am only seeking for information, and must take the information that I get, and be content with that. My main points are, first that these interned shall have, as promised distinctly in this House and by the Government, an appeal before they are deported; and second that there shall be no exception to that rule, and that there shall be no what I will call forcible obtaining of a consent for repatriation from these
106
men who are now interned. I shall be quite satisfied if the noble Earl can give me an answer to that.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, first of all I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Earl who has just sat down for raising this question again, because it gives me an opportunity of dealing with certain misapprehensions which I think were evident in the minds of some of your Lordships on the last occasion when this matter was discussed. I assure your Lordships that I do not intend to refer to any points then raised, except such as are strictly relevant to the Question now on the Paper. But as many of the criticisms which were then made may very probably be repeated, I think that it may be convenient if I anticipate the renewal of such criticisms as were not only based on a misunderstanding but to which, under the Rules of your Lord ships' House, I was not entitled to reply-on the last occasion. I would also add that I do not propose to withdraw or to explain away anything that I then said. I am quite prepared to stand by the statement which I made when this matter was before your Lordships last week.
I would first remind your Lordships of a statement that I made which many noble Lords appeared either to ignore or possibly accidentally to overlook, and with your permission I will quote the words that I then used. I said—
"I am sure we off wish to see even Germans treated justly. We have no desire to emulate their countrymen by inflicting needless and wanton torture on helpless people."
I said so then, and I say so now. Yet many noble Lords spoke as though a desire for justice was conspicuous by its absence from the policy of His Majesty's Government, and also from my own views. The noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, characterised my remarks as indicating a policy of indifference to suffering. The noble Lords, Lord Sheffield and Lord Phillimore, were especially severe in their criticisms. Lord Sheffield was good enough to say that I had put myself on a level with the worst type of German because I had said that humanity would be studied as far as is compatible with the interests of this country. I believe it is generally accepted that to compare him to a German at the present time is about the greatest insult that could be offered to any Britisher.

107
To compare him to the worst type of German is, I suppose, the last word in that direction.
But I am prepared to regard this criticism with some equanimity, because I am not sure that the noble Lord places Germans quite as low in the scale of humanity as some of us do, and possibly his remark therefore would not be quite so uncomplimentary as it might seem in the first instance. What really does concern me is how the noble Lord would regard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, and what epithets he would find with which to describe him. I would ask your Lordships to allow me to quote words which Lord Buckmaster used, and to compare them with my own remarks on the subject. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Buckmaster) said—
"If there is any reason—even a remote reason—why he should be considered in anything but name as the enemy of this country, then considerations of pity and humanity must give way before the considerations of the national welfare."
I maintain that the noble and learned Lord went as far as, if not further than, I did. But I did not notice that his name was included in the protest which the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, made when he said—
"We ought all to rise in protest against the doctrines which apparently have been laid down by the noble Earl who has answered for His Majesty's Government. To say that humanity and justice are to come behind the cause of the country is to my mind to say something which an Englishman and a Christian should be ashamed of saying."
Those are very strong words, but, as I have already said, I see very little difference between the phrase which I used and the phrase used by Lord Buckmaster. Further, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, that I never said that "justice should come behind the cause of this country." The word "justice" was an addition supplied by the noble Lord, and it completely altered the sense of the remark which I ventured to make. I have repeatedly said that strict justice should be administered to Germans, as to every other man. I do not say that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster; and I would go further. I entirely agree with him and with the noble Lord who has just sat down that justice to individuals and justice to this country are entirely compatible. After carefully reading what the noble and learned Lord said, I really
108
feel that what I intended to convey was repeated by the noble Lord, only, as is of course natural and to be expected, it was repeated in far better and abler language than I had at my command.
There is one point, however, on which I cannot agree with him. He suggested that pledges inconsiderately given in the course of an Election should not weigh with us if what people demand from us is wrong. I cannot claim the same experience in the morality and validity of election promises as the noble and learned Lord, nor can I say how long a period ought to elapse before expediency justifies that those promises should be either conveniently forgotten or wilfully ignored. But I do suggest that three months would be an indecently short period. Personally I adhere to the old-fashioned doctrine—it may be out of date, but I still think it is a sound one—that promises are made to be observed, and not to be broken, and there can be no doubt that the people of this country were told at the last Election that Britain was to be a country for Britishers.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, asked me one specific question which I will endeavour to reply to. He asked whether during the whole course of the war one of the Germans living in this country was found to be acting as an enemy spy. He went on to say—
"I ask, Is there a single instance? and, if there have been any, whether the whole of the cases have not been infinitesimal in number?"
I have endeavoured to ascertain the answer to this question, and I can inform the noble Lord that the number is not nearly so small as he suggests, amounting to about twenty or thirty actual spies. Thanks to the energy and resource of the Counter-Espionage Department of the War Office the movements of Germans living here and suspected of spying were carefully watched before the war, and on the eve of the declaration of war all then known to be spies were arrested. This accounts for the fact that only a few were arrested after the war actually broke out. After that the Germans had to confine themselves to sending agents to this country, some Germans, but for the most part neutrals.
But it does not by any means follow that the rest of the Germans living here were harmless, and to this point I would venture

109
to draw the special attention of the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce. He may remember that I interrupted him on the last occasion to tell him that I had not during the whole course of my remarks once used the word "spy," on which he based the greater part of his arguments. He contended that when I said that those who had abused our hospitality should no longer be allowed to remain here, that carried with it the implication of spying. I respectfully beg to differ from that. I would remind him that the Germans resident here were potentially dangerous, and many of them would have lost no opportunity of doing harm to this country. There are many ways of doing harm besides actual spying which require special aptitude. The military authorities had to contemplate the possibility of an enemy landing, and if that had happened there can be no doubt that large numbers of Germans here would have assisted the invader. Further, apart from invasion, a good deal of injury might have been done secretly, as, for instance, by spreading false rumours likely to cause apprehension and even panic, and by preaching doctrines likely to cause disaffection and sedition.
There is one other assumption which the noble Viscount attributed to me which I must repudiate. He said that I assumed that prima facie everyone of German origin who had neglected to be naturalised here was an enemy in reality and a person who was likely to be dangerous to us. I assumed no such thing, because personally I believe that many of those who are naturalised are far more dangerous than many who are unnaturalised. The fact that many certificates of naturalisation have been reviewed and cancelled supports this view. Some of your Lordships may remember that on previous occasions I have suggested that it is rash to attach undue importance to formal protestations of allegiance, and I cannot accept the construction which the noble Viscount put on my remarks. I do not wish to condemn all unnaturalised aliens unheard, nor am I prepared to accept all naturalised aliens as of necessity loyal.
I would now turn to the actual Question which the noble Lord. Lord Lambourne, has addressed to me—whether an assurance can be given that all the 4,000 enemy aliens who have expressed a desire to remain in this country will be afforded an opportunity to appeal before deportation. The noble Lord will remember that I answered
110
his question during the previous debate in these words—
"The repatriation of those who are willing to go is being carried out first, and a certain number of individuals who are personally undesirable are being sent compulsorily now."
As regarded the remainder. I added—
"Due regard will be paid to humane considerations, and any who think that they have special claims to consideration, or that they have been unduly or hardly treated, will have a further opportunity of stating their case before a tribunal before being finally repatriated."
The latter statement I made twice in the course of the debate.
To make the matter perfectly clear, the position can be re-stated as follows. The policy of the Government has been hitherto to repatriate those interned aliens who were willing to go or who were known from their records to be undesirable. Subject to this it is the intention of the Government that all interned alien-enemies who are unwilling to return to their country of origin, and who think that they possess claims for consideration which may justify permission to remain in this country shall have their cases individually investigated on their merits by the proposed tribunal before a final decision as to their repatriation is made.
The noble Lord suggested that I might be unable to tell him anything as to the constitution of the tribunal, or when it was likely to be set up. I am glad to say I am able to give him some information on this subject. It is thought very desirable that the tribunal should be presided over by a Judge of the High Court. The Home Secretary has authorised me to announce that Mr. Justice Younger has consented to preside over the tribunal. The constitution of the tribunal is being considered by the Home Secretary, and he hopes to announce the names of the other members shortly. I think your Lordships will agree that Mr. Justice Younger's name as chairman of the tribunal will provide a sufficient guarantee as to the impartiality, fairness, and consideration which will be shown to those who decide to appeal to the tribunal. Further than that I have no authority to go at present, and I do not know quite what the noble Lord would wish me to add. Until the tribunal has been set up it is impossible to say exactly what rules will be laid down for the procedure.
On the general question I should just like to emphasise what I said in the pre

111
vious debate, that if any of your Lordships—which I doubt—or if any one outside this House were to suggest that the Germans have as much right to remain here as the people of this country, I am not prepared to argue with them, but I entirely disagree. We have a duty to perform not only to ourselves but to those who come after us, and those who have saved this country have a right to claim that it should be handed down to their children as British soil inhabited by Britishers. That claim has been put forward, and it has been acknowledged by His Majesty's Government to be a just claim. The people of this country have a right to choose their own guests, and when we have had enough of their presence we are fully entitled to tell them that they are no longer acceptable to us. It is not a question of blind hatred on the one hand or of sentiment on the other. The first duty of this Government is to do its best for the people of this country. By all means let every German in this country or out of it have justice according to his deserts; let him have justice as an individual; let the Germans have justice as a nation; but it must be justice in both the widest and the strictest sense of the word.
EARL RUSSELL: Before the noble Earl sits down would he mind making clear what seem to me to be very ambiguous words that he used? He said that those who think they have claims to consideration would have the right of appeal. Are we to understand that this is identical with those who desire to appeal?
THE EARL OF JERSEY: Certainly, I take it to be identical.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I certainly shall not attempt to compose the strife between the noble Earl and those with whom he differed. Indeed, so far as I am concerned, I am in the fortunate position that, while he appears to have differed in toto from most of the other noble Lords who took part in the last debate, he differs from me only in one relatively unimportant respect, and with that I will deal before I conclude the few observations I desire to make to your Lordships.
The real thing which I am sure actuated the noble Lord who put this Question upon the Paper, and the real desire behind the speeches of all the noble Lords who took part in this debate on the last occasion,
112
was to secure that justice should be done to these men who are now interned. By that we mean not justice that is to be shaped and trimmed according to Government necessity, but justice as it is administered in the Courts of Law, where a man is judged according to his character and what is proved against him, and that you do not allow suggestions against one man of this or of another kind to be used for the purpose of taking away from him a right which he possesses at the present time. I know that the noble Earl suggests that we should not only be acting within our rights, but, as far as I can understand—and this was the most disquieting part of the whole of his speech—that we should be performing our duty to posterity, if we turned every German out of this country to-morrow.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I know that is precisely the view. That, of course, is a view which is not. held by people who, like myself, would regard such an action as one of which this country ought to be profoundly ashamed. I will tell your Lordships why. These men in large numbers have not only lived over here but have contributed to our wealth. They have materially assisted us in carrying on the industries of this country. Many of them have been perfectly loyal and law-abiding citizens; and I must say that, to hear noble Lords applaud a sentiment which means that the fathers of men who have voluntarily shed their blood for this country are to be turned out of the country as you would throw rubbish on to a rubbish heap, is something which I can listen to only with feelings of profound pain and regret. I cannot really believe that this is an attitude of which England will approve when emotion becomes less vehement than it is at the present time. It seems to me impossible to think of it as an act of which we could be proud in any moment of our history. Subject to that there is nobody who has taken part in this debate who has not realised that there may be Germans here who for many reasons it would be better should not remain. Nobody has ever doubted that. All we have asked is that there should be fair and proper steps taken to sift them from the other men. I must say that, although the noble Earl did his best to give us an idea that we were going to have such a just investigation,

113
there were one or two expressions in his speech which made me very uneasy as to whether this investigation was going to be as free and as independent and as universal as it certainly ought to be if we are going to do justice to these men.
Finally, let me say a word about the only matter with which in my former speech the noble Earl was in disagreement—in regard to what I said in my observations about electoral promises. I have no hesitation in saying (and there is no doubt about, it) that if men promise something which is dishonourable at an Election the shameful thing is in keeping the promise and not in breaking it. That is true of life too. If a man is induced to make a promise to do something which is base, the best; thing he can do is to retrace his steps at the earliest moment and to tell people that the promise was made to do something which in his sober moments he is satisfied could not be performed except with the loss of personal honour. It appears to me a little remarkable that you should find a representative of the Government, speaking on behalf of the Government from the Government Bench, advocating thesanctity of electoral promises which have been broken again and again in the last few weeks.
LORD WITTENHAM: My Lords, I want to be clear in my mind that I understand the exact meaning of the Question on the Paper. Is it this, that the Advisory Committee was dissolved when the General Election came along, that there is now no such body in existence, and that all my noble and gallant friend restricts himself to is that an Advisory Committee, similar in constitution at any rate to the one of which he was a member, with a Judge in the chair, is to be reconstituted before these 4,000 German individuals are deported to their own country?
LORD LAMBOURNE: Hear, hear.
LORD WITTENHAM: Then I understand the Question. The first remark that occurs to my mind is this, that if an Advisory Committee were not appointed it would then be left to the Home Office to decide. A great many people—of whom I in my humble person am one—have always thought that the Home Office during the war have never shown undue severity towards the Germans in this country. I will not put it any higher than that, although a
114
great many people think that the Home Office has been unduly tender. Therefore I do not think that the Germans in this country, if left to the tender mercies of the Home Office, would suffer any hardship. As regards the next point, whether the Committee will take the same shape as the Advisory Committee of which my noble and gallant friend was a member, I hope we shall hear before this matter is finally settled whether such will or will not be the case. As to the policy, although I have very strong views indeed upon the matter, I do not "see red," or I try not to do so. I have tried as far as my limited capacity goes (no doubt I have strong prejudice) to see justice done in the humble efforts I have made in this House and in the other House when dealing with this topic. But I have always felt this to be my duty. Where any conflict arises between the German and the Briton in this country, let the German possibly suffer injustice, but be careful that at any rate this country does not suffer injustice. The last person, either in this House or out of it, whom one would ever accuse of being unjust, in this or indeed in any other matter, is the noble Lord of whom I had long experience in another place, my noble and learned friend Viscount Cave. There is no fairer man. He never sees red, as I, perhaps unconsciously, do sometimes. What did he say in this House, while still Home Secretary? We had asked him some questions. I say "we,'' because I was one who took quite a humble part in the discussion. He said this, and if will be found at column 318 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. On November 20, 1918, a few days after the Armistice, the noble Viscount said—
"A good many Germans are now interned in this country. Of course, we cannot send them home now, because the interned men are nearly all able-bodied men, who might, if they were sent home, be useful to our enemy. But when the war is over and peace is declared we propose to send those men home … and it will take a very strong case to induce the Government to keep any of them here."
There is no doubt about that. There is nothing about the Advisory Committee there. He promises to send them home without exception. At that moment the Advisory Committee, of whom my noble and gallant friend Lord Lambourne was one, was no longer in existence. It had died. Parliament was, if not dead, in extremis, but the noble and learned Lord made no exception. He did mot say "subject to appeal to the Advisory Committee." He

115
said, every single one of them. He made a reservation, which I have just read—namely, that it would want "a very strong case." He may have meant a very strong case to satisfy the Home Office, or he may possibly have meant to satisfy the Advisory Committee. And do not let us forget that on its inception the Advisory Committee was not to be a Court of appeal. It was to advise the Home Office, and the Home Office need not have taken its advice. Sometimes they did not. It was never a Court of appeal, but was to advise and help, and the Home Office might have said, "No, no" every time. I do not want to labour that point any more. I have made it, and whether it is good or bad is for your Lordships to say.
Only one word more upon the remarks which fell from Lord Buckmaster, who, of course, never touches anything that he does not put immense fire and force into, and he sometimes almost takes one's judgment away, because although, if he will allow me to say so without offence, he sometimes says something which is a little bit vitriolic, when he sits down one is apt to feel that the last word has been said. I should be very sorry indeed to cross swords with him, or try to, because I should have his good sword in my heart before I knew where I was. But let me say this of a general nature about policy. Is it fair to talk about morality and immorality? I am not sure that I am quoting the exact words of the noble and learned Lord, but I am giving the spirit of them. Three things emerge clearly from the General Election, and they are these—one, at any rate, falls within the ambit of this discussion—firstly, that the people of this country were determined that practically every German should go, and that it should be Britain for the British every time; secondly, that justice should be done to those who brought on this war; and thirdly, indemnity. On every platform in this country the question was put concretely by that formidable thing which we all know. The "Voice" was always there to say, "Are you in favour of expelling all the Germans?" and nearly every candidate said, "Yes." Therefore if there is any immorality it was not the immorality of the candidate but of the country, which had made up its mind to this—that the Germans should go.
Almost the latest accession to your Lordships' ranks from immediate touch
116
with the constituencies at the General Election is the noble and learned Lord who, with so much distinction, if he will allow me to say so, now sits upon the Woolsack. He came fresh and red-hot from the constituents, and what did he say? And did anybody at his meetings demur when he said it? He declared at Liverpool, on December 5, and he was then Attorney-General, that of every twenty aliens who settled in this country and professed friendship for us, eighteen were spies. Very well then; the 4,000 who are at present dying to appeal will not have much chance, according to that canon of decision. The noble and learned Lord had no doubt, because what did he say at Bournemouth on November 30?—
"I tell you here, as a Minister of the Coalition Government, that it is the declared policy of that Government—"
There is no reservation here; no Advisory Committee here; no exceptions here—
"to send back to Germany every Bosche in this country."
His audience took it, and they are the deciding force, because it is the constituencies which govern. I remember the phrase at one of the last Elections, "Government of the people, by the people, for' the people." That was trotted out on every Radical platform in this country, and therefore the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was only speaking the voice of his constituents, and speaking with the voice of seven out of every ten constituencies in this country. Therefore it is a little bit hard for Lord Buckmaster, with all his great gifts, to talk about Election promises, and morality and immorality. The country, rightly or wrongly, decided that the Bosche should go.
One sentence more and I have finished. I am profoundly sorry to have to differ front my noble friend on my left. I am not sure that he and I have ever differed before, but it is a long lane which has no turning, and I do so now only because I feel strongly in this matter that we have received—that the House of Commons have received—a mandate from the country that the Bosche has to go. I say with regret that one sees a tendency—and newcomers to your Lordships' House are able to see it more clearly—to try and whittle that away. Well, get a new Election if you can. Get the country to say otherwise, but, unless and until it does, I say

117
that those who are engaged in this whittling away and whittling down are going against the declared, the deliberate and the bedrock sentiment of the electors of the country.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships by discussing the ultra-democratic doctrines to which we have listened from the noble Lord who has just sat down. I will be content with the observation that I do not think I ever heard the doctrine of vox populi—in this case the voice of a crowd at a meeting—carried quite so far as it was carried by the noble Lord. What I do wish to do is to express the satisfaction with which some of us have heard from the noble Earl that a Committee is to be set up, and I hope set up at once, and that Mr. Justice Younger—whom many of us know and respect for his high qualities, for his impartiality and his judicial gifts—is to be the chairman of that Committee. I desire, however, to ask the noble Earl if he can answer, even if it be in a word or by a nod, whether I am right in assuming, as I understand his words, that every one of those persons whom it is proposed to deport will be allowed to know that he has a chance to make his appeal. I think I understood him to say so. If I understood him rightly, he meant to convey that notice would be given to any one, before he is deported, that he has a right to appeal against deportation.
In the next place, as he did not suggest that any special instructions would be given to the Committee or that any special rule would be laid down for their guidance, I ventured to assume that the matter would be practically left to the discretion of the Committee. I am glad to think so. I have no doubt that the Government will try to get a strong and impartial Committee, and I should think it would be a great deal better to leave the matter to their discretion than to attempt to fetter them by rules. There is another point which seems to deserve the attention of His Majesty's Government. I have heard the number who might be deported variously stated at 4,000 and 5,000. Whichever number is correct, it is evident that if every case is to be investigated individually a very long time will have to elapse. You could not do, say, more than eight or ten cases in a day, and it would take a long time to get through 4,000 or 5,000 cases. Would it not be a consider
118
able advantage in that case if the Committee were to be instructed, or at any rate allowed, to appoint two or three assistants who could make a preliminary investigation of the cases, and who, in some instances, would be able to report to them that there was a clear prima facie case for deportation or that there was a clear prima facie case for release, and finally, would be able to reserve for them the cases in which doubt; appeared to prevail.
I believe there have been persons employed for the Committee over which Lord Lambourne presided and that they have already acquired a good deal of experience in these cases. I should have thought it might very much abridge the labours of this new Committee if it were to be instructed to employ these persons, or similar persons whom they could trust, to investigate the cases fairly and to give impartial reports upon them. In that way many weeks, and indeed months, might be saved. Lastly, my noble friend Lord Lambourne put one question to which the noble Earl did not reply. That was, whether the Committee would be liable to be over-ruled by the Home Office or by His Majesty's Government, as the former Committee had been. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that when the power to over-rule was given in the case of the former Committee the war was still going on and matters might come to the knowledge of the Executive Government which had not been brought to the knowledge of the Committee, or perhaps had not occurred at the time when the Committee made its report.
There was, therefore, a case then, or might have been a case then, for allowing His Majesty's Government to over-rule the decision of the Committee in respect of matters that had come to its knowledge and which raised a suspicion of public danger that had not been known to the Committee. But now, happily, though not in peace we are practically out of war; conditions are quite different, and it is highly improbable that matters of that kind could arise except in an extreme case, and in an extreme case it would be open to the Government to suggest to the Committee that their decision should be reviewed. I will venture to express the hope that His Majesty's Government do not intend to over-rule the decisions o this Committee as a general practice, but that, having appointed it and having put a strong Chairman into the chair, they will

119
give it full discretion to deal with these cases according to their best judgment and in an impartial way.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, as reference has been made to the speech which I delivered in this House in November last, I should like to say a very few words in this debate. On that occasion I was asked what would be done to the enemy aliens (then some 20,000 or 30,000 in number) who were interned—whether they would be released when peace came or before the actual signature to the Treaty of Peace, or what else would be done about them. I said at once, what I think was obvious to all noble Lords, that it was impossible that we should let loose in the country the whole of these 20,000 or 30,000 interned enemy aliens. I said that, at the moment, we could not deport them, because we had not yet been advised by the War Office that they could safely be sent back to Germany, where they might perhaps he of use in the war; but, so soon as Peace arrived—or, I might have added, so soon as we were advised by the War Office that deportation was safe—we did propose to take this course.
The general rule would be deportation, but if any enemy alien could make a case for exemption he would have an opportunity of making such a case. I do not think I said—I am sure my speech would not bear that interpretation—that no exception would be made, because I said quite plainly that a strong case would have to be made out, which, of course, implied that there would be a chance of making a case. Shortly afterwards I was advised by the War Office that it was no longer necessary to retain these men, although of military age, in this country. Thereupon, of course, deportation at once began, but we laid down the rule that, to begin with, only those should be sent home who were desirous of going or willing to go, or, of course, those whom it was for some reason undesirable to retain in this country. The latter class were not confined to, in fact did not include 14 B cases, but were men whose action, for some reason, brought them within the class of men whom we had deported from time to time throughout the war. We were advised that the number of those willing to go home might not be large, but in fact it has been very large, and the greater part of the interned enemy aliens—I think, some three-quarters of
120
them or more—have been willing to go home, and have, I am glad to say, left our shores and are no longer a burden upon us.
There remain only 4,000 or 5,000 who are still interned. I do not know whether any of these are willing to go or not, but as to those who object to be sent home His Majesty's Government have taken the course which I hoped they would take and have promised to set up a Committee to whom application may be made for exemption from deportation. The noble Earl announced that the chairman of the Committee will be Mr. Justice Younger, and I do not think a fairer chairman could possibly have been found. I am glad he has expressed his willingness to take upon himself this further burden in addition to those which he has already borne, and to preside over this Committee. We have it, therefore, that ally alien who thinks he can make a case for exemption will have the right of appeal to this Committee, but of course he must make out his case before it.
I think it is quite right that it should be upon the enemy alien to make out his case—that is, that the presumption ought to be in favour of deportation. It is not a case of presuming guilt, or anything of that kind; but all these men are enemy aliens—that is, they are members of a nationality which has been, and is to-day, our enemy, and no one of them has succeeded in obtaining exemption from internment during the war. Those two facts alone, I think, set up a presumption against the enemy alien, and it is not at all unfair, nor contrary to our principles, to throw the burden upon the alien to show why he should not go home to his own people. I have no doubt, even after the war, that the member of an enemy nationality who desires to come here will have to make out his case for obtaining his passport to this country, and it is quite right, therefore, that those who desire to remain here should have to make out their case for being allowed to remain. Of course, facts such as those to which Lord Lambourne refers, a man having his wife or his family here and his sons serving in our Army, are just the kind of facts which the Committee must take into account, and I am quite sure that any Committee the Government may appoint may be trusted to do justice in the matter.

121
I have only one other matter to refer to, and that is as to whether the Committee's judgment should be final, or whether the Secretary of State should be the final tribunal. With all respect to the noble Viscount opposite, I think the Secretary of State must reserve in his own hands the final decision. Every Secretary of State during the war has paid the greatest possible respect to the decisions of the Advisory Committee, and the cases in which an alien enemy whose exemption that Committee has advised has in fact been interned are few, and have turned upon the special facts known to the Secretary of State and probably not known to the Committee. I think that during the war it was the duty of the Secretary of State in every case of doubt to give our country the benefit of the doubt. It was certainly so during the war, and I think the same principle will apply in peace. This is a question not of punishing a man but of deciding whether he shall be allowed to set up his residence in this country, and where the Government of the day are possessed of facts which show that the man in question cannot be allowed to remain here without danger to the interests of this country, they ought to withdraw the permission given to him to take up his residence here. I do not want to pronounce a final judgment about it, bat my present view is—and I hope that the noble Lord and those associated with him will take it into consideration—that the Secretary of State should not entirely surrender, even to this Committee, the decision on the question of deportation. Subject to that observation I have very little to quarrel with as regards what has been said in this debate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, as my name has been mentioned in the original debate and in the adjourned debate, I think it proper to trouble your Lordships with a few observations, although no doubt your Lordships are well aware that the matter relates neither to my then Department nor to the office which I now hold. When I was a candidate for Parliament I addressed myself, as I was bound to do, to the many issues which deeply interested the electors of this country. I had before me the authoritative and perfectly clear statement made by the noble Viscount who has just sat down, who at that moment occupied the position of Secretary of State for the
122
Home Department. No Minister of greater humanity and capacity has held that office in my experience of public life. My noble friend stated a policy, which was the policy of the then Cabinet. I, as a candidate was entitled to rely upon that policy and to recommend myself to my constituents, if I believed in it, by stating it. I did believe in it, and I stated it. Your Lordships will not, of course, make the error of treating a summarised sentence as giving a faithful, or anything like a faithful, impression of a speech which took about an hour or an hour and a-quarter to make, and which contained, as the speech of any sensible person must contain, every reasonable form of reservation and explanation.
When I listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, my admiration for the stately eloquence with which he delights your Lordships almost nightly is certainly not lessened by my observation of the standard of complete aloofness and detachment which my noble and learned friend contrives to display towards all those who have recently been engaged in a Parliamentary election. Listening to my noble and learned friend I gather that he never has been accustomed to this. My acquaintance, and indeed my friendship, with the noble and learned Lord goes back a considerable period. I remember an Election which some of us used to describe as the "Chinese Election." My noble and learned friend went through the vicissitudes of that remarkable Election with a moral fibre wholly unruffled, as far as I can remember, at the time, and I have never observed from that period to the present the slightest impression on the part of my noble friend that there was any Election impropriety at that time.
Not only did my noble friend support with the most complete composure that Election, but he went through the Election which has been sometimes described as that of the "People's Budget." Your Lordships will remember the appeals and cries of that time—"God gave the land to the people," and other devices. I heard no protest then from my noble friend. It is true that he temporarily disappeared from the House of Commons because he had the misfortune of having to address himself to a constituency which was educated and rather superior to the, last consideration. But my noble and learned friend was not, I am glad to say, lost to the House of Commons for long,

123
because about twelve months afterwards another Election took place which I always recall by a poster, of great interest I should imagine to your Lordships, which was exhibited in every constituency that I happened to visit, and there were many of them. It represented an extremely obese member of your Lordships' House—whom I have not yet succeeded in identifying—with an unwholesome, not to say pimply, face, and wearing, by an arrangement which I believe to be entirely unusual, his Coronet with a frock-coat. He was represented as making the appeal, "It is your land that I want." I did not think that a particularly decorous Parliamentary performance, but I was a candidate at that Election, and I managed to survive it. It did not injure my health. It did not cause me, I confess, the deep emotion which fills my noble and learned friend. The real truth is that many of your Lordships have always been in a singularly favoured position in this respect, because you have never had to go before the electors, and therefore, just as Becky Sharp said that if she had had £5,000 a year she would have been a very honest woman, so is it with your Lordships who, never having had constituents, can say you are very honest men. I may say, as to the difference between my noble and learned friend and myself, that he has had a longer time to become respectable than I have. By the time that I have been here as long as he has I can assure your Lordships that I shall habitually adopt a tone superior to his whenever I deal with a Parliamentary election in any conceivable circumstances, whether concerned with the past or the future.
Having dealt so far with that matter, let me ask those who have taken part in this debate whether the discussion has not been extremely one-sided, and whether there is not another side to the question which the noble Lords would do well to bear clearly in their mind. I hear the Election swept aside. I hear a tendency to say, "The constituents are entirely wrong," and that it is even dishonourable if any candidate for Parliament has repeated to his electors the pledge which was made in this House by the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down, as Minister, and which was not challenged as far as I know by any one of your Lordships at the time that it was given. Is it so certain that the people are wrong, and that those of your Lordships who have taken the opposite side in the debate are
124
right? I challenge and dispute that absolutely, and I say plainly what Burke said on a famous occasion, "On most things on which the people think long it commonly attains to think right." I say that the people of this country, with deep and profound conviction, came to the conclusion that there is a moral line which divides the Germans from themselves, and desired that conclusion should be carried to this point—that as a general rule these men should go unless it could be shown that there was something wholly singular in the individual case which distinguished it from the others.
When I realise, as I do, that the people have taken that view, and I attempt by argument to reach a conclusion as to whether they are right or no, are there not certain indisputable facts which I am entitled to bear in mind? Am I not entitled to remember that this is a people of all others who have elaborately and notoriously prepared for a long period of time schemes for the penetration of the countries with whom they thought that one day they might become enemies? Am I bound to dismiss from my mind what is indeed equally notorious, that alone of all the civilised countries in the world, in designing their naturalisation laws, in giving freedom from that oath of naturalisation to those Germans who desired to become the citizens of another country, they created secretly and privily a private oath which would permit the citizen who was being received in another country secretly and without the knowledge of that other country to retain his whole citizenship in Germany? Are we to treat Germany as if these things did not exist? As far as I know, no other civilised country in the world has ever made itself a party to such a fraud upon those amongst whom its citizens were seeking special advantages. Are we further to close our eyes to the fact that over and over again those who have enjoyed hospitality in this country for a long period of years have most grossly abused it? Are we not to remember the case of one man who had received high distinction in this country, who had lived in this country for over thirty years, and who was found guilty by a jury of having given information to an enemy in relation to the manufacture of arms at a period immediately before the war? That was after nearly thirty years of life in this country. I ask another question, because if we are to speak plainly of these things

125
it is very desirable that we should understand them clearly. Are we not, in deciding this matter, to consider actual acts which have been done by the German nation in the course of this war? Are we, in other words, to treat them exactly as if we were ending a war with South Africa or a war with the French? There are great numbers of people in this country, of whom I am one, who take the view that we have never contended with an enemy so completely vile and unmoral in his acts.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is not the country entitled to take that view? Are the men whose children have died as the result of air-raids; are the men and the women, many of whom have given three and four children—all they had—who have died as a result of poison-gas, which before this war was looked upon as a vile abomination, not to be entitled to say "This nation has done these wicked things; no other nation in the history of the world ever has or ever would do them; we do not want the representatives of that people to live amongst us except under circumstances that are wholly exceptional"?
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I contend that the people are entitled to take that view, and further that in taking that view they are right. Most of us who spoke in the Election—I myself certainly—always so far as I know saved ourselves in order to treat a case such as that supposed by the noble Lord who introduced this subject to-night. No one, of course, is so foolish as to imagine, if you have an alien—and this Motion' deals with enemy aliens, not with naturalised Germans—whose enmity is technical, who has given such proof of his devotion to this country as the man of whom the noble Lord spoke, that such a man should be driven from this country to one where he will find nothing but enemies if he goes there. No Committee, could it be supposed, would be in the least likely to take that view. I say frankly that I am quite unmoved when the noble and learned Lord says, "These men have come to this country, and while they have been in this country they have contributed
126
to our wealth." That would be a relevant observation if the object of their coming here had been to contribute to our wealth, but their object was nothing of the kind. They came here to contribute to their own wealth, many of them, and in contributing to their own wealth they have been made to pay the same taxes as your Lordships. I cannot see that that gives them any independence or substantial recommendation to your Lordships' indulgence.
Let me say what in fact will be done, although I think the noble Earl was extremely clear on this point. As I understand it, when these Germans who wish to make an appeal go before the Committee in the ordinary course, the view will be taken that it will be for them to show something special which takes their case out of the ordinary rule, and the ordinary rule is that their presence in this country is not desirable. If, on the other hand, when such a man goes before the Committee he says to himself, "In my conscience I am clear that I can satisfy any body of fair men that I have throughout shown complete integrity to the substituted allegiance which I have adopted—if he can show that, of course, the Committee must give proper weight; of course, the Committee must distinguish between individual cases; of course, the Committee must make a difference between a man whose son has served and a man who, when he is asked, "Is there anything special about your case? is there anything you can say to the Committee except that you are a German?" says, "No, I have no other recommendation. I am a German." I said at the Election that that man ought to go, and if I were fighting another Election tomorrow I should say the same thing. It is my honest and fair conviction and, as far as I have reason to believe, it is the policy of the Government to-day, as it was certainly the policy of the Government at the time of the last Election.
I hope I have made it clear. Whether my views were palatable or not to all sections of your Lordships' House I at least thought it desirable, as my name had been mentioned, that I should quite clearly, without the slightest ambiguity, inform your Lordships of the course which I recommended then and which I now hold to be right, and I hope you will admit that I have not been ambiguous in stating my views.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I did not come down to the House intending to take part in this debate. I came down hoping to hear a clear and satisfactory statement from the noble Earl who represents the Home Office, and I am glad to think that his statement has been so satisfactory, amplified, as I think I may take it to be, by the answer which he made to the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce's, question. It would be completely satisfactory if he followed the line taken by the noble Viscount who has recently been Secretary of State for the Home Department and said that everybody—not only those against whom the Home Office thought they Cad no special case—was now to be allowed to go before the tribunal. If the case is clear against him, his shrift will be short. There is no reason why everybody should not have the opportunity, and that, I think, is what the noble Viscount advocated, and what I trust the Government will do.
My reason for trespassing upon your Lordships is a personal reference which the noble Earl made to my speech on the previous occasion. I did say that I thought we ought all to rise in protest against the doctrine which apparently had 'been laid down by the noble Earl who answered for the Government; I did say, to say that humanity and justice were to come behind the cause of the country was to my mind to say something of which an Englishman and a Christian should be ashamed. I find, however, when I look to the exact language which the noble Earl used, that I have added something to his language, and I make my apology to the noble Earl for what I added. The noble Earl said—
"I trust that the most rev. Primate will recognise that, by the procedure outlined, humanity will be studied as far as is compatible with the interests of this country."
He did not say "justice and humanity" and I trust he did not think "justice and humanity."
But though I make my apology to the noble Earl because he did not say "justice," and I believe he did not think "justice," I believe that the policy of which he was the mouthpiece is a policy which did postpone justice as well as humanity to the interests of the country, and I am here to maintain that. This is the answer on which I rely—
"The policy of His Majesty's Government is to repatriate interned civilians who are now alien enemies, and if any are allowed to remain here it
128
will only be for reasons of an exceptional character. What reasons would be considered strong enough to justify the grant of such permission we are not in a position to say."
The point which I ventured to make on the last occasion, and which I venture to repeat again, is that internment is no criterion of repatriation. During the war it was quite right to intern every ablebodied man who could bear arms, and anybody against whom there was a shade of a shadow of suspicion that he might be injurious to this country; and you could not wait to consider or to distinguish, and you were bound in the interests of the country to preserve it as far as possible in that way. Now that the war is over there is no reason for not dealing with every case on its merits, and it ought to be no presumption against a man that he has been interned. Properly speaking, almost everybody was interned, and I do say that the policy advocated on the last occasion—I am glad to think there is considerable moderation of tone on the present occasion—is (and if it is continued will be) a policy which puts justice behind the interests of this country.
The noble Earl said this afternoon that when you invite a guest you can send him away when you please, or words to that effect. True, a German is a guest, and if he is an invited guest you can withdraw your hospitality; but if you have invited him for an indefinite time, if you know that he expects to stay an indefinite time, if you know that he has made all his arrangements for staying and has planted all his roots in the country, and you then send him I away, you are guilty—I will not say of an act of injustice—but of an act of very serious inhumanity and great cruelty, quite contrary to all good feeling and gentlemanly behaviour.
And when you are dealing with Germans—and those were the cases we were dealing with last time—who are married in this country but have not been married long enough, who have children in this country but have not children who have fought, because they are too young, or because they are girls—if that class of Germans who have been interned is to be sent away, if their English wives are to have the choice of parting from them or following them to an alien country, if their children, who according to our law are English, and who according to all their bringing up are English, are sent away to an alien country,

129
then I say great cruelty and great injustice would be done. Since the last debate I have had two or three or more letters giving me examples of the feeling which English wives of German subjects have with regard to this matter, and of the cruelty which would be imposed if in any ease except perfectly necessary cases a German who has married an Englishwoman should be sent away.
I have one word more to add. People speak as if our only enemies were Germans. There are the Austrians and the Hungarians; and if my information is right, the treatment of the English interned civilians in Austria and Hungary was a treatment of the kindest and the most humane—far kinder, far gentler treatment than any that, we have given—and I say it would be a great shame if some consideration could not be given to these people.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, we have had on the whole, I think, a fairly satisfactory conclusion to this debate. I take it that the Home Office now announce, first, that they will set up a tribunal with a very impartial and competent chairman, and secondly, that this tribunal—or, perhaps, I ought to say that Committee of Advice—will be given a free hand to consider every case as it comes up. I do not think that the point raised by Lord Bryce need embarrass us very much, because I agree with the late Home Secretary (Lord Cave) that the ultimate responsibility must rest with the Home Office. Yet it is clear that, now the stress of war is over and therefore the necessity of dealing with these cases on grounds of apprehension and caution and not on grounds of any wrongdoing, is removed, the Home Office will give the greatest attention to the recommendations of so carefully constituted a tribunal; and also that, any evidence that may be in the possession of the Home Office can now be freely placed at the disposal of that Committee of Inquiry. Therefore, as far as that goes, I think we may consider that the thing is fairly on the road to as satisfactory a solution as we can hope for, bearing in mind the unfortunate antecedents and election utterances of the Government. It was some satisfaction to me to find that the speech of the noble Lord opposite, in which he raked up the election speeches of some of the members of the Government, did not meet with much response. The noble Viscount alluded to
130
this matter; and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack complained of anybody trying to read into a few lines, which were a summary of a speech lasting an hour and a-quarter, a real expression of his opinion. Still, though the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did not allow himself to be saddled with the exact text of what was quoted, I must say that from the tone of his speech here I feel inclined to believe that the reporter who summarised him did not do any great injustice to the sentiments of the noble and learned Lord; because in the early part of his speech he indulged himself in the sort of apology that "we all do queer things at elections and it is hard to have them raked up against, us." But the question of what were the Party cries raised by Liberals at three or four previous elections does not seem to me to be material to the matter we are now discussing, and therefore I will not dwell on it.
I should like to say briefly to the noble Earl who speaks for the Home Office that, as he quoted correctly his own words and my comment upon them, I do not see any occasion to withdraw that comment. What was it he asserted? He asserted that we were to observe the laws of humanity so long as they were not inconsistent with our own interests—that is to say, when our own interests demanded it we were to be guilty of inhumanity. I do not mix it up with justice as the noble Lord opposite did. I say that is a doctrine not to be endured among people, with the ordinary sense of justice and righteousness—namely, that you are to practise humanity only when it is not inconsistent with your interests. A philosopher once said. "When you have a sufficiency you should then practise virtue." A virtuous young man in one of Plato's dialogues commented upon that and said, "I think you should practise it even before.'' Therefore I would appeal to the noble Earl to practise humanity even when it is inconsistent with his own interests. The noble Earl was rather strong on the obligation of keeping pledges even though you afterwards thought, they were wrong pledges to have given. The leading case of keeping pledges is that of Herod and John the Baptist, and I do not know whether the noble Earl sides with Herod or with general public opinion and history on that case.
One last point, and I mention it because

131
it was raised by the noble and learned Viscount who was lately Home Secretary. It turns of course on how you interpret the words "absolutely exceptional." I think you are bound to take a broad view. A German who has lately come over here and who has not been involved in business in this country, and whose interests you think are more in Germany, could be sent back without great hardship. It is not necessary for a man to have had two or three sons in the British Army—perhaps killed, as the noble Lord said. Take the case of a man with an English wife and a young family, you are surely not going to break up that family (it is said) and send the young children abroad. After all, although the war has not technically come to an end it must do so very soon, and when peace is declared those who are now enemy aliens will be alien friends. You will have to have a Treaty with Germany, and Germans will be entitled to come here and trade, to buy and sell, and generally to transact business, as aliens have been entitled to do ever since the Magna Charta. The noble Earl said, I think, that we should restrict them by passports. It is very difficult to try and have a sort of quarantine to see that you know all about the man who comes to trade with you—a German commercial traveller, and so on.
Are you going to be harder on a man who has lived here for six or seven years before the war and settled here? I do not require him to have done exceptional service to this country; it is enough if he has done his duty and conformed to the law. You should have evidence that there is some blot on his character before you drive him out of the country, especially as his countrymen must be entitled after the war to come back here and trade. I think what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said was really beside the point because he expatiated upon the German laws of nationality, and mentioned that a German might have two nationalities. All that will come up very well when the Government bring in a Bill (as they are going to do) for nationalisation. They can take precautions that every nationalisation to be valid must be an absolute disclaimer of the old nationality and an absolute adherence to this. But it is not material to this question. All those things are separate questions, and ought to be treated separately.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I am sure that the speeches of the noble Earl below me (Lord Jersey) and the Lord Chancellor will give great satisfaction in the country; because I have heard from many quarters since the last debate that this House was not as determined to carry out the intention of the Government at the General Election as it was hoped it would be. A great deal too much was made, if I may say so, of mere sentiment in that debate. We now have an attempt by Lord Lambourne to prove how hard it would be to deport an English woman, who had married a German, with her children. But, after all, when she married a German she took her chances. If she had married him during the time of peace and he had to go back to his own country she would have gone with him and we should have heard no more about it. The noble Lord said that several Germans had proved to be good husbands. Surely that is all the more reason why the wife should go back with her husband. I do not know whether the noble Lord would go so far as to say that an English woman who had married a German should be ipso facto divorced; I do not think that would commend itself to many noble Lords.
I was surprised to hear Lord Phillimore say how hard it was on Germans who had made all their arrangements to stop in this country. It is intended by the British people to send back any German who has made all his arrangements to stay here. There is no doubt that English people are determined that, as long as there is unemployment in this country, the vacant places shall be filled by English people and by them alone. We are not going to have hoards of foreign waiters coming over, or heaps of clerks, or other people taking up small trades and ruining the little businesses which the wives of our soldiers have kept going while their husbands were away, and to which they hope to return when they return to civil life. There is no doubt that most unfair rivalry was allowed to go on by aliens in this country. That is one of the reasons why I am quite sure the country is determined to get rid of the Germans. It is determined to get rid of them, no matter what their position in society may be or what their rank, and I am therefore very glad to think there is a thorough determination expressed by the noble Earl below me to that effect.

133
As a member of this House I must enter a protest against the language used by Lord Buckmaster in alluding to promises that were made during the Election. I wish to dissociate myself from his remarks, as imputing that any member of the other House made dishonourable promises at the General Election. I am sure that the people are determined to get rid of the Germans, that the Government have the power to do it, and that the country expects them to do it, and, furthermore, that the country expects the Government, having got rid of the Germans, to take steps to keep them out in the future.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, may I say one word of congratulation upon the turn that events have taken. I have always thought, feeling as I do very strongly on the subject, that after all there was not very much between us. Lord Lambourne at the beginning of his speech said, and rightly said, that if you had justice in this country you ought not to have any injustice to any one individual, and he gave a case which really was a terrible case, and which everybody heard with great regret; but I must respectfully remind the noble Lord that one swallow does not make a summer. All of us who have voted for Liberal measures all our lives are well-aware that no measure has ever been brought forward for the safety or good of the country that honourable and patriotic and religious men have not voted against, and also that no measure of that sort has ever been brought forward without its pressing a little bit hardly sometimes upon individuals. That must be so, if anything is brought forward for the good of the country, and I am afraid we cannot prevent it.
Then the noble Lord on March 24, and also to-night, said that no one would accuse him of being a German. I am sure nobody ever did and nobody ever would. We know what the noble Lord has gone through, and we know what a kind heart he has, and we know what is his great feeling towards any cruelty that might be applied to women or children. I must say, however, with all respect to him, that whenever I hear a speech beginning with the remark, "Nobody can accuse me of being a German," I always feel inside me a somewhat disagreeable instinctive dread that the British natural Christianity and chivalry of the speaker may in a national crisis carry him beyond the bounds of prudence
134
and national safety. I hope he will excuse me for saying that, but I always have that feeling whenever I hear that remark made. The Lord Chancellor in a most humorous and eloquent speech referred to speeches which had been made at Election time. As regards that, we were told by the noble Lord opposite that in his estimate the spies in England were not 5 per cent—
LORD LAMBOURNE: At the present time, and interned.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: The estimate of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was considerably above that. It is not for me to decide which is right or which is wrong, but of two things I am perfectly certain. The first is that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, holding the great position that he does, would never have made any such remark or any such statement had he not been perfectly certain that his statement and his figures were absolutely correct. In the second place, I must remind the House that these figures and that statement caused feelings of legitimate apprehension in the minds of the public—feelings which Lord Phillimore casually described as feelings of "ceaseless fear and mob panic"; but I must remind the House that these figures and this statement went very far to ensure the triumphant return of hundreds of Coalition candidates, with enormous majorities, at the General Election.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred to the policy of His Majesty's Government as regards aliens. There have been a good many policies of His Majesty's Government as regards aliens. There was the slip-slop Aliens Bill that was brought forward in Midsummer of last year. Then came the "Clear them all out" declaration last Christmas, and then we have the third alien policy of the Prime Minister at Easter. "Like the cuckoo in June, he has altered his tune," and now he has brought forward a policy which has entirely changed the debate in this House from what it was a week ago, when there was hardly one word said in its favour. It was condemned all round from every part of the House, and I think the reason was that those who opposed the policy so well put before us by Earl Jersey had a latent fear, as the Archbishop said, that we might wake up and find that we had done a foolish thing which it was impossible to justify.

135
I have but one more word to say. I do not stand here as in any way an advocate of His Majesty's Government. I have always been against the Coalition Government and I always shall be, but one must be fair, and in a crisis like this it is impossible to deny that in this Bill there is a great deal of which we can approve, though this Bill is not an ideal Bill.
Several NOBLE LORDS: What Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIREI do not know whether the noble Viscount (Viscount Chaplin) has read The Times of this morning. It contains a précis of the Bill which is going to be introduced in the House of Commons, and if he reads it he will, I think, find out the proposals to which I allude. In these proposals, which have been so well put forward by Lord Jersey, there is one great blot, and that is it is a class Bill. I hope I am wrong and that I shall be corrected, but, so far as I can make out, the proposals which have been put before us this afternoon differentiate between class and class, between rich and poor.
The Government have very wisely spread out the net to catch all dangerous aliens. The mesh is so small that it would catch all the smaller fry—gudgeons, sprats, and I think the whitebait—but it is useless with regard to the bigger fish, such as the swordfish and tarpon; I will not say the sharks, but the porpoises and the whales. These big fish laugh at it and break through the meshes of the net wherever and whenever they like. My last word is this, that one city triton is far more dangerous than a million minnows that might be darting about in the ditches around Wapping or Old Houndsditch. I hope that we may be told that I am entirely wrong and that we shall not be delivered to the resident German—he is the great danger—the resident German octopus in our midst, which has dug its tentacles so deeply into fashionable and financial England that when Herr Kuhlmann has got rid of Marshal Foch and those whom he courteously calls the "stupid French" and the "idiotic Yankees," he will have everything, so he says, in his own hands and that we shall be handed over to these German magnates who, with him, will do their best to strangle our commerce and to do away with our trade.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships more than a moment, but I should like to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Lambourne, for the discussion he has raised to-night, because I think it is of real value, partly for the way it has elicited frank statements on matters of some interest which have often been left in rather a confused and misty atmosphere. When the noble Earl, Lord Jersey, rose to speak to-night I was interested to see that he intended to refer with care, and did refer with care, to what took place on the last occasion. I confess I should have liked to have heard an explanation now as to the reference he then made several times to what he called our desire to secure the retention in this country of men who had abused the hospitality of this country—a statement which, so far as I know, none of us had made, and with which I should dissociate myself in every way.
Our suggestion had reference to a man against whom nothing could possibly be said—for that was the very essence and condition of the case we were urging—that he had technically abused our hospitality. I do not want to dwell on that, nor would I enter into the battle of giants which has taken place between the present and late occupants of the Woolsack. When the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack rose my hope was that he, too, was going not only to tell us what he did tell us (which was most valuable, most interesting and most clear) as to his view of the situation as a whole, but also to make some reference—and I think he did not make it—to what had puzzled many of us a great deal, namely, the statement made by no less a person than the then Attorney-General that eighteen out of twenty of the persons who were interned were spies. That differed so widely from the information that had come to us from other quarters that I had hoped to have had some elucidation of it from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. But it is not a matter which deals particularly with the practical question before us now.
I remain a little puzzled as to what is actually happening now. We have not at this moment got the Tribunal which has been promised, but there is at this moment going on the deportation of a considerable number of men. Anyone who looks at the successive speeches and statements on

137
the subject which have been made in the House of Commons will see that deportations are going on now. There is at this moment, as I understand, no Tribunal to which a man who is to be deported can appeal, if he desires to do so, and I remain a little puzzled as to what is taking place. Presumably, the Tribunal will be set up very rapidly. Four thousand men still remain in this country and, as I understand—and I hope it will be made clear by the noble Earl that we understand him aright—we shall not merely be told here that these men have the opportunity (if they can find it out, and know it, and take advantage of it) of bringing their cases before the Tribunal, but that they will be given a fair alternative of being deported or having their case fairly tried before the Tribunal presided over by Mr. Justice Younger.
The noble Earl, Lord Jersey, said there will be full investigation of every case. We were told by the noble Earl on the last occasion that, with regard to those who had keen interned originally (numbering, I think, about 30,000), their cases were all thoroughly investigated. Now, we know, as a fact, that it was a physical impossibility that that could have taken place. It was not a question of the policy, or anything else, of the Tribunal, but the sheer question of the numerical proportions between the members of the Tribunal and the cases to be heard. Detailed investigation could not possibly have taken place with what we should call thoroughness at all. It is an open secret that it was done on a large and wholesale scale, and if that is what is now meant to be applicable to the future—if an investigation corresponding to that is all that will be open to the men now interned—I feel that we have fallen very far short of getting the kind of satisfaction for which we had hoped. But I do not believe that to be the case, for, if I am not mistaken, I understand from what the noble Earl said, in answer to an interruption, that there would be now a specific undertaking that men to be deported will, to their knowledge, have had the opportunity put before them of stating whether or not they desire to have their cases looked into before they are deported willy-nilly across the sea.
There is all the difference in the world between the kind of allowance which I should be the first to make for the necessities of war time, when things have to be done on a large scale and in a rough-and
138
ready manner, and when a detailed investigation is obviously, from the nature of the case, impracticable, and the facts as we have them now. The danger does not exist, the need for speed is not so imperative, and investigation conducted in a Court presided over by Mr. Justice Younger will be, we are quite certain, in every sense satisfactory to the people at large, because there is no man in whom we should place more implicit confidence in such a case. I agree a little with what was said a little while ago by the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce—who is not now in the House—that one would have imagined that even the numbers now to be examined were so ample that it would require more than one Tribunal to which they could go. If they were to be looked into with any thoroughness my own idea would have been that Tribunals of a subsidiary, even of a local character (which might have better and easier access to and knowledge of individuals) might exist, and that the higher Tribunal which has been referred to might have been reserved for cases of appeal. That is a matter of administration into which I do not in the least desire to enter.
I take it that we are allowed to go away to-night with the assurance that the cases of those now interned are going to be individually investigated; that the possibility of the investigation will be known to all those who are interned, and that there will be no possibility of it being done in the rough-and-ready way in which it was done in the early days of the war. With that promise I, for one, am exceedingly grateful, and I believe it will tend to do more substantial justice than perhaps has been done yet in a matter which, I admit, is one of extreme difficulty, and upon which we are now able to proceed with all the knowledge that time has brought us, and with that caution which the matter requires.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should like to ask a simple question with regard to a point which seems to me to be a little in doubt. The reply which Lord Lambourne has elicited is, I think, on the whole, a satisfactory reply. We understand that any of these 4,000 enemy aliens who have expressed a desire to remain in this country will be afforded an opportunity of appealing before deportation, and the tribunal which I gather is to be set up for this purpose seems to me to be an entirely

139
satisfactory tribunal. I infer that before the tribunal the appellants will have an opportunity of bringing forward any circumstances which are at all material in regard to the decision at which the Court will be asked to arrive. My noble friend the Marquess of Lincolnshire referred once or twice during his speech to "a Bill," and it is the case that a Bill dealing with this subject has been printed in the newspapers, I think, this morning. I suppose, however, that there is no doubt whatever that Mr. Justice Younger's inquiry will proceed at once, and that there will be no question of waiting until the Bill has obtained the consent of Parliament. It seems, indeed, to be of the utmost importance that not a moment should be lost in setting Mr. Justice Younger's Committee to work. We hear that a number of these interned people are at this moment being deported. What really matters is that every one of these people should have full and ample opportunity of showing cause before the tribunal why they should not be deported, and I hope we shall be told quite distinctly that that opportunity will be provided.
LORD SOUTHWARK: I am sure we should all like to hear from the noble Earl an answer to the question just put to him by the noble Marquess, so that we may have a definite statement that none of these men will be deported until they have been informed that they can appeal to the tribunal.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, I have no reason to think that the setting up of the tribunal has anything whatever to do with the Bill which has not yet been before your Lordships in any shape or form. As regards the question of the noble Marquess, I imagine it is perfectly understood that these persons will have an opportunity of stating their case. I cannot add anything to the statement I have made, and, personally, I should have thought it sufficiently comprehensive to meet every point that has been raised.

CONDUCT OF TAXI-CAB DRIVERS.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND THE DUKE OF RUTLAND rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the statements made in the Press as to the conduct of the London taxi-cab drivers in London; and to ask whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of amending and consolidating
140
the various Acts dealing with hackney carriages so as to enable them to deal with modern conditions.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, coming as it does after the important debate to which we have just listened, I feel that I ought almost to apologise to your Lordships for bringing this subject before you; but I do not apologise because, although it may be trivial in comparison to that to which you have been listening, it does affect the convenience and comfort of the citizens of London. I know that it is viewed with considerable interest in another place, and in fact in the House of Commons within the last fortnight two or three Question on this subject have been asked, and I am given to understand that a deputation is to be received by the Home Secretary on the whole subject of taxicab drivers, their methods and manners, and what is to be done to improve this part of the transport of, London. Therefore I do not apologise for bringing the subject forward now.
I have placed on the Paper a Question which can be divided into two parts. First I ask whether the attention of the Government has been called to the statements made in the Press as to the conduct of the taxi-cab drivers in London; then I venture to suggest some amendment in the laws respecting the whole of the taxicab question, and I ask whether they can be consolidated and codified so as to make them more satisfactory to meet the presing necessities of the case. It is now just two or three years ago since I brought the conduct of the taxi-cab drivers before your Lordships, and on that occasion the representative of the Government, Lord Sandhurst, gave the House a comprehensive and very interesting answer upon the whole subject as to the terms upon which and the Acts under which the taxicab drivers of London plied their trade. Since then no improvement has taken place in the manners and customs of the taxi-cab drivers; indeed they have, if anything, got a little worse.
I wish to guard myself, and I especially request the gentlemen in the Press Gallery, if they report anything of what I say, to take note that I entirely draw the line between those soldiers who have recently been demobilised and are driving a certain number of cabs in London now, and the manners and customs of some of the existing older taxi-cab drivers. The former are

141
behaving perfectly well. I have had the privilege of talking to a good many of them on this subject, and I know several of them personally. They are anxious and willing to serve the public properly, and to conform with the Acts of Parliament under which they gained their licence as public carriage drivers. Therefore I have no word to say against them.
But as regards the bulk of the existing taxi-cab drivers of London there is a good deal to be said. They have had, so to speak, an extremely good time during the last two years. They have been fortunate in alighting upon a time when there have been omnibus strikes, tramway strikes, and every kind of locomotive strike in London, and they have benefitted in the most emphatic manner thereby. When cases of bad behaviour have been brought before the Police magistrates of London, I think they are often—I say so with great diffidence—very unduly lenient in their treatment of these men. Indeed, it is getting to be an understood thing; and it is a fact which is becoming rather prominent amongst the London Police magistrates at this moment.
I pass to the main points upon which I take exception to the habits, customs, and manners of some of the London taxicab drivers. First I would say of cabs which now ply for hire in the streets, crawling along the streets, that you are very fortunate if, when you hail one of these men, he comes to you. Very rarely does he; but if he does, and does not like your appearance or is doubtful of your financial position, he very likely says "No." A man plying for hire by crawling along the streets of London is, as I was told two years ago by the noble Viscount, Lord Sandhurst, not supposed to be plying for hire; he is only plying for hire when he is on a public cab-stand in his proper place in front of the shelter, of if he is drawn up by, the pavement. That is a point which I think requires consideration with a view to an alteration of the Hackney Cab Act which governs that branch of the subject. If a man is crawling along the street, obviously looking for what he may regard as a suitable fare, he should go along with his flag up, or if he is not looking for a fare, the flag should be veiled and hidden in some way so that a mistake will not be made by the unfortunate person who wants to become his passenger, and who, seeing his flag raised as indicating
142
that he is in a position to take a fare, very naturally hails him. If the flag is not up the man does not get his fare, but he does not destroy the good feeling which should exist between a possible fare and a driver.
Very few taxi-cabs now dream of coining off a rank when they are hailed or sent for from a house or club or anywhere else, although they are in the position that they are under the laws of the Police, and when they are in front of a cab shelter, this means that they are only on the rank for the purpose of being hired. Yet I have often myself—and I dare say many of your Lordships have had the same experience—been met by a refusal when I have asked one of these men to drive me. "No" he says, "I am going to have my tea." A favourite habit of these men, whether you ask them to come off the rank, or whether you meet them crawling along the street, is to ask, "Where do you want to go?" I will give an illustration of what happens. The other day I was talking in a club to a distinguished General who sent out to get a taxi-cab. It was raining, and he was in a great hurry to get to the station in order to reach his Command. The porter came back and said, "There is a cab, sir, but the man wishes to know where you want to go." The General said. "I want to go to Liverpool-street." The man went down, and on corning back said, "The cab-man says he wants to go to South Kensington; he won't take you." If a man becomes licensed to drive under certain Acts of Parliament I contend that he becomes a public servant, and should not be allowed to dictate to the person who engages him which way he wants to go rather than go the way that the fare wishes to go. When that takes place it is an extreme perversion of the rule which ought to govern such matters, and that is a point which I think should be considered by the Home Secretary when he goes more thoroughly into this subject, as I understand he intends to do.
There are certain places in London where cabs need not come to you, although they are standing there for hire. They need only come to you if they feel inclined so to do. Cabs standing at railway stations can do exactly as they like. The Home Secretary stated the other day—
"The only exception to the rule where a man must, come is where a cab is standing on railway premises, and in that case I am advised that the hiree could not be compelled to accept the hiring."

143
That I think ought to be altered. A man who gets the privilege of standing in a railway station with a certainty of being hired, and probably very quickly, ought not to be allowed to pick and choose whether he will go or not. That part of the law ought to be altered at once, for it is an outrage on the public, and in these days when it is extremely difficult to get any sort of conveyance at railway stations it becomes a still worse offence and one under which the public ought not to have to suffer.
There is another point. Cabs refuse now, when you have hired them, to wait for five minutes at a shop or anywhere else. The cab-man says, "Oh, no, I am going on; I am not going to stop for you." They need not be with you for more than an hour, but for one hour you are entitled to keep them. Your only remedy is not to pay them if they do not wait, but it is extremely inconvenient in bad weather for ladies to hire a cab, by means of which they hope to be able to go from one shop to another and then go home, to find that they are left stranded when they come out of the shop because the cab-man will not stop any longer. His reason is that he could pick up three or four fares in the time that he would have to stay, and would thus be much better off.
I would like to give one example of what happens at the railway station, because it shows how seriously in some cases the wellbeing of persons may be affected. The other day a doctor with a very large practice whom I know very well had to meet a lady who was coming up to Charing Cross, and take her to a private hospital. He had not a car himself, and he went down to the station and waited some time. Before the train came in he told the porter to get a cab to meet him outside in the station yard, so as to be able to take the lady down to the private hospital in South Kensington. The porter tried seven cabs and all refused to go to South Kensington because they all wanted to go somewhere else. The doctor came outside, and with difficulty got a cab out of the street. The driver struck work at Hyde Park Corner, turned them out into the road, and they had to get on in some other way, which they eventually succeeded in doing. That is the sort of thing some of these drivers do. Those are the men I want to get at. They are victimising and blackmailing the public. It is a most disgraceful condition
144
of affairs, and it should not have been allowed to go on so long by the authorities. The laws governing hackney carriages are comparatively obsolete. They date back to 1831, 1843, 1850, and 1853. Taxi-cabs come under the Hackney Carriage Acts, and I trust that before long some general codification and modification of those Acts may be undertaken so that the taxi-cabs of London may be put under a better system of control than they are under at the present time.
Some of the men who have been demobilised tell me that they want to get back to driving cabs in London, but they cannot do so because they cannot get the cabs. When you ask them why, they say that the cabs have been lying aside so long that they are not in good going order (which is quite possible), and that it is impossible to supply any spare parts for them so that they can be put on the street. May I suggest to the Government that they might utilise the depôt at Slough in order to adapt some of the spare parts for these cabs and so enable people to have a better system of conveyance. If that be done, then something most useful and beneficial will have been achieved. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I know that a taxi-driver is not a very popular person at the present time, but still I should be very sorry for this debate to end without one word being said on behalf of a fairly large body of them. I happen to be hon. colonel of the Motor Volunteer Transport of the County of London, and on that body we have 175 taxi-cab owners. These men provided their own cabs, and at their own expense used to be up all night and take soldiers on leave from the station to where they were staying, thereby certainly losing the night's work and being obliged to rest the next day; and they called for the men in the morning and saw them off by the train. I think this slight tribute is necessary, because you must remember that when you have a large number of men from the front, with all their steel helmets and other impedimenta, they do not improve your cab, especially if they enter in large numbers. The men certainly ran the risk of having their cabs warned off the street if they were not in a proper state of repair, and we all know how difficult it was to get anything repaired.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Duke's complaints are no doubt very well founded, but I should like to say a word in extenuation to some extent of the taxi-cab driver. I am probably as large a user of cabs as any member of your Lordships' House. I have occasion to take them constantly in all parts of London, and at all hours of the day. And, although these inconveniences which have been stated exist, I think there are a certain number of excuses for them.
For example, let us take the case which the noble Duke gave of a man who, on a day when it was raining, was asked to go to Liverpool-street, and said he wanted to go to South Kensington. That desire on the part of the man and that statement were in all probability by no means due to pure vice. Those places are in exactly opposite directions, and they are a considerable distance apart, and the excuse was probably due to the fact that the man had only just got enough petrol to get home. That is a thing which a man who was driving a cab has to consider. Things are changed now, and circumstances are becoming easier, but during the last year or two it has not been possible to obtain a supply of petrol casually on the road, and a man has been limited to that which he went out with, and it was essential that when a man got to the bottom of his tank he should finish near home. Undoubtedly that was often the reason for their attitude. I have often heard these discussions, and generally the driver explains that he is near the end of his petrol. When the noble Duke speaks of taxi-cabs at railway stations they are practically non-existent in these days. When a main line train comes in at a terminus there are probably three cabs in the station all told, and they are all taken up at once.
But when you come to the question of extortion and questions of dodges adopted by cabmen, either by putting their flag down, or pretending to be engaged, or not stopping until they have made some sort of bargain with you, then I think the complaints are on rather firmer ground. I think there has been a considerable tendency on the part of taxi-cab drivers on the whole to extort not only more than their legal fare, but considerably more than their legal fare and the ordinary tip as well. The reason for that is I think quite temporary, and is tending to disappear. It is due to the operation of the
146
law of supply and demand. The demand for cabs has been something like three times the supply, and therefore naturally the person who has the article to sell tries to make the best terms he can. it is perfectly true that in the case of a taxi-cab the attempt to make these terms is illegal and should not be encouraged, but it is not altogether unnatural, and I am bound to say it has been encouraged by a certain class of cab users, the young officer with money to spend, who takes a cab for the evening and gives the man a sovereign or something of the sort. That tends to produce a bad effect on him.
I will give your Lordships an instance. The other day it was particularly important that I should go to two or three places running, and I asked the cab driver to take me two and a-half hours for a sovereign and I would give him an hour off in the middle. He said it would not pay him. I have no doubt it would not pay him; I have no doubt he would make more in the time. You have to consider that when you are dealing with them. In all my experience I have only once come across a cab driver who definitely committed a breach in the law. He began, as they usually do, by asking where I wanted to go. It was Election time, and I wanted to go to Battersea. I need hardly say the cabman instantly refused. On that occasion I desired him to meet me a little later before a magistrate, and then what I thought was a very inadequate fine was imposed. Because he had committed one of the most definite breaches of the regulations, and supported it by a tissue of lies. But the penalty was only a sovereign, which of course to-day is really an inadequate fine, and did not cause him any disturbance.
But I think it would be very difficult to alter the law, as the noble Duke suggests, so as to make it compulsory for a man who is going slowly along the street with his flag up to take a fare. He may be going home, or he may be going along to the rank to get his dinner. It is the case that these men have to wait till very inconvenient hours for their meals. They often do not get their midday meal until three o'clock. I do not think you could do that unless you allowed the driver to have what is a recognised convention, a glove over the flag to show that he is not available. But I think that most of the things of which the noble Duke complains

147
will tend to remedy themselves when there are more cabs on the street, and when there is a larger supply of petrol available.
I must say that so far as concerns cabs picking and choosing—and I have seen a good deal of picking and choosing going on at railway stations and other places—I have on the whole rather observed that they tend to place themselves at the disposal of the person who has luggage to take, or women with children, or people of that sort, rather than at the disposal of those who, they think, can at a pinch get away on their own legs. And I think they have to some extent selected their fares with regard to the public interest and public convenience. I quite admit that they are not entitled to select them, and I think it is quite possible that some Departmental Committee might with advantage look into the present Acts. But, on the whole, except in the matter of occasional extortion, and particularly extortion in fashionable West End quarters and at fashionable West End hotels at night, I honestly do not think the taxi drivers deserve all the complaints that are made against them.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, It is, of course, quite true that the hackney carriages in London are governed by a number of Statutes, almost all of which date before the introduction of motor vehicles. The consolidation of these Acts would unquestionably be desirable, and there are a number of points in which they might with advantage be revised. Revision and amendment would, however, be a task of considerable difficulty and complexity, and having regard to the number of different interests involved—those of the general public, the cab proprietor, and the cab driver—it would probably be impossible to undertake the task of revision without first exploring the whole subject by means of a Select Committee or a Departmental Committee which could go into the various questions and take the evidence of interested parties.
I pass to some of the specific points to which attention has been called. The provision that a driver cannot be compelled to go for a longer distance than six miles is statutory and will be found in section 7 of the Hackney Carriage Act, 1853. It is, of course, true that the distance is much smaller in proportion for a taxi-cab than it was for a horse cab, but
148
there are certain difficulties in the way of an amendment of this provision which have to be considered. Some little time ago a suggestion that the limit should be raised to ten miles was before the Secretary of State, and the drivers then pointed out that if they were required to go this distance there was considerable risk of their fare taking them to some outlying place where they would not easily get a return fare back to any populous part of the district, and in this case there would be so much dead mileage covered in returning to a place where fresh hiring was reasonably likely that the longer journey would often be unprofitable for them.
There is a good deal of force in this argument, especially with regard to the more outlying parts of the Metropolitan Police district; for example, a driver might be required to drive from Shepherd's Bush to Uxbridge, with practically no chance of getting a fare back. In this case he might have to cover twenty miles of ground for a legal fare of 6s. 8d. or 7s. 2d. (with the additional 6d. for each hiring) which would be by no means a profitable transaction for him. With the present six mile limit a man is not likely to be taken very far from a populous district where return fares are to be had; and under the old system of horse-cabs the difficulty did not arise in practice, because the outer suburbs were mostly served by cabs belonging to their own neighbourhood which rarely went far from that neighbourhood and did not go into the centre of London in the same way as taxis habitually do. Any question of extending the distance which a driver can be required to go would therefore have to be reconsidered in conjunction with the further question of increasing the fares, at any rate for the longer journeys; otherwise it would be faced with hostility and a good deal of passive resistance from the drivers.
I come now to the point on which the noble Duke laid special emphasis. It is true that a taxi-cab going slowly along the streets would not technically be plying for hire, and is therefore not obliged to take any fare unless he chooses; it is also true that, recently in particular, a good many abuses have resulted from this state of affairs. It is, however, by no means easy to remedy this by any direct provision on the subject. It is impossible to lay down that a man must

149
always take a fare when he is moving along the streets with his flag in the hiring position. A driver must, of course, finish his work and go home at some time, and if he is to be subject to requisition whenever he is passing through a street he would never be done. Further, a man may be under an engagement for a future time or summoned by telephone from a rank, and he must pass through the streets to fulfil his order. In order to try and remedy the abuses which have arisen the Commissioner has suggested that when a driver is passing through a street and is not prepared to take a fare he should cover over his meter-flag. He is not, however permitted to stop and bargain while his flag is covered. The matter could not be adequately dealt with without a drastic revision of the existing law on the subject, which might be a matter of some difficulty.
The Secretary of State cannot admit that the Police Regulations are a dead letter; on the contrary, the drivers have recently complained that the Police are enforcing them unreasonably, and they have gone so far as to refuse to use certain ranks where a number of drivers have been prosecuted for breaches of the Regulation. There is a special difficulty in respect to those ranks at which a shelter is provided, arising from the fact that the interests of the shelter attendants and those of the general public do not coincide. The former wish to keep the cabmen on the rank as long as possible because the cabmen are their customers; the latter, of course, wish to get the cabs off the rank. It is possible that some amendment of this state of affairs might be brought about by a change in the law giving the Police power to control shelters and shelter attendants.
There are, further, two general considerations which give rise to difficulty in all these specific cases mentioned above. One is the fact that owing to the present abnormal conditions the demand for cabs greatly exceeds the supply, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has pointed out; it is to be hoped that this will gradually disappear as things become more normal. The other is the reluctance of many persons who have difficulties with cabmen to complain to the Police and follow up their complaint by giving evidence when necessary, although the noble Earl has told us that he was a happy exception to this general rule. This greatly handicaps the
150
Police in dealing with breaches of the Hackney Carriage Acts and the regulations, since in very many cases any effective action depends upon the co-operation of the person immediately injured.
We all know that there are black sheep in every fold, and this is no doubt as true of taxi-drivers as of any other section of the community. Most people would agree that the least favourable elements have been unduly in evidence lately, and certain men have got their fellow-drivers a bad name which many do not deserve. We are glad to note that civility is still found amongst taxi-cab drivers, and I was pleased to hear the tribute paid by Lord Desborough to those who well deserved it. We have kindly recollections of the old horse-cab drivers, and there is no reason why their successors, who are more liberally rewarded, should not maintain those traditions. It is to be hoped that when there is more competition those who have acquired the idea that they can behave as they like will speedily find their proper level. If not, it may be. necessary to expedite some such action as that outlined by the noble Duke.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to call attention to the position of conscientious objectors whom the Tribunals have found to be sincere in their convictions; and to ask whether the Government is prepared to reconsider their position, more particularly in reference to those who have been in prison for a period of two years or more; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Notice which appears in my name has stood on the Paper on many previous occasions, and I think the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, who is going to answer, knows that it was postponed in the hope that the views expressed in it might at any rate be met to a large extent. I am informed—I hope rightly—that a statement has been made in the other House by the Secretary of State for War which to a great extent deals with the matter raised in my Question. I do not know whether I am right in regard to what has been told to me, but I should like to state it and then the noble Viscount can correct me if I make a mistake. I am told that the Secretary for War has stated in the House of Commons that every conscientious objector who in the aggre

151
gate has suffered imprisonment for two years or more is to be released at once, and released in the sense that he is discharged from all obligations which could have arisen in connection with his conscientious objection. If that is true it carries what I desire to attain by my Resolution a very long way; but there are still one or two words that I desire to say with regard to the Resolution itself.
In the first place, I will ask your Lordships to notice that I am calling attention to the position of conscientious objectors whom the Tribunals have found to be sincere in their convictions. I have noticed that objection has often been taken on the ground that some so-called conscientious objectors are really shirkers and hypocrites. I do not doubt that. But I believe, owing to facts which I shall state in a few minutes, that the numbers of those are comparatively few. Nobody could desire more strongly to have heavy punishment meted out to shirkers and hypocrites than those who uphold the genuine conscientious objector who acts from a deep sense of moral duty. The second part of my Resolution refers especially to those who have been in prison for two years or more. I do not want to say anything further on that question because, if I am rightly informed, all such are to be immediately released and discharged from further obligation.
There are only one or two things further that I desire to say. I bring this forward as an Armistice Resolution, and I think that the conditions now are entirely distinct from what they were during war time. On January 1 of this year a Memorandum was sent to the Prime Minister, signed by numerous persons who stated on the face of the Memorandum that they did not agree with regard to the principle of conscientious objection, but that they all agreed that, owing to the conditions of the Armistice, a time of release should not be admitted and recognised. Amongst those who signed that Memorandum—I will mention only those who are members of this House—were the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, Lord Harcourt, Lord Beauchamp, Lord Morley of Blackburn, and, in addition, three ex-Lord Chancellors who had been very closely connected with the Governments of the Prime Minister—namely, Lord Loreburn, Lord Haldane, and Lord Buckmaster.
152
I may also say that this Memorandum was signed by a large number of persons of fame and notoriety in every class of life, but no answer, either official or unofficial, has been given.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That was to the Prime Minister?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes. I call attention to the fact that no answer was given to a Memorandum signed by every member of your Lordships' House who occupied a Government position in the same Ministry as the present Prime Minister. There was not a single member of your Lordships' House who had acted with him in the ordinary way in Liberal Ministries who did not sign the Memorandum, and yet no answer, official or unofficial, was given. I think that is a rather strong measure, if I may say so.
What did the Memorandum state? It stated that there were 1,500 men then in prison, 700 of whom had served terms of two years, while pointing out that two years is the maximum punishment allowed for ordinary criminals under either the civil or military code. It pointed out further that a special Inquiry had been made, that it was a laborious matter, and that as a result it had been ascertained that the large majority of these men, who were imprisoned for a period beyond that applicable to the most mean and despicable criminals, were men who had acted under the demands of their conscience and in accordance with deep moral or religious convictions. That statement was made on undoubted authority. The Memorandum was signed by members of your Lordships' House and others whom I have indicated, and yet no answer was made, either officially or unofficially.
Time passed along, and when I put down the Resolution the statistics were—they may have altered since—that there were 773 conscientious objectors in prison believed to be perfectly sincere, who had been there for more than two years, that 218 had been court-martialled since the Armistice, some for the third and fourth times, that fifty-nine men had died subsequently to their arrest, and I have noticed a death or two mentioned in the papers since that date—I do not say they all died in prison—and that thirty-nine men had become mentally afflicted. The noble

153
Viscount shakes his head, but I may tell him that these statistics have been most carefully collected.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know what the noble Lord means by "mentally afflicted." It is not a definite term.
LORD PARMOOR: I mean men afflicted in this sense, that they are no longer responsible for their actions in the ordinary way, and have had to be put under restraint.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It does not mean men certified as insane?
LORD PARMOOR: Not necessarily certified as insane, but put under certain forms of restraint owing to the condition of their mental attitude, owing to these prolonged periods of imprisonment. I admit that it is a very serious number to give, but it has been ascertained after most careful inquiry, and I should not have given it unless I believed it to be absolutely correct. I only want to say one or two words on the general question, and I will be very brief. The common law of this country, as was stated in the widest terms by a great member of your Lordships' House, Lord Mansfield, contains no principle of persecution for moral or religious principles. That is the standing doctrine of the common law of this country. Wherever persecution is found necessary it is the creature of statute, and of course that was the case during the period of the war. I have always felt myself that during war there is a difficulty in dealing with the question of conscientious objection. I believe myself thoroughly that Parliament desired and determined, if the Act had been followed out, that no man should be punished if truly and sincerely subject to conscientious convictions. There may be some difference of opinion about that point; but it is the opinion which I have formed and which I believe to be accurate.
But surely now the Armistice time has arrived there can be no reason whatever for retaining any conscientious objector in prison for any longer period at all. Your Lordships will have noticed that the numbers I gave showed that 773 had been imprisoned for a longer period than two years, and therefore under the Order, which I understand is to be issued at once, considerably more than half of the con
154
scientious objectors now in prison will be immediately released. That is a matter of great gratification to those who have spent their time in doing what they could to produce fair treatment under conditions of this kind, and, that being so, if I have not misrepresented what was said in another place, I do not intend to detain your Lordships longer, except to utter my protest that, gratified as I am by the release made, I hope a further step will be taken soon and that this blot on the escutcheon of this country will be removed, and that we shall no longer have men in prison because they are loyal to deep moral and religious feeling.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of the Motion which has just been submitted to the House. I will venture to express one sentiment which I think will be shared by all your Lordships, and that is the wish that this may possibly be the last. debate we may have upon a subject which I have always regarded as particularly odious and in some of its aspects particularly humiliating.
I am certainly not here to find fault with His Majesty's Government. I think on the contrary that, as far as I have been able to follow their action during the last few months, they have shown every desire to make their rules as elastic as possible and their treatment of these unfortunate people as humane as circumstances permit. But they most certainly have had a very difficult course to steer. They have had on one side the people who look on this crowd of shirkers—for that is how they regard them—with a feeling approaching blind fury; on the other side there are those who are deeply convinced that many of these conscientious objectors are absolutely honest and animated by high principles and great personal courage.
The difficulty to be encountered is fundamental. This body of people, whom most of us regard as wrong-headed, presents in its wrong-headedness a variety of types. You cannot deal with these varieties by means of the hard standards of Acts of Parliament and Army Orders. I think I remember my noble friend Lord Salisbury saying here that human motives were very complicated and it is very difficult to disentangle them; and for that reason I am absolutely convinced that

155
the tribunals and those who have had to give effect to the decisions of the tribunals, with the best motives in the world, cannot have failed now and again to make serious mistakes. I have no doubt that at this moment there are men at large who have refused military service and who have refused to undertake any national service, simply because they have been fortunate enough to convince the Tribunal before which they appeared. There are other men, probably not very clearly distinguishable from them, who, because they failed to convince the Tribunal, have been treated as criminals and subjected to a great deal of hardship, if not a great deal of indignity. I have said before in this House that nothing will convince me that in a great many of these cases the punishment inflicted has not been a wholly inappropriate punishment to the offence and the person by whom the offence has been committed. This has been very brutalising to the sufferers and very shocking to the large number of people who sympathise with them and believe that they have a real grievance.
My noble friend Lord Parmoor comes here to-night and suggests specifically that those conscientious objectors who have undergone more than two years' imprisonment might now be liberated. I venture to think that this is not an unreasonable request. By submitting to their fate, they have shown beyond question that they are sincere. There is no doubt about that, and I venture to add that two years of imprisonment—imprisonment sometimes under very onerous conditions—is, in the view of most people, not inadequate punishment for the offence that has been committed.
My Lords, I have heard one argument suggested against the proposal of my noble and learned friend, and as it may be used I will mention it. It has been suggested to me that at a moment when demobilisation is not yet completed it might have a very unfortunate effect upon men serving in the Army if these people were released from imprisonment. I really think that this is an argument without material weight. There are, I understand, 700 of these conscientious objectors now in prison. I suppose that would work out at something like one in 3,000 of the number of soldiers who are now being demobilised. If it is suggested that none of these men are to be released until demobilisation is complete, I submit that, with the military
156
prospect of which we now read every time we look at the newspapers, such a suggestion opens a vista of long continued punishment for an almost indefinite period.
The idea that these conscientious objectors, if released, would occupy a number of attractive posts, to the exclusion of meritorious soldiers, seems to me to be quite fantastic. These men, if they are let loose, are generally, I am afraid, likely to be regarded by most of their fellow-citizens as a kind of pariah, and the difficulty will be to get them any work at all. It will not be a question of their appearing as successful competitors for employment with soldiers returning from the Front. I cannot say how glad I should be, what relief it would afford me, if this episode, which has been a very painful one, might now be closed. It is an episode which has occasioned a great deal of bitter feeling in the country—a feeling certainly not confined to those who have actually undergone punishment for their conduct. If His Majesty's Government could tell us that they see their way to close the account, I believe the announcement would be received with universal satisfaction.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships more than a few minutes, but this is a subject on which, I think your Lordships know and the noble Viscount (Viscount Peel) will recognise, I do not speak without some special knowledge. I have never been able, of course, to take quite the view of my noble and learned friend who opened this discussion. I have always avowed in your Lordships' House and elsewhere that there did not appear to be any exit from the dilemna in which the authorities of this country were placed. If service was to be universally compulsorily for men within certain ages, it was impossible to allow a particular number of persons to refuse to meet the obligations which were thrown on everybody else. You might mitigate it in any way you could, but you must ultimately assert the supremacy of the law. I think the Government did go a very long way, because they said, in effect, as it ultimately worked out, that if any of these men would consent to do work of national importance under the Home Office scheme they should not be imprisoned. That was said, and therefore the only ones who are in prison are the absolutists—those who have declined not merely to fight, not merely to do non-

157
combatant service, but to do anything in the nature of work of national importance which might be prescribed to them by the Government.
LORD PARMOOR: Compulsorily.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Compulsorily; quite so. I have never been able to take any other view than that, when you are driven to that last point, the Government must vindicate its position, and these gentlemen, however honest they may be—and many of them were honest, quite honest—must feel the power of the law exercised to place them, at any rate to some extent, in the same position as their neighbours. I have said that the Government went a very long way, but there was a point beyond which I think they might have gone. I and others ventured to press them to go, but we were not successful. It had reference to the kind of imprisonment which was awarded to those who were absolutists. They were sent to hard labour. We pressed the Government at that time to shorten the period of hard labour as far as possible, as far as they thought it their duty to do so, and I understood that the Government gave an absolute pledge in both Houses of Parliament that no conscientious objector would be imprisoned with hard labour for more than an aggregate term of twelve months. I have no doubt that the Government have fulfilled that pledge.
LORD PARMOOR: It is two years!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There must be some mistake. But there was a question put in another place to which the Home Secretary made an answer, which included this phrase—
"732 conscientious objectors have served, in the aggregate, more than twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour, including time served in prison and previous sentences either in detention barracks or in a civil or military prison."
VISCOUNT PEEL: When was that answer given?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I ought to have the date, but I am afraid I have not. It was given by the present Home Secretary, Mr. Shortt, so it cannot be a very long time ago. I should like to have either a reply to-night, or, if my noble friend is not in a position to answer it to-night at some other time, how this is
158
to be reconciled with the pledge which was given so categorically in both Houses of Parliament. It was certainly given in this House by my noble friend the Leader of the House, unless I am very much mistaken, and I think not, for I have refreshed my memory on the subject. My inquiry is not merely how this particular pledge is reconciled to the conduct they have pursued, but I should like to press the Government to go a step further than the concession they have announced to-night. They have agreed to release all conscientious objectors who have been in prison for more than two years—I am not sure whether it is with hard labour. I would ask them to go this length and strike out the terms "with hard labour." I do not say release the others, but might they not very properly reduce the severity of the sentence to the extent of abolishing hard labour. I know it is said that hard labour is a survival of past times, and that it does not differ materially from ordinary imprisonment as a third-class misdemeanant. That is perfectly true; but the pledge which was given to us, to which I have referred and which I want the Government to fulfil and extend, was that all these conscientious objectors should receive a special treatment, which is known as the "Churchill treatment"; that is, under a particular Order issued when the present Secretary of State for War was Home Secretary. It is a mitigated form of imprisonment not unlike the imprisonment of a first-class misdemeanant.
VISCOUNT CAVE: That treatment has been applied to every conscientious objector who has been in prison for twelve months.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If that is so, then the Home Secretary was a little inaccurate in the phrase he used, which I read out. I do not want to press this, but no doubt that must be the explanation. The phrase used was—
"732 conscientious objectors have served, in the aggregate, more than twelve months' imprisonment, with hard labour."
VISCOUNT CAVE: That may have been before the concession was made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That may be the explanation. I desire to ask the Government to go further than the pledge, and say that all conscientious

159
objectors should have this mitigated treatment now, even if they are not to be released. I think that is a concession which may be made. For hard labour is not the punishment for conscientious objectors. I have seen a great many conscientious objectors. It was my duty to interview them and ask them exactly what their position was. Though, of course, one must not assume that they told the truth in every case, yet there were occasions when I am quite certain if any one of your Lordships had been there you would have been absolutely convinced that the man was speaking the truth. There were all the elements of sincerity written in the most prominent way upon everything the man said.
I remember a case of a conscientious objector who had originally been an officer, but who had resigned his commission before the war because of his conscientious conviction. Then he had a tremendous spiritual feeling in his heart, and he had become convinced that it was his duty to do what he could to restore peace in certain industrial regions where he had influence. He went in the spirit of an evangelist and preached the Gospel, as it is contained in the New Testament, to those persons who were engaged upon industrial struggles in the hope that he might restore peace. That was what he believed to be his mission. He believed he was directed absolutely from on High. He believed it was his duty. And who shall say it was not his duty? He also thought it was wrong to fight and to engage in war; and he was a conscientious objector. It was not possible for the Central Tribunal to release him. They were obliged to say that he must do work of national importance, and he was one of those queer, odd, cranky, men who thought that it was wrong to do work of national importance because it was ordered under the Military Service Acts. It was an absolutely impossible position, as we think, to occupy. I do not pretend to explain it, or defend it, but that was his view. He was punished. He spent very many months in prison doing hard labour. Is it conceivable that it was an arrangement satisfactory to anybody, to your Lordships or to anybody else, that this holy man should be sent to a prison to do hard labour? I do not say that it was wrong to send him to prison. I do not know what else could have been done; but the sooner a man of that kind can be released from hard labour the better every one
160
throughout the length and breadth of the country will be pleased. I urge, for the sake of these religious men, who are, in spite of their wrongheadedness, and whose position we do not understand, "the salt of the earth," that they should be released from the graver penalties which they have incurred, and, now that we have won the war, that we should extend to them that clemency which all of us would desire.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I think that everybody in this House will echo the statement of my noble friend Lord Parmoor, that we hope this is the last debate we shall have upon this subject. I take note of that observation, and I hope he will not initiate another debate. I am very glad that he has at last been able to bring this discussion to a point, because the matter has been postponed from day to day and we have not had an opportunity of dealing with it before the present. My noble friend made use of certain figures, and I think I ought to submit other figures to set against them. So far as relates to the numbers in prison and at work, and who have died in prison, I do not submit them in any way as the representative of the War Office. I have, as a matter of fact, obtained certain figures from the Home Office, and one or two I would like to set against the figures which Lord Parmoor gave, because I think they may create rather a wrong impression. The figures which I have are the latest.
LORD PARMOOR: Mine were made up to three weeks ago.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think my figures are more recent. My figures show how strongly the official figures differ from those given by Lord Parmoor. For instance, he gave the number of 1,500 as representing those actually imprisoned. The number actually in prison is 888, which is a considerable deduction on the figure he has given.
LORD PARMOOR: I gave that figure as on January 1.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I thought you said three weeks ago.
LORD PARMOOR: I gave no figures as to the number in prison three weeks ago, but I did give the figures of the number in prison on January 1.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend intervened, and said that his figures were made up to three weeks ago. That is why I commented on them. At any rate, those are the figures at the present moment. As regards the number in prison who have served at least two years, the figure that the noble Lord gave was 773. The figure I have from the Home Office is 464, which is a considerable reduction. These are the official figures. The noble Lord seems to think they are wrong, but he must argue that case later. He gave very different figures also as to the numbers who had died either in prison or at work. I think he gave the figure of 59. My figures are that the number of those who died in prison is 9, and of those who were referred to the Committee by the Central Tribunal, 24.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not wish to dispute my noble friend's figures. I did not say that was the number who died in prison or at work, but the number who had died since arrest. That may be the explanation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord must deal with these figures. I am giving official figures. I did not compile them myself, but I have no reason to doubt their correctness. As to the number of those who—I think the phrase he used was "not certified as insane but were insane"—
LORD PARMOOR: Mentally afflicted.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is a rather indefinite phrase, and I challenged the noble Lord so that I may know precisely what he means, because it is rather difficult to measure exactly the state of mind of a man mentally afflicted. But the number of those who have been certified insane, I am given to understand, is twenty, and not thirty-nine; and fourteen were certified within three months of reception, showing that they were mentally unstable before imprisonment took place. These comments I felt compelled to make upon the figures which my noble friend gave.
One word upon the question of the sincerity of these conscientious objectors. Every one who knows one of these conscientious objectors may have his own view as to whether they were conscientious or not, and he is at liberty to have his own view, but I think that it is right, to point out that all these men either have appeared before the tribunals and have been found
162
not to be conscientious—that is to say, not to have a conscientious objection to military service—and have been sent either on military service generally or have been classified for non-combatant service, or they are men who have taken the opportunity and the right they had to appear before the tribunals, and have been found by the tribunals to be conscientious. These latter, for some reason, in the debates in this House are never alluded to. The number of these is about 600, and they got complete exemption from the tribunals; yet for some reason the administration of these tribunals is criticised and attacked, and no credit is ever given to them—at least I have never heard any credit ever given to them—for having completely exempted 600. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, criticised the tribunals, not I think unfairly, because he suggested that the tribunals would find it very difficult in specific cases to gauge the sincerity of any man. Of course, we know that the method of tribunals of measuring the sincerity of a man must be of a rough and ready sort.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But I did say that there were men who had been let off by the tribunals because they were satisfied of the sincerity of their conscientious objection.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is no doubt an allusion to the 600. The test, as I say, must be a rough and ready one. While noble Lords discuss the question of the sincerity of the special persons in whom they may be interested, there is ample evidence to show that a number of these men were by no means conscientious, and many of them were engaged in a deliberate conspiracy to break down the Military Service Acts, and it was the duty of the State, if the Military Service Acts were to be properly administered, to take a strong line to preserve itself. I confess that I rather look upon it with some of those who are not specifically interested in whether this particular man is or is not sincere. It is an immensely difficult thing to measure motives or the truth of motives. There is no doubt that what these men were doing would have resulted in the complete downfall of the State if others had followed their example, and it may well be questioned, I think, by those who believe most deeply in the sincerity of men's convictions, whether people should be permitted or not to take

163
action which, if it were general, would result in the complete break-up of the State to which they belong. Therefore in measuring and in speaking about sincerity—and it is not a subject that I like to discuss very much, because it is so difficult to measure a man's sincerity—we should remember that all these men for whom my noble friend Lord Parmoor pleads have had an opportunity of going before the tribunals, or, having gone before the tribunals, have been found not to be sincere in their conscientious objection.
LORD PARMOOR: None for whom I speak come within that category.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend speaks for them all. I say that they all come within that category, and therefore there is no category outside for whom my noble friend can speak.
LORD PARMOOR: My Resolution is limited, and purposely limited.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I read it very carefully. My noble friend talks about those whom the tribunals have found to be sincere in their convictions. I am pointing out that all these men have passed through the tribunals. What my noble friend is alluding to—and that is a totally different thing—is to the administrative action of the Central Tribunal in allowing some of these men to go under the Brace Committee and take work. That is a totally different proposition which ought not to be confused with the existence of the ordinary tribunals before whom these men came. I can admit what the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, said as bearing on the question of letting these men out of prison. The situation is wholly changed from what it was during the war, because at that time it would have been very questionable to let men out of prison and thereby suggest to others who were fighting in France that by a resort to this particular course a man might escape prison or be discharged from it. Moreover, I think the question of competition in the labour market is a very unimportant one indeed. These men are comparatively few in number, and they come out of prison branded, and those who want employment will find it difficult to get. A number of them are not, I believe, people who would get that particular employment which has been referred to. Therefore
164
that particular proposition may be put aside. A stronger point, I think, is this. It might be felt as a grievance by the large Army that is retained on the Rhine and elsewhere if these men, who were professed conscientious objectors, were able to escape military service earlier than the men who are so retained. But that is another proposition.
The question of the release of these particular conscientious objectors who have served over two years has not, I think, been put by my noble friend on a basis on which I should like to put it. He suggests, or rather seemed to suggest, that this was a special rule made for conscientious objectors, that after they had served two years they should be discharged. That is not so; it is a general rule applying to all soldiers. It is merely a revival of the system that applied before the war when sending soldiers to detention barracks for punishment. If it was considered they might become good soldiers again, they went back into the Army after leaving prison; if, on the other hand, it was considerable desirable that they should not live under military rule as they might contaminate the men with whom they would have to live, they were discharged from the Army when they entered prison. This is a matter of general application; and the Government have decided that these men, who are looked upon as soldiers and who are in prison, shall be now discharged from the Army, and further, that those who have served, whether conscientious objectors or others, for two years or more in the aggregate in prison, shall be released from prison. That is the decision which His Majesty's Government have very recently come to. I think the point raised by my noble friend Lord Salisbury was really answered by Lord Cave, so that I need not refer to that any more. The only other point is, I think, as to the question whether all could be released.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I suggested was that the punishment of hard labour should not be enforced any longer against a conscientious objector.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is purely a Home Office matter, and I dare say the noble Marquess will excuse me at this moment from specifically dealing with it. That, I think, settles the question of the conscientious objector. But I have one

165
more point to which I really must make some allusion, because it is a very grave reflection on some of the distinguished military officers at the War Office. This is an attack contained in the number of the Westminster Gazette which appeared yesterday, and I want to give it the most emphatic denial that I am capable of giving. The writer says—
"I hear that Mr. Shortt and Mr. Churchill submitted a memorandum to the War Cabinet on the question of the conscientious objector which would, if accepted, have moderated the persecution of the objector. But the report is that it was turned down by the Cabinet on the advice of the military authorities. The Generals in the War Office were, in fact, allowed to override all considerations of humanity with the plea that the moral of the Army would be affected."
And the writer adds—
"If the War Office were to be made the judge of what liberty of conscience we may exercise, many of us would find ourselves in prison."
It is not a very great compliment—though that is not the matter I am criticising—either to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State, or the Home Secretary; to say that they are over-ridden in this way by their officers, but it is an unfair and cowardly attack on these military officers at the War Office. It cowardly for this reason, that it is well known that these officers are unable to make a reply, or to speak for themselves, and the attack is made knowing that these officers are unable to make any reply. But not only that, the statement is absolutely without any foundation of any, kind. I am speaking with the full direction and assent of the Secretary of State when I say that on this matter the fullest accord exists between himself and his military advisers. The whole thing is an invention, and I wish to give it the strongest and most indignant denial that I am capable of giving.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, in every debate that has taken place on this subject I have trespassed on the time of the House. This, I hope, is the last time, and I rejoice in congratulating the noble Viscount on being the spokesman to-night of what, I hope, means a very speedy ending, not in part but in entirety, of what has been a melancholy story—melancholy as regards the conduct of those who have placed themselves by a strange distortion of conscience in this position; melancholy also, I think, because of the difficulty which has been found in handling the problem
166
with, I am afraid, sometimes the result of its being mishandled in no small degree. However, that is over, I hope. And we are assured to-night that all those are now to be released who have done in the aggregate two years' imprisonment, and those who remain will, I suppose, be found in a position where coercion is no longer required. Because that which corresponds to it in military matters will have ceased, and therefore presumably the coercion which falls upon them will have ceased also. I believe that an endeavour has been made throughout to act fairly in this matter, but that it has broken down from the attempt to apply strict principles of logic or law to men to whom neither of those conditions was really applicable.
I venture to add my voice to that of the noble Marquess opposite in the appeal that, so far as possible, those who are still to remain in custody shall remain in conditions rendered as little severe, onerous, and penal as can possibly be arranged. If it should be necessary that men should be still under restraint at a time when, so far as we know, no peril would result to the nation if these men were at large; if it is felt that for some reason a group of them must still remain in custody I cannot believe that the position in which they are now placed is one which involves the necessity of their being subjected to treatment so severe or penal as that which has broken down the spirit and the health of not a few of these misguided men.
To speak of it as though it were a rare and exceptional thing that these men are conscientious is, I am quite sure, to misunderstand the situation. Personally I know a good many of them. I am in touch with the son of a Bishop for whom I had the highest possible respect. He is, I think, misguided in the highest possible degree, but nevertheless earnest, conscientious, and public-spirited from his own point of view, as well as devoted and courageous. There are many such men. I believe they are mainly those who have got themselves into that most incomprehensible of all positions and speak of themselves as absolutists; and therefore, I suppose, they are the very men who will now be set at liberty. I trust that they will only remain a short time, and that the noble Viscount may be able before long to tell us that the whole of this unhappy matter has come to an end. I have no kind of wish to censure those who have had

167
to discharge so difficult a task, and a task of a complexity for which we had no parallel or precedent to guide us. I trust that we have now reached the time when we may be relieved of a task which must have been as unpleasant to the Government as it has been to those of us who have dealt with this subject in this House time after time.
LORD PARMOOR: May I put one question to the noble Viscount in order to be quite sure? It is a fact, is it not that the conscientious objector who has been in prison for an aggregate of two years will be released at once.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes; those who have been in for an aggregate of two years in this country are released at once.
[From Minutes of April 2.]

CAVENDISH CLARKE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of evidence taken before this House together with the proceedings and the documents deposited in the case: Ordered to be communicated, with a request that they may be returned.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION GAS BILL. [H.L.]
NEWARK GAS BILL. [H.L.]
PEMBROKE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
NUNEATON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
POOLE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
ST. JUST (FALMOUTH) OCEAN WHARVES AND RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
THAMES OCEAN-WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

E. Verulam,

L. Kintore (E. Kintore) (Chairman),

L. Greville,

L. Sackville,

L. Avebury;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 6th of May, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

INTESTATE HUSBAND'S ESTATE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.