Sitting of 2 December 1920

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill (by Order).
Read a Second time; to be considered To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    ALTERNATIVE PENSION.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Pensions if the powers given to him under Section 2 of the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1919, to require information from employers for the purpose of ascertaining the pre-War earnings of a disabled soldier, were intended to insure that a disabled soldier should not suffer financial loss through his disability; and, if so, why Private Frederick Burgess, No. 205,173, Royal West Kents, is allowed a pension of only 12s. per week, seeing that a gunshot wound in his right hand prevents him from following his employment as a warper at a minimum wage of 66s. per week, and he has consequently had to accept light work from his pre-War employers at 40s. per week?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): The object of the powers conferred on me by the Section quoted is to assist an applicant to establish his claim to alternative pension. In the particular case mentioned the man is in receipt of a flat rate pension and there is no record of an application for alternative pension having been made by him.
    Mr. HURD: If an application is made will the right hon. Gentleman consider it?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Most certainly.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (OFFICERS' WIDOWS).
    Mr. W. SHAWasked the Minister of Pensions whether a decision has yet been arrived at regarding pensions for widows of officers in the Mercantile Marine who died whilst on service with the Admiralty, and if he can state approximately the number of such widows; and whether he is aware that, in view of the fact that the war risks associations, the Admiralty, and the owners refuse to countenance any claims for compensation or pensions, these widows are in great distress?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): I have been asked to reply to this question. Widows of officers of the Mercantile Marine in the direct pay of the Admiralty, whose death can be proved to be attributable to or accelerated by service during the War, are entitled to pensions under the Injuries in War Compensation Acts, 1914. The widows of such of these officers as were employed under definite agreements to serve on any vessel for the duration of the War are granted pensions by the Ministry of Pensions at the same rates as those payable to widows of naval officers. The widows of officers not so serving are entitled to pensions under the Admiralty Scheme of Compensation framed under the Act mentioned, and approximately 120 of such pensions are at present in course of payment from naval funds.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Am I to understand from that that the widows of the men who served in the Mercantile Marine are entitled to a pension?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Yes, if they were in the direct pay of the Admiralty.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many of these widows are in great distress? Is he also aware of the very solemn pledge of the Prime Minister to the head of the seamen's organisation that the very first of the reparation money received from Germany should be given to that organisation, and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman undertake to remind the Prime Minister of his pledge?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I think that is quite unnecessary, because, as I said, all those who come under this are being dealt with.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many of these poor ladies are in great distress, and would not an augmentation of their pensions be very desirable?
    Mr. HAYDAY: Is it not the fact that these donations are only applicable to those having definite service under the Admiralty, and not generally to the Mercantile Service?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Quite.
    Mr. HAYDAY: That being so, may not the point put by my hon. and gallant Friend be worth consideration; what, too, may I ask, becomes of the promises as to reparation money being paid to the dependants of the deceased Mercantile Marine seamen who were not directly under the Admiralty?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Of course, the hon. Gentleman understands that I can only deal in my Department with those cases that come under the Admiralty.
    Mr. DONALD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I have two cases in hand where men of the Mercantile Marine lost their lives, and both the Admiralty and the owners refuse compensation, and that the widows are in poor circumstances?

    OFFICERS' FRIENDS.
    Mr. W. SHAWasked the Minister of Pensions if he will state the number of officers' friends in the employ of his Department; the monthly expenditure incurred in the administration of this branch of his Department, including salaries; the average number of applicants per month to whom advice is given; and whether, in view of the fact that the printed instructions and information given to disabled officers are so explicit, he will consider the advisability of discontinuing this branch of the Ministry of Pensions?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The total number of officers' friends at Headquarters and in the Regions is 21. These officers are assisted by a small clerical staff. The monthly cost in salaries of these officers, including their staff, is £834. This amount is exclusive of necessary costs of accommodation, stationery, and
    1406
    typing. The average number of applicants per month at Headquarters, including those who apply personally and by letter, is 2,500. No figures are available of the numbers dealt with in the Regions, but it may be assumed that they are in proportion to that of Headquarters. Officers' friends perform useful work in visiting hospitals and institutions, where attention is given to wholly disabled officers. Advice and assistance are given in the preparation of claims, not only to serving and demobilised officers, but also to widows and nurses. Several Government Departments consult the Branch, and various organisations who interest themselves in the claims of disabled officers and widows approach it for advice and assistance. I do not consider that the Branch has outgrown its usefulness, but the staff is carefully reviewed at short intervals, and every economy that is possible, without impairment of efficiency, is effected.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    CONCURRENT TREATMENT AND TRAINING.
    Mr. GRUNDYasked the Minister of Pensions (1) whether, taking into consideration the increased cost of living, ho is prepared to revise the allowances payable to disabled men receiving or willing to receive concurrent treatment and training, especially as these men have to reside away from home, and bring these allowances up to such a standard as will ensure the proper upkeep of the men's homes;
    (2) whether he is aware that there are cases of disabled men having been granted concurrent treatment and training who have had to discontinue the same owing to the fact that the allowances payable are insufficient to meet the liabilities incurred in an ordinary household;
    (3) whether he is aware that there are disabled men who are unable, owing to their disabilities, to follow their pre-War occupations and who would willingly accept concurrent treatment and training if the allowances payable were sufficient: and whether better results of such training would not occur if the allowances paid to the men were based at a standard that would enable the men to devote their minds to such training?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Government have recently considered proposals for an addition to pensions and allowances and have decided that no increase can be sanctioned at present. I have no information that would support the suggestion that disabled men are either unwilling to undertake, or are failing to complete courses of concurrent treatment and training on the ground that the allowances granted are inadequate.
    Mr. GRUNDY: If I provided the right hon. Gentleman with such cases will he give sympathetic consideration to them?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Most certainly, Sir.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is it not extremely important to give every encouragement to disabled men to undergo concurrent treatment and training?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There is no part of the functions of the Ministry that is so useful as this, and in answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Grundy), I may inform the House that many hundreds of men are awaiting the advantages of the treatment.

    MENTAL CASES.
    Mr. SUGDENasked the Minister of Pensions if he will give instructions that all discharged soldiers and sailors suffering from temporary loss of memory attributable to the recent War be re moved from all lunatic asylums and not detained therein or in Poor Law institutions, but housed and tended in proper hospitals?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle on the 15th November by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, of which I am sending him a copy.

    APPLICATIONS FOR PENSIONS.
    Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe)asked the Minister of Pensions how many applications for pensions have been submitted to the district commissioner of medical service acting at Ashton-under-Lyne by ex-service men who have been discharged more than six months and whose disability is tuberculosis; and how many applications have been successful?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that I have not this information. The records of my Department are not kept in such a form as to enable me to answer my hon. Friend without causing a review of each case dealt with in the area.
    Mr. DAVIES: May I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction prevailing in the area covered by the district of Ashton-under-Lyne, and justifiable dissatisfaction, and that unless we can get these statistics we can get no guide to the percentages of bonâ fide cases turned down; and if I give him notice will he try and get the information for my district?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If my hon. Friend will consult mo I shall be most happy to do what I can for him; but I would like to point out it will involve an enormous amount of additional labour.

    LAND SETTLEMENT.
    Major O'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps he is taking to expedite the provision of cottages and plots for ex-service men in Ireland who have applied for them?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The question whether any amending legislation or change in administrative procedure is necessary in order to expedite the working of the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, is at present having my earnest consideration.
    Major O'NEILL: Are we to understand that the present machinery has broken down?
    Mr. HENRY: No, Sir; but it has been found that the tenders which have been put in for the erection of the various cottages are out of all proportion to the sum considered necessary for the purpose of erecting them.
    Major O'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if this legislation is to be introduced, it will be brought in immediately, because this question is one of very great importance to the ex-service men in Ireland, and there has been unaccountable delay?
    Mr. HENRY: Obviously it would be impossible to introduce legislation this

    1409
    Session, but the Chief Secretary is most anxious that everything should be done that is possible in the interests of these men.
    Captain TERRELLasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to press the settlement of ex-service men on the land on the Ministry of Agriculture?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been in close touch during the last few months with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture with regard to this matter. I am informed that the Ministry of Agriculture have now received a further Treasury grant for their Land Settlement Schemes, and that this grant will be available for the settlement of suitable disabled ex-service men now under training, as well as for other applicants.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the percentage of disabled ex-service men employed in Government offices only amounts, two years after the conclusion of hostilities, to 10·50; that the percentage in the Customs and Excise is only 5·84; and whether, if the staffs of Departments are to be maintained at their present excessive figure, he will, at any rate, insist that the percentage of ex-service man shall be at least doubled within the next year?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): On the 1st October last the ratios to the total staffs of the disabled ex-service men employed in Government offices were as stated. As regards the difference between the percentage for the Department of Customs and Excise and that for Government Departments generally, I would refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich on the, 4th ultimo. The percentage of disabled ex service men employed in Government offices as a whole is already more than double that which the Government has asked employers generally to adopt in connection with the National Roll. The question of the extended employment in Government Departments of ex-service
    1410
    men, disabled or otherwise, is being further considered by Lord Lytton's Committee, and His Majesty's Government must await the Report of that Committee before deciding what further steps could appropriately be taken to increase the percentage of ex-service men in Government Departments.

  IRELAND.

    ESCAPING PRISONERS (SHOOTING).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many prisoners in Ireland have been shot dead while trying to escape, according to police reports, up to the end of November of this year and during the present year; how many have been wounded; and how many of these were handcuffed at the time of their death or wounding?
    Mr. GALBRAITHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the total number of persons who have been shot at in Ireland when attempting to escape from custody; and how many of such persons have been wounded and killed, respectively?
    Mr. HENRY: According to the police reports the number of prisoners fired at while attempting to escape from custody within the period from 1st January to 30th November, 1920, is 11. Of these nine were killed and two wounded. One of the prisoners killed and one of those wounded are stated to have been handcuffed while attempting to escape.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when the bodies have been given to the relatives that in many cases those men have been found to be riddled with bullets through the head: how does he think that men can try to escape from police lorries; and can he inform me if all these cases have been investigated by a court of inquiry?
    Mr. HENRY: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the Attorney-General say whether the figure he has quoted includes those shot dead on the allegation that they were attempting to resist arrest?
    Mr. HENRY: The question put to me was as to the number of men shot whilst attempting to escape from custody.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman can say whether there has been an inquiry into these cases, in view of the very serious allegations made and reported in the newspapers throughout the country?
    Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when General Lucas was captured, the officer who was captured with him attempted to escape, and was shot by the Sinn Feiners?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Also does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that when General Lucas was released he stated that he had been treated with the greatest consideration by his captors?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting a long way from the question on the Paper.

    MURDERS AND REPRISALS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Sergeant James O'Donoghue, Royal Irish Constabulary, was murdered on the streets of Cork by three unknown men on the evening of 17th November; whether later in the same night uniformed men, who in some cases described themselves as military when seeking admission, entered dwelling-houses and murdered James Coleman, of North Mall, Eugene Connell, of Broad Lane, and Patrick Hanley, of Broad Street, and wounded with revolver shots Charles O'Brien, of Broad Lane, and Stephen Coleman, of Broad Street; whether this murdering and wounding was done in the presence of their wives and children; whether he is aware that the men's relatives state positively that these murders and shooting were committed by uniformed men; how many arrests have been made in connection with these four murders and two attempted murders; and what steps he is taking to trace the assassins?
    Mr. HENRY: According to the reports which I have received these murders and attempted murders occurred on the dates mentioned and in the manner described in the hon. and gallant Member's question. The police have made every effort to trace the perpetrators of these crimes, but I regret to state no arrests
    1412
    have yet been made. A military court of inquiry in lieu of inquest has been held in each of the cases of murder, and in each case the finding of the court was one of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown. I would add that, according to the police report, all these civilian victims were, so far as is known, innocent and inoffensive persons who did not take any part in politics.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman account for the fact that their relatives are prepared to swear that it was armed and uniformed men who entered the dwellings—servants of the Crown? May I have an explanation of that?
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether it was not the case that the 15 soldiers murdered near Cork were murdered by uniformed men?
    Mr. HENRY: Yes, Sir, that is so. I find that very many of the most dangerous criminals are in uniform.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Might I have an answer, please? Is the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—aware that the relatives are prepared to declare specially that these were' servants of the Crown—how does he account for it?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it a fact or not that all these men were murdered after midnight when curfew was in force, and therefore that no civilians were abroad in the streets: is it not conclusive, therefore, that the murders must have been committed by the forces of the Crown?
    Mr. HENRY: I cannot accept the proposition that no civilians were in the streets simply because curfew was in force.
    Mr. SWANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that about the beginning of November lorries, conveying armed forces of the Crown, drove repeatedly through Falcarragh and Gortahork, County Donegal, from which volleys were fired indiscriminately; that several people wholly unconnected with politics had narrow escapes from being shot; that these attacks were unprovoked; that no explanation was given of them; that shots were fired by the forces into the parish hall, which is the venue of the Cloughaneely summer Irish

    1413
    college and is the property of the parish; that in the second week in November raids by the forces of the Crown, accompanied by violent threats, began; that the raiding forces were usually intoxicated; that on the morning of the 17th instant the manager and the assistant at the store in Gortahork of the Cloughaneely Co-operative Agricultural Society, Limited, were awakened by police and ordered out of the building; that one of the Royal Irish Constabulary men said that they were going to burn it; that the forces threw down the goods in the shop in confusion; that some small articles, including knives and lamp batteries, were taken away; that the society is absolutely non-political; that its capital is made up of the savings of the poor and its members include Unionists, Hibernians, as well as republicans; that the Royal Irish Constabulary afterwards proceeded to the neighbouring parish and smashed all the windows, roof, partitions, etc., and two sewing machines belonging to the Congested Districts Board; that they piled up the forms and tables belonging to the Irish college in the centre of the floor and ignited the heap with petrol; that on their departure the fire was extinguished and the wrecked hall saved from utter destruction; that at 2 a.m. on the morning of the 18th instant the manager and assistant at the store were awakened by smoke and found themselves in a burning building; that they escaped from the flames only by a leap from an upper window; that the stores with stocks of food and clothing valued at thousands of pounds was destroyed; that the incendiaries at the same time had re-ignited the parish hall, which was also reduced to ashes; that the district inspector was told by civilian witnesses that the Royal Irish Constabulary men who ignited the hall in the daylight raid could be identified, but no steps were taken by him to exercise disciplinary action; that this is the first attack on a co-operative distributive society; that it raises the fear that stores are to follow creameries to destruction; that the district previously to these raids was peaceful; and that nothing is alleged against the society which includes members belonging to all parties; whether he has taken any steps to punish the perpetrators of these attacks and of the accompanying destruction of property and prevent repetition of them; and, if not,
    1414
    whether he will institute an independent and impartial inquiry into these occurrences?
    Mr. HENRY: I am making enquiry into the long series of allegations contained in this question, but as I only received notice yesterday it must be some' time before I can be in a position to give any reply.
    Mr. SWAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a widespread apprehension on this subject in Ireland that it is the intention to suppress cooperative institutions in Ireland?
    Mr. HENRY: No, Sir.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has reason to believe that Irish-American gunmen have been imported into Ireland to assist in the murder campaign; if so, what would be their status if apprehended as American citizens; has he reason to believe that members of the Irish Republican Army have arrived in this country, and, if so, has he any information to show how they managed to cross over; and can he state whether he is receiving the full co-operation of the Admiralty in this matter?
    Mr. HENRY: I am satisfied that the present situation in Ireland is not due, in an appreciable degree, to the course suggested in the first part of the question. In reply to the second part of the question, aliens are as fully amenable to the laws of this country while residing therein as are British subjects. The reply to the third part is in the affirmative.
    Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether it is a fact or not that Irish-American gunmen have been imported into Ireland?
    Mr. HENRY: Not to any great extent, judging by the men that we have captured and by the information that we have.
    Mr. MILLS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know of any one person?
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he now has any information with regard to the burning and bombing of a large shop, several Sinn Fein halls, and several dwelling-houses in the City of Cork on the nights of the 26th, 27th, and 28th

    1415
    November last; whether he is aware that several English newspapers reported these outrages as the work of the Forces of the Crown; what steps he is taking to trace the malefactors; what is the Government theory as to the authors of these acts of incendiarism; and what steps are being taken to prevent their continuance?
    Mr. HENRY: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply to a Private Notice question on this subject put to me by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division yesterday, to which I have nothing as yet to add.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Has anybody been brought to justice in connection with these outrages?
    Mr. HENRY: No, Sir.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the burnings still going on?

    ARMOURED MOTOR CARS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the motors cars conveying police and wit nesses from a court-martial at Derry on Tuesday last, which were ambushed when five persons were wounded, had any armoured protection?
    Mr. HENRY: The car in question was an ordinary hired one.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Will not the Government take steps to see that these men coming back from giving evidence at the courts will be protected?
    Mr. HENRY: Yes, Sir; as my right hon. Friend has already informed the hon. Gentleman, all cars used for this purpose are being armoured as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. MOLES: Is it not the fact that these men were murdered as a direct consequence of holding the inquiry at which they gave evidence in public?
    Mr. HENRY: I cannot answer that question off-hand.

    RAILWAYS.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland which provision of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act is held to authorise the making by Order in Council of the new Regulation 80a, published in the
    1416
    "London Gazette" of 12th November, empowering the competent naval or military authority to take possession of railways in Ireland and prohibit the carriage of passengers and articles on the said railways?
    Mr. HENRY: Regulation 80 was made under Section 1, Sub-section 1, of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, which empowers His Majesty in Council to issue Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, for securing the restoration and maintenance of order in Ireland.

    PASSENGER PERMITS.
    Mr. DONALDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there is any embargo on emigration from Ireland to Great Britain or elsewhere; and, if not, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce the passport system between Ireland and Great Britain?
    Mr. HENRY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The question of re-introducing the permit system for passengers between Great Britain and Ireland is receiving consideration.
    Mr. DONALD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my object in putting these questions is due to the fact that quite recently three of the murder gang were identified in Belfast who had travelled from Dublin to Belfast, and they took the cross-Channel steamer that night to this country? My object is to protect life and property in this country.

    CREAMERIES (DESTRUCTION).
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his inquiries as to the attacks upon co-operative property in Ballintrillick, Ballymote, Nenagh, and Littleton, resulting in the destruction of the co-operative creameries in those places, are yet complete; and, if so, what are the facts as disclosed by those inquiries?
    Mr. HENRY: I am informed that the inquiries are still proceeding in each of these cases and that the police have so far been unable to obtain information as to the persons who committed the attacks.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a month since

    1417
    these outrages were committed, and can he tell us how long it is likely to be before we are allowed to have the facts?
    Mr. HENRY: My hon. Friend will realise that the duties of the persons who hold courts of inquiry are not limited to courts of inquiry. It is a very difficult thing indeed to expedite the work of these courts, having regard to the multifarious duties imposed upon them.
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the police burn these places themselves?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are hundreds and thousands of people in this country anxious to get the exact facts, and will he help us to get them?
    Mr. HENRY: Certainly, and nobody is more anxious to get the exact facts than the Government.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these long delays produce the impression that there is, no desire to make the facts known?
    Mr. HENRY: It is unavoidable.

    SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the near approach of Christmas, he will get into touch with the representatives of all shades of opinion in Ireland in order to see if, with the co-operation of the Government, it is possible at this season of peace to bring about a Truce of God?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am quite as anxious as the Noble Lord to see an end of murder in Ireland, and I should not have waited until the approach of Christmas to take any possible steps to secure that object.
    Mr. SWAN: Are we to assume that the Government are not prepared to open up every possible avenue so that peace may be brought about between Ireland and this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have repeatedly stated that we are prepared to take any steps to ingeminate peace in Ireland.
    Mr. SWAN: But what steps are being taken to bring about that desired end?

    REPUBLICAN ARMY (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether any Members of Parliament are known to belong to the Irish republican army; and, if so, under present conditions, would they be allowed to enter this country should they desire to take their seats?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, which is hypothetical, I am not prepared to make any statement.
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Will Members who advocate the hanging of Ministers be allowed to take their seats?

    SEIZED DOCUMENTS (PUBLICATION).
    Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether he can, with due regard to the public interest, lay upon the Table of the House the documents found in the possession or at the house of Mr. de Valera when he was arrested in 1918; and whether such documents disclosed, amongst other things, the plans and methods then contemplated for the raising of the Irish republican army?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Some of the documents found in Mr. de Valera's possession when arrested on the 17th May, 1918, will be included in the documents which the Government have promised to make public, and which will be issued shortly.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask why the right hon. Gentleman says "some" of the documents? Why not all of the documents?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Because these are the only documents which bear upon the promise given by the Government—documents which implicate that particular organisation in a German conspiracy.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that all information possible is given to the public, in order that they may understand the real nature of this conspiracy against British rule?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, certainly.

    CONSTABULARY (MURDERS).
    Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, when he communicates

    1419
    to the Press the names of cadets of the auxiliary force, Royal Irish Canstabulary, or of men of the Royal Irish Constabulary murdered in the execution of their office, he will, as far as possible, in the case of those who served during the War abroad, give details of their war services, wounds, and decorations received, so that the country may appreciate the type of men who are being assassinated by the Irish republican army?
    Mr. HENRY: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his suggestion, and shall see that it is carried out as far as possible.
    Lieut.-Colonel WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is done in the case of men who belong to the Royal Irish Constabulary as well as in the case of the Auxiliaries?
    Mr. HENRY: Yes, Sir.

    CROKE PARK, DUBLIN (SHOOTING).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been drawn to a passage in Cardinal Logue's pastoral letter which states that a general indiscriminate massacre of innocent and inoffensive victims was perpetrated at Croke Park, Dublin, last Sunday week by forces of the Crown, who also turned lethal weapons upon a defenceless, unarmed, closely packed multitude, reckless of the number of innocent people who might fall victims; will he say if the Cardinal correctly describes what took place; and, if not, will he state the facts?
    Mr. HENRY: My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to the passage in question, which represents a complete misunderstanding of what took place at Croke Park on Sunday, the 21st ultimo. If my hon. Friend will refer to the statement made by the Chief Secretary in this House on the 23rd ultimo, he will find a full and correct account of the facts.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement of the Chief Secretary has been contradicted by respectable people who were present, and could we have the finding of the Court of Inquiry?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is he also aware that English and American newspaper correspondents who were present flatly contradict the statement made by the Chief
    1420
    Secretary in this House, and state that the firing upon the people there was deliberate and unprovoked?

    SINN FEIN AMBUSHES.
    Mr. DONALDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has any information to the effect that Sinn Feiners are digging trenches on the roads with the object of entrapping military motor lorries in order that they may carry out their ambushes and murder on the forces of the Crown in Ireland?
    Mr HENRY: The digging of trenches in the roads is one of the most familiar devices employed by the assassins who lie in ambush for military and police lorries in Ireland, and also has been used as a means of impeding the progress of reinforcements sent to the aid of barracks when the latter have been attacked.

    PHOTOGRAPHS.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state who is responsible for the official issue of the photograph entitled, "Grim reality from the Kerry front, after the battle of Tralee"; whether he is aware that this is a faked photograph, the scene being laid, not in Kerry, but at the corner of Victoria Road and Vico Road, Dalkey, county Dublin; whether a Government armoured car and soldiers were lent for the purpose of preparing the picture; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. HENRY: I know nothing as to the circumstances in which the picture in question was taken. It was not issued officially or with the knowledge of any responsible official.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the fact that the military authorities in Dublin lent for the purpose of the taking of this photograph an armoured car and a number of soldiers, and that this photograph was taken with the co-operation of the authorities in Dublin Castle?
    Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement made in the question that it is a faked photograph?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: It is, of course. The Leader of the House knows what a faked photograph is. Can the right hon.

    1421
    Gentleman tell me if a film was also taken of this scene, and that at a private show of the film it was found that it would have to be abandoned because one of the "corpses" moved?
    Mr. HENRY: The hon. Gentleman knows much more about the photograph than I do.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: It is part of your propaganda, and you ought to know all about it.

    CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many civilians, including members of the Irish republican army, have been killed and wounded, respectively, in Ireland from December, 1918, to date?
    Mr. HENRY: It is not possible to furnish the hon. Member with these figures. The casualties sustained by armed bands of civilians in attacks on police barracks are carefully concealed, and it is not possible for the police in the circumstances now prevailing to obtain accurate information on this subject.
    Mr. KILEY: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to issue such figures as are in his possession?
    Mr. HENRY: They would be entirely valueless for the purpose.

    PROPERTY DESTROYED.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can give an Estimate of the total value of property destroyed in Ireland from December, 1918, to date?
    Mr. HENRY: I am not at present in a position to furnish the hon. Member with this information. A large number of claims for compensations under the Criminal Injuries Acts are at present awaiting settlement. Pending their decision it is not possible to frame an Estimate of the value of the property destroyed within recent months.

    DEATH DUTIES (POLICE AND MILITARY).
    Major HAMILTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of soldiers, Royal Irish Constabulary, and other servants of the Crown, killed in Ireland during the pre-
    1422
    sent disturbances, the exemptions and abatements of Death Duties will be allowed on the scale laid down in the Death Duties (Killed in War) Act, 1914, and the Finance Act, 1918?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The statutory provisions to which the hon. and gallant Member refers would apply in the case of soldiers killed in Ireland during the present disturbances. There is no similar provision applicable in the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary and civilian servants of the Crown.
    Major HAMILTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department has given a ruling that this Act does not apply to officers killed in Ireland during the present disturbances, and will he have that put right; and will he consider the advisability of introducing legislation, which would go through without any opposition, to make this applicable to the Royal Irish Constabulary as well?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of the fact stated by the hon. Member, which seems to be directly contradictory to the answer which I have given. I will make inquiries, and if my hon. Friend can help me in making the inquiries by identifying the case I shall be obliged.
    Major HAMILTON: And as to the Royal Irish Constabulary?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Royal Irish Constabulary for this purpose are civilians. I think it would be the general view of the House that we ought to do everything we can in these cases to alleviate the suffering of the men and their families. I shall be glad to confer with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to whether any further measures are necessary. The position in regard to them and the soldiers is not exactly the same.
    Mr. MOLES: When this conference takes place will the right hon. Gentleman see that the privilege presently enjoyed by relatives of deceased officers of the Army will be conferred similarly on relatives of deceased officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary, seeing that more of them are being killed?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the question I have just answered.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no claim for payment of this duty is made until the question is decided by his Department?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will see that until a decision has been arrived at no claims for those duties are made.
    Major HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to put a question down for a week's time as to the decision?
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that consideration is given to the similar cases of district inspectors and others who have lost their lives in the service of their country?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the same question put to me three times.

    FIRES, CORK CITY.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether incendiary fires are still continuing in the city of Cork; whether his attention has been called to the report just published of Captain Hudson, superintendent of the Cork fire brigade, in which that gentleman describes how he and his men were fired upon several times when they were going to quench these fires; whether the Government will see that this constant and wholesale destruction of property in the city of Cork will be immediately brought to an end?
    I have had a letter, received from Cork, since I gave notice of this question, saying that
    "last night being Saturday night was the worst we have had in Cork. It was a veritable hell. Innumerable bombs and shots."
    —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I think it is part of the question—
    "Five houses were burned and others broken into. The Black and Tans remained out, but the military went in at three o'clock."
    Mr. HENRY: I only received notice of this question at 20 minutes past one. I am quite unable to give the hon. Member the information for which he asks in the first part of the question. In reference to the second part of the question, I have not seen the report of Captain Hudson, superintendent of the Cork fire brigade, but, as was stated to the hon. Member yesterday, it was reported to the police that in one instance the fire brigade alleged that they were fired upon and sought for
    1424
    special police protection which was at once given them in the discharge of their duties. With reference to the last part of the question, the police report that they are unable to ascertain who is responsible for setting these premises on fire, but they have done everything in their power to assist to put out the fires.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Is it not a fact that these fires in spite of the scantiness of the reports of the Government are still going on and that some houses were burned yesterday, and is it the policy to allow the whole of the City of Cork, one of the three important cities of Ireland, to be burned to the ground?
    Mr. HENRY: I have already told my hon. Friend that it is impossible in the time which he allows us to give an answer to these questions at the present time with reference to places so far distant as the city of Cork.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Have not these incendiary fires been going on day by day and night after night for nearly a fort night, and does not the Government think that such a continuation of the gradual destruction by fire of the city of Cork—
    Mr. MOLES: What about Liverpool?
    Mr. O'CONNOR:—requires prompt action on the part of the Government? With regard to the interruption in reference to Liverpool, I am just as much opposed to arson by any person in any part of the world as I am in Cork.

    "FREEMAN'S JOURNAL."
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not seen his way to put an end to this destruction of property which is going on now. May I ask whether cans of petroleum were found in the offices of the "Freeman's Journal," whether these cans were not Government property, whether any apology has been made to the staff of the "Irish Times" for the raid on their office, and gross discourtesy and menaces uttered by masked and armed servants of the Crown to these gentlemen? May I ask also whether visits were also paid in the same manner to the offices of the "Freeman's Journal" last night, and whether any apology has been made?
    Mr. HENRY: I am unable to tell my hon. Friend as to any cans of petroleum being found in the offices of the "Freeman's Journal," but I imagine that very large quantities of Government petroleum have been stolen and captured. No apology has been made to the staff of the "Irish Times" for the raid on their offices for the simple reason that it is not admitted that masked and armed servants of the Crown had anything to do with it.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Did masked and armed men enter the offices of the "Irish Times"? That masked and armed men did enter cannot be denied. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will resume his seat there would be an opportunity for an answer to be given.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I am sorry if I have been out of order by remaining on my feet so that my question could not be answered.
    Mr. HENRY: The question was as to masked and armed servants of the Crown.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Is it suggested that there were any masked or armed men but servants of the Crown—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"]—who came into the office on that occasion?
    Mr. HENRY: Yes.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that this outrage took place after midnight when the curfew was in operation and no one was out except the military and the police?
    Mr. HENRY: I wish I could be sure that the law as to the curfew hours was strictly obeyed?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Are you aware that if you were there yourself you would be shot?
    Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the commonest forms of offence in Ireland to-day are breaches of the curfew regulations?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he went out himself his life would be in danger from the Black and Tans, and that is why he stays over here?

  MR. G. LANSBURY (VISIT TO RUSSIA).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he has now had an opportunity of referring to the signed statements of certain British prisoners of war who were in Russia at the time of Mr. George Lansbury's visit to that country; whether, assuming such statements to be correct, Mr. Lansbury endeavoured to suborn these soldiers from their allegiance to the King; and whether he will submit the statements to the Law Officers of the Crown for their advice as to whether Mr. Lansbury should be prosecuted?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I have read the statements referred to, but I can add nothing to the replies which I gave on 26th October.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the statements contained this phrase:
  "Mr. Lansbury said, 'If I would turn Bolshevist he would undertake to obtain my immediate release.'"
  Does the right hon. Gentleman want the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown to convince him that that is a criminal offence?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have a full statement of the evidence with me. I went through it the last time this question was raised, and again this morning, and I am perfectly convinced that, on the evidence, even if it were unshaken on cross-examination, we could not prosecute.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Law Officers of the Crown?
  The PRIME MINISTER: They are very busy men, and I would not submit it to them unless I thought there was a primâ facie case. I am perfectly convinced, on the statement of these gentlemen, that there is not a primâ facie case.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is it not a breach of the law to suborn soldiers from their allegiance to the King?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Of course, it is, but, on the evidence in my possession, that offence was not committed.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether any Report has yet been received from our Ambassador at Berlin respecting the progress of the arrangements for the trial of alleged German war criminals and as to whether any of such suspected persons are being permitted to leave the country?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member given to him on 1st November. I have no reason to suppose that any of the accused are being permitted to leave Germany.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman reason to believe that they are still there, and does he seriously think that they will still be found there when the Court is ready to try them?
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I do.
    Colonel LOWTHER: What steps have been taken to prevent these criminals from leaving Germany?
    Sir E. POLLOCK: It is impossible for any authority in this country to take the steps which would have to be taken by the High Court of Leipsic, and there is no reason to believe that that Court is not endeavouring to act with perfect bona fides and with expedition and dispatch.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind asking the British Ambassador in Berlin whether these alleged criminals are still in Germany?
    Colonel LOWTHER: Is it not natural that they would take the first opportunity of going over the border?
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask our Ambassador at Berlin whether the delay in dealing with these alleged criminals has not had the effect of stiffening opposition against the trials, and has led German opinion to suppose that the crimes—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member must give notice of that question.

    DISARMAMENT (GERMANY).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if any steps have yet
    1428
    been taken under the article of the Versailles Treaty which provides for Germany to give every facility for any investigation which the Council of the League of Nations may consider necessary; and if it is intended to enforce this provision in such a way as to make it impossible for Germany again to make the secret preparations for aggression which preceded the great War?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The execution of the disarmament clauses of the Treaty of Versailles is at present watched by the Inter-Allied Commissions of Control. The need for any investigation such as that contemplated by Article 213 of the Treaty has not therefore at present arisen. The question how effect can best be given to Article 213 when the time comes is for the League of Nations to consider.
    Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether the Clauses with regard to this matter in the Versailles Treaty will be strictly adhered to, in order that these clandestine arrangements may not be made by Germany in the future?
    The PRIME MINISTER: They are very sternly enforced. There are no Clauses in the Treaty which are more sternly enforced, and, as a result of the pressure which has been brought to bear upon Germany, she is reduced to a condition which is more impotent even than some of the small Powers which have arisen since the Treaty.

  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Prime Minister whether, now that the country is at peace, he will dissolve the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) and remit its officials to reproductive industry, hand over the various premises in Carlisle and elsewhere to the Disposal Board for sale to the highest bidder, release the central offices in Piccadilly at present occupied by the headquarters staff of the Board, and thereby at once salve the money and the personal freedom of the community?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt):My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to all parts of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the feeling there is in the country on this question and that the fact that the electors generally have protested against these Regulations, and will he persist in maintaining them against the views of the nation?
  Mr. SHORTT: My answer remains the same.
  Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Prime Minister whether he, by the hands of his secretary, on 26th November, 1918, wrote in reply to a communication from the League of the Man in the Street that he fully recognised the desirability of withdrawing as soon as possible, and as far as the military situation permitted, any restrictions which have been imposed by reason of the War on the social habits of the people of this country, and desired equally with the said league that these restrictions should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity; whether the restrictions referred to were the orders of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic); and what military situation compels the continuation either of the restrictions or the Board?
  Mr. SHORTT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The reply to the first part is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts, it is clear that the letter of November, 1918, did not refer mainly to the restrictions of the Central Control Board. On the contrary—while, as a matter of fact, a large number of the Board's restrictions have been withdrawn or modified since the date of the letter referred to—it has always been understood that many of the war-time liquor regulations might have to be retained in force till Parliament could deal with the question of legislation. Nothing could be plainer than the declarations which the Prime Minister made on this subject on the 11th May, 1915, in a Debate upon an Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs.
  Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is it not a fact that the Nonconformist vote in this country is such as to prevent the Government from introducing a Liquor Bill, although they know that this House would remove quite a number of the restrictions and control if they had an opportunity of debating it?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that the people acquainted with the trade consider that all these restrictions have been purely futile and have had no effect on the increased production of munitions; and are, in fact, regarded by a majority of the citizens of this country as pieces of gross impertinence?
  Mr. W. THORNE: If the Local Control Board desired to remove these restrictions, have they got the power even if they have the will?
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an early opportunity of debating the whole question?
  Mr. SHORTT: That question should not be put to me.
  Mr. BILLING: Then I will ask the Prime Minister if he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the question of liquor control?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There is nothing would please me better than that I should have an opportunity of presenting the case. It would have to be fully stated, but the question of affording time for a discussion is one which must be put to the Leader of the House.
  Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Prime Minister how much capital expenditure for the building, fittings; and equipment of canteens and other premises wherein the Liquor Control Board carry on the sale of exciseable liquors has been debited to or paid for by the Ministry of Munitions; whether the Board paid no licence duty for its numerous premises, and how much such licence duty would have amounted to if the businesses of the Board had been carried on by an individual trader or traders instead of a Wartime bureaucracy; and will he direct that these capital and licence duty charges be debited to the Board in order that a true and just balance sheet of their operations may be struck?
  Mr. SHORTT: I have been asked to reply. No capital expenditure in respect of any of the canteens or other premises to which that statement relates has been debited or charged to the Ministry of Munitions. All capital outlays and liabilities have been debited to the Board,

  1431
  and all licence-duties have been paid by the Board, as fully as though the Board were an ordinary trading firm.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has made any independent inquiry as to the result on the sobriety and well-being of the nation of the regulations imposed during the War by the Liquor Control Board; whether they have arrived at any decision as to the experimental State-ownership in Carlisle; and, if so, whether he could communicate it to the House before the Liquor Control Bill comes on for Second Reading.
  Mr. SHORTT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to the first part is in the negative. The Government have determined that no change will be made until the whole matter is dealt with by legislation.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statement that he made just now that he will welcome an opportunity of putting before the House the evidence he has with regard to the Control Board, he will do so at an early date, or cause an independent inquiry to be made, in order that the rumours that are floating about on both sides may be sifted?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There will be an opportunity on the Second and Third Readings of the Consolidated Fund Bill. If the House is really interested, and I trust it is, in that very important question, any Member, or number of Members, can raise it on those occasions.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: What I was asking was whether the right hon. Gentleman would cause an independent inquiry to be made, in order that hon. Members my learn the truth as to the result of these experiments which have taken place during the War.
  Mr. BILLING: Now that the Leader of the House is here, may I ask whether he is aware that the Prime Minister referred to him as the final authority as to whether we may or may not have an opportunity of discussing this matter, whether he is prepared to give us a date, and, if not, whether he will set aside, with the permission of Mr. Speaker, a certain portion of the time of the House
  1432
  on the Consolidated Fund Bill to debate this question, so that it may have the opportunity that it deserves, and not be smothered by the various other subjects that usually arise on that occasion?
  Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The hon. Member is mistaken, and so was the Prime Minister, if he really said that I am the final authority on anything. No better opportunity could probably be found than that which has been indicated by the Prime Minister, and Mr. Speaker is always ready to facilitate the arrangements in such matters.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the Government put down some Resolution, or use some Parliamentary procedure which will enable due attention to be given to this matter, and call the attention of Members of the House to the Debate?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Hon. Members who are familiar with the procedure of the House will know that such procedure as that suggested is quite unnecessary. Particular subjects are discussed over and over again on both these occasions.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Can we not have an independent inquiry into this wretched Board, because we shall simply be met by emphatic statements from the bureaucracy defending its job?

  ALBANIA.
  Major BARNESasked the Prime Minister if the Serbs are attacking Albania and using poison gas; and, if so, whether the Allies can use their influence to stop this action and to secure a settlement in accordance with the just claims of the Albanian people?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is, so far as I am informed, in the negative. His Majesty's Government have already exercised, and will continue to exercise, their good offices in settling the disputes which have arisen on the Serbo-Albanian Frontier.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    WHEAT.
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether the

    1433
    continued fall in the price of wheat now justifies a reconsideration of the Government control of wheat with a view to the reduction of the price of bread?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I have been asked to reply. It is only within the last fortnight that the current world price of wheat has fallen below the parity of the price of flour, which for three years has been supplied to the consumer in this country considerably below the world price. A reduction in the price of imported wheat to millers has already been made, and further reductions are contemplated. In the case of wheat, as in that of every other commodity still subject to restrictions, it is the duty of my Department to keep all changes, either in prices or supplies, constantly under review with a view of accelerating as far as possible the removal of all unnecessary restrictions and controls.
    Viscount CURZON: If the control of wheat were removed would not the price of bread be lower?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it will be before the Government are prepared to sell flour to bakers so that they can reduce the price of bread at least to Is. per loaf?
    Mr. McCURDY: I would remind the Noble Lord that the present movement of wheat prices represents quotations in Chicago, which can only be economically reflected in the retail price of flour in this country after an interval of some weeks. As I have said before, further reductions are contemplated, but it is impossible for me to state precisely at what date we are likely to get back to the Is. loaf. Personally, I hope it may not be long delayed.
    Mr. BILLING: What is mainly responsible for the price of the loaf? Is it not the cost of the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the state of affairs with regard to the falling prices of wheat, he will now make up his mind as to the abolition of the Wheat Commission, which is costing £150,000 a year and employs 538 persons?

  IMPERIAL NEWS SERVICES.
  Mr. HURDasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government is taking any steps in pursuance of the desire generally expressed at recent Imperial Conferences for improved news services between this country and other parts of the Empire; and whether, in any such services, it is intended to institute any form of Government control or super vision of the news sent or confine the dissemination of subsidised news to any single agency rather than to give equal facilities to all agencies and all authorised newspaper correspondents?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I have been asked to reply to this question. His Majesty's Government are fully in sympathy with the desire that the news service between the United Kingdom and other parts of the Empire should be improved; the steps already taken in this direction are explained in an answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 22nd November. As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government are as a general principle in favour of granting equal facilities to all agencies and recognised newspaper correspondents, without any control or stipulations as to the character of the news sent, subject always to practical difficulties which may, for the time being, make it necessary for such assistance to be limited in its application and directed to special objects.
  Mr. HURD: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman now give the House an assurance that in any arrangement for bringing down cable rates with the aid of British State money, these lower rates will be available for all news services?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I think that the last part of my answer meets that point. From the circumstances of the time we may not be able to carry out the general rule that the lower rates should be given to everyone.

  GOVERNMENT STAFFS.

    STATISTICS.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the staffs of

    1435
    Government Department number 366,243 two years after the conclusion of hostilities, and that the figure in itself is misleading, as industrial staffs are excluded throughout, together with staffs of institutions numbering 7,717, those employed by the Admiralty in foreign yards, regimental record offices 21,587, units and command offices, Air Ministry, 2,900, and the branch managers in the Labour Ministry, 1,061; and, in view of the trifling reduction shown for the month of October, what steps does he propose to take to relieve the taxpayer and ratepayer by a more accelerated cutting down of Government staffs?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Return presented to Parliament cannot be described as misleading, since it has enabled my hon. and gallant Friend to state the facts correctly. We are giving constant attention to the question of accelerating, so far as practicable, the reduction of Government staffs, and the question of what further steps can be taken in this connection is at the present time under the consideration of the Finance Committee of the Cabinet.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that within six months he will have these Government staffs reduced to the same number as the British Regular Army?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot follow the reasoning of that request.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these staffs run to something like 400,000, while the Regular Army is only 200,000 strong?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not follow the connection between the two. Either of them may be too large or too small.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Are not these staffs too large?
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the War the number of Admiralty officials has risen from 4,000 to 14,000, while the effective fighting section of the Admiralty has dropped by 13,000? Does he consider that the officials are more effective in time of war than the fighting force?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That can hardly be said to arise out of the ques-
    1436
    tion. I am not aware of the facts alleged by my right hon. Friend. They cannot be true.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the necessary inquiries?

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    ARMAMENTS (PRIVATE MANUFACTURE).
    Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister whether the British Government has instructed its chief delegate or its representatives on commissions of the League of Nations Assembly to vote in favour of the abolition of private manufacture of armaments; and, if not, why no such instructions have been given?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Under Article 8 of the Covenant of the League, members agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objection. In considering this difficult and complicated question the British delegates will naturally bear in mind the principle accepted under this Article.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Seeing that Germany is now practically disarmed, cannot the right hon. Gentleman advise a universal reduction of armaments for all nations, so as to save the terrible amount of money now being spent on them?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have the Government done anything to put it into operation or to encouraging other nations to do so, or to break the armaments ring which is probably the principal cause of war?
    Sir A. S. BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of instructing our delegates to see that the manufacture of armaments by private firms is only carried on under a permit from their Government so that each Government may be in a position to tell the League of Nations what armaments are being made?
    The PRIME MINISTER: All these considerations are borne in mind by our representatives at Geneva. I do not think it desirable to hamper them.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What are we doing in that direction.
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have to act in conjunction with other Powers
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why not take the initiative?
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is there not a committee of the League of Nations dealing with this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that Germany is not nearly disarmed as yet?

  HOUSING.

    CEMENT.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the principal cement manufacturers in this country have recently demanded from their customers an undertaking that they will not purchase cement from abroad, and that in the event of their customers declining to give this undertaking the cement manufacturers have refused to supply any cement to such customers; whether this is an illegal restriction of trade; and whether, in view of the serious shortage of cement for housing purposes, the Government will temporarily suspend the export of all cement?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): I have been asked to reply. I am not aware of any demand by cement makers for an undertaking such as that to which reference is made. I should, however, be glad to receive any definite information which my hon. Friend may have on the subject. With regard to the last part of the question, I can only say that the relation between output and export is being carefully watched, and it cannot be assumed that the proposal put forward would afford the relief suggested.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Government have given a similar answer to that for some time past, and will their deliberations come to a conclusion whereby the supply of cement, which is exceedingly short for house building in the country, will be augmented?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Continued consideration of the matter will not lead us to take the action suggested by the hon. Member if we consider it to be wrong.

    BUILDING MATERIALS.
    Mr. FOREMANasked the Minister of Health whether the Government will put in hand, without delay, a temporary comprehensive scheme for providing all classes of material required for house construction in this country, such as bricks, tiles, cement, etc., together with the usual materials required for road-making, thus absorbing many unemployed and reducing the cost of erecting houses?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I do not think that it would be practicable for the Government to undertake such a scheme as the hon. Member suggests, or that, if they did, it would produce the results which he desires.

  PALESTINE, ZIONIST MOVEMENT.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Lord Privy Seal if the High Commissioner for Palestine has been asked to submit a Report upon the conditions obtaining in Palestine before any steps are taken to determine the administration of the country or to provide for the systematic settlement of Jews there; if so, will he state when it is expected that such Report will be available; and whether the policy of the Government as regards the Zionisation of Palestine is affected by the reported decision of the leaders of American Zionism to dissociate them selves from the project in consequence of hundreds of young well-educated Jews having left Palestine for America owing to want of employment in the Holy Land?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise. With regard to the third part, I am not aware of any such decision on the part of the leaders of American Zionists. In any case, the policy of His Majesty's Government in Palestine remains un changed. I am not prepared to accept

  1439
  the word "Zionisation," coined by the hon. and gallant Member, as a correct description of that policy.
  Sir F. HALL: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, in such an important matter as this, a Report should be issued before any great steps are taken with regard to finding a supposed permanent home for the Jews in Palestine? Is he aware that they are not desirous of going there, and does he think, considering that a large number of these young Jews have gone from Palestine to America, that it is probable that employment will be found for the Jews that go from this country?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend has not seen the Report sent to this country by Sir Herbert Samuel, which I issued with the Votes some few weeks ago.
  Sir F. HALL: Is my hon. Friend aware that an enormous amount of money has been expended in this direction for which we are not getting any return?
  Colonel C. LOWTHER: Since when has Palestine become a new home for the Jews, and is not this a great blow to Brighton?

  INCOME TAX.
  Rear-Admiral ADAIRasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the case that a widower left with possibly several small children, and who has to employ a female person or relative as housekeeper, is, in respect of Income Tax, allowed a reduction of £45 only, whereas when his wife was alive the deduction in respect to his wife was £90, the difference between £225 and £135; and whether this hardship could be remedied by continuing the £225 deduction if the widower can prove that a female housekeeper is necessary to him?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The amount of the housekeeper deduction, £45, is that recommended by the Royal Commission on the Income Tax, and proposals for an increased deduction were discussed in the course of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, when I explained the
  1440
  reasons for my inability to accept them, and they were negatived by the House.

  POWER ALCOHOL.
  Lieut.-Colonel BELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in his proposed Regulations he will provide for the importation in bulk of power alcohol in a denatured condition conditionally on the denaturant having previously been approved by his Department?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I dealt with this subject in answers which I gave on the 4th November last to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
  The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. T. THOMSON:
  "To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can see his way to publish the four Reports submitted by the Committees set up to consider the staffing of Government Departments in time for the Debate in the House which the Government has promised on the question of public expenditure."
  Mr. THOMSON: I have been asked to postpone this question. In doing so I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can make representations to the Leader of the House to see that the Debate promised on public expenditure shall not take place until the House is in possession of the facts given in those four Reports?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that suggestion. I think the hon. Gentleman knows why I asked him to postpone his question. I am unable at this moment to communicate with the Minister of Munitions, who is on the sea, but I will take the opportunity of doing so at the earliest possible moment when he lands.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not propose to publish the Reports until the Minister of Munitions

  1441
  returns, and in that case will there be time for discussion this Session?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not propose to decide the publication of these Reports of Departmental Committees until I have been able to consult with all the Ministers of the Departments concerned.
  Mr. LAMBERT: What is the objection—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This question has been postponed, and yet hon. Members are putting a number of supplementary question. This approaches "the limit."

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOLMASTERS (POLITICAL PROPAGANDA).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that certain schoolmasters paid by the education authority are avowed rebels, and are disseminating Socialist and Bolshevist propaganda; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in order to safeguard the children taught by such masters, and also to secure that the ratepayers' and taxpayers' money paid for education purposes is not misapplied?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but if the hon. Member will give me particulars of the cases to which he refers, I will make, inquiry.

    MALE TEACHERS.
    Mr. SUGDENasked the President of the Board of Education, in view of the rapidly diminishing supply of male teachers and the failure of the new scales of pay and conditions of service now obtaining to attract men to the teaching profession, if he will state what steps he proposes to take to remedy this lack of supply?
    Mr. LEWIS: I do not think it is correct to say that the supply of male teachers is rapidly diminishing, and it is certainly premature to say that the new scales of pay and conditions of service are failing to attract men to the teaching profession. At the present
    1442
    moment there is an increase in the number of male recruits for the teaching profession, both at the initial and final stages. The Board, however, are carefully watching the situation.
    Mr. SUGDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Union of Teachers substantiate every fact I have presented to him?
    Mr. LEWIS: I am not aware of that. My information is that the number of male recruits has actually increased.
    Mr. SUGDEN: That is inaccurate, Sir.

  FIREARMS ACT.
  General Sir IVOR PHILIPPSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in. some parts of the country the Firearms Act, 1920, is being administered in such a way as to interfere with persons who have collections of old military trophies collected from all parts of the world; and whether he will take such steps as are necessary to impress upon the police authorities throughout the country that the Act does not apply in England and Wales to smooth-bore weapons, and that no certificate is required for the keeping of such weapons?
  Mr. SHORTT: I hope the circular I have issued to police authorities will make it clear that the Act does not apply to smooth-bore weapons in England and Wales, and will prevent any interference with collections of firearms made in good faith for a scientific or artistic purpose.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Home Secretary what was the average number of men employed in the Metropolitan Police Force, and the total cost of the Force to the Exchequer and to the rates in each of the years 1900–1, 1905–6, 1910–11, and 1920–21?
  Mr. SHORTT: I will have the figures asked for published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. AS the average number is not available, I will give the number serving on 30th September in each year.
  The figures referred to are as follow:

  Year

  Strength of Force on 30th September in each year excluding men, payment for whose services is recovered.

  Net cost for each year, excluding payments for services.

  How Defrayed.

  Ordinary payments.

  Pensions.

  Total.

  £

  £

  £

  1900–1

  …

  …

  …

  13,694

  730,165

  150,000

  880,165

  Exchequer.*

  702,329

  120,870

  823,199

  Rates.

  1,432,494

  270,870

  1,703,364

  1905–6

  …

  …

  …

  15,111

  848,410

  150,000

  998,410

  Exchequer.*

  903,654

  177,960

  1,081,614

  Rates.

  1,752,064

  327,960

  2,080,024

  1910–11

  …

  …

  …

  17,299

  880,609

  150,000

  1,030,609

  Exchequer.*

  1,025,112

  282,797

  1,307,909

  Rates.

  1,905,721

  432,797

  2,338,518

  1920–21 (estimated)

  …

  18,619

  3,257,838

  356,500

  3,614,338

  Exchequer.†

  3,257,838

  356,500

  3,614,338

  Rates.

  (Estimated).

  6,515,676

  713,000

  7,228,676

  * From Exchequer Contribution Account and Local Taxation Account.

  † Partly from Treasury Grant and partly from Exchequer Contribution Account and Local Taxation Account.

  ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
  Mr. SUGDENasked the Homo Secretary what steps he is immediately prepared to take to check the large numbers of undesirable aliens who are now entering this country, handicapping the limited employment available and spreading revolutionary propaganda amongst the workers in the country?
  Mr. SHORTT: It is not the fact that large numbers of undesirable aliens are now entering the country. The provisions of the Alien Order are directed to the exclusion of undesirable aliens from the United Kingdom, and they are, I believe, effective.
  Mr. SUGDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman take cognisance of the trade union figures in respect to this matter and bearing upon his question?
  Mr. SHORTT: I take notice of any information given to them. I cannot pledge myself that no single undesirable man has been admitted; but, of course, I would welcome any information.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT(GAMEKEEPERS)
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that conflicting rulings have been given in different parts of the country as to whether gamekeepers are insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Act; and whether he will give a decision on this matter?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I am not aware that any rulings have been given on this question. If any have been given, they are irregular and unauthorised. An authoritative decision under Section 10 of the Act will, it is hoped, be given in a few days' time.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Meanwhile are contributions payable by this class of labour?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If they are being paid it is better to go on paying them, and if necessary the payments will be returned.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that it is impossible to get money back from a Government Department?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: In the oases referred to the money will be paid back.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that they were not authorised? Surely the people administering the Act are bound to say whether the people are bound to contribute or not.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There is proper provision in the Act, Section 10, to cover this question.

  METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILS (SALARIED OFFICERS).
  Mr. BLAIRasked the Minister of Health the number of salaried officers receiving £500 per annum or more employed by the six Metropolitan borough councils, Bethnal Green, Camberwell, Deptford, Fulham, Hampstead, and Islington.
  Dr. ADDISON: The number of salaried officers employed by the borough councils referred to, who receive salaries, inclusive of war bonus, of £500 per annum or more, is in Bethnal Green, 9; Camber-well, 12; Deptford, 12; Fulham, 12; Hampstead, 15; Islington, 24.

  HOSPITALS AND INFIRMARIES, DENMARK.
  Mr. SWANasked the Minister of Health whether the hospitals and in firmaries of Denmark are State owned and controlled; whether any charge is demanded from those who need treatment; and whether such services are efficient.
  Dr. ADDISON: There is one State hospital in Denmark—at Copenhagen—and a number of voluntary hospitals provided by religious and philanthropic bodies, but the majority of general hospitals are provided and controlled by the local authorities. A scale of charges is laid down for each hospital, varying according to the accommodation provided. Payment is made for all patients, either by the patient himself, by the sickness society of which he is a member, or by
  1446
  the Poor Law Authority. The information available is not sufficient to enable me to express any opinion as to the efficiency of the hospital service.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (TUBERCULOSIS) BILL.
  Mr. JOHN DAVISONasked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to transfer the members of the staffs of insurance committees engaged on sanatorium benefit work to the new authority under the Public Health (Tuberculosis) Bill; and whether, if any of the members of these staffs are displaced by reason of administrative changes, they will receive adequate compensation?
  Dr. ADDISON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford on 27th October last. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the circular letter referred to in that reply.

  TRANSPORT.

    DANGEROUS ROADS.
    Mr. PRESTONasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the surface of the country main roads which, though perhaps well adapted to motor traffic, are dangerous and almost impassable for horse traffic; whether he is aware that every day accidents to horse traffic are occurring from this cause; and has the Ministry any remedy to propose?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 8th November to the right hon. and gallant Member for Totnes, of which I am sending him a copy.

    PASSENGERS' PARCELS (CHARGES).
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Minister of Transport whether railway passengers are charged heavy rates for parcels carried by them when travelling which the servants of the company claim to be other than personal luggage; whether, notwith standing the fact that the parcel may be in the personal care of the passenger and not handled by the servants of the company, rates are enforced, particularly for short distances, greatly in excess of the

    1447
    fare paid by the passenger; and whether it is in accordance with Regulations issued by his Department that a lady travelling three miles by rail was charged 5½d. for her own fare and 1s. 6d. for a parcel she was carrying weighing 7½ lbs. and of the value of 3s.?
    Sir R. SANDERS: Passengers are only legally entitled to take with them by train free of charge certain quantities of purely personal luggage. For any other articles the railway companies are entitled to charge the appropriate rate as in respect of parcel traffic carried by passenger train. These Regulations existed before the War, and I have no reason to suppose that the practice of the companies has been altered. I shall be glad to look into this case if the hon. and gallant Member will furnish me with particulars.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Does my hon. Friend suggest that 1s. 6d. for carrying a parcel, weighing 7½ lbs., three miles is reasonable? If any private individual made a charge of that kind, would he not be brought before the Profiteering Committee?
    Sir R. SANDERS: That is not a question on which I feel competent to give an answer.

  DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL.
  Major BARNES(by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will defer the Second Reading of the Dyes Bill until after the Report has been made by the Sub-Committee on Dyes appointed by the Central Profiteering Committee?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir. The position of the dye industry in this country is now so difficult that in view of the fact that a general agreement on this subject has been attained between the dye producers and the great majority of consumers of dyes, it is essential that the nation should make good its pledge to that industry as soon as possible.
  Major BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Committee has been sitting taking evidence for the last eight months; that this Report is in draft, and could very speedily be made available for the service of the House, and, in view of that fact, will he not reconsider his decision?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee's Report will be just as valuable after we have fulfilled our pledges as it would be before.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Did the right hon. Gentleman seriously mean what he said, that the Report of an expert Committee on this very difficult and controversial topic will be as much after the discussion as before it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Either my right hon. Friend is under a misapprehension or I am. I understood that this was a Profiteering Committee dealing with the question whether or not they had been selling at proper prices. That could have nothing to do with our fulfilling our pledge.
  Major BARNES: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government hope to get this Bill through before Christmas?

  TITHE RENTCHARGE.
  Mr. JODRELL(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Agriculture if his attention had been drawn to the fact that a large number of landowners throughout England are not aware that in order to redeem Tithe Rentcharge under the present Government Scheme, notice must be duly given by them before the end of the current month and that their failure to do so may entail very serious loss to themselves and will he take immediate steps to make this widely known through the Press?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): There is no reason to think that the position as regards tithe redemption is not generally understood by landowners. Since the passing of the Tithe Act, 1918, the Ministry has taken various measures to bring the redemption provisions of that Act to the notice of landowners and their professional advisers. Many thousands of the Ministry's leaflet on the subject have by arrangement with the Law Society, the Land Agents' Society, the Surveyors' Institution and the Auctioneers' Institute,

  1449
  been sent to them for distribution among their Members. Press notices on the same subject have from time to time been issued by the Ministry and published in the organs of the professions concerned in land. Material has, moreover, been supplied to such associations as the Central Landowners' Association to be embodied in circulars on tithe redemption issued to their members. I have, however, given instructions for another notice to be issued to the Press. Since the Tithe Act, 1918, redemption business has enormously increased, the average amount of tithe rent-charge included in applications in each week for some time past having been approximately equal to the total for three entire years immediately before the War.

  GLASS INDUSTRY.
  Captain BOWYER(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a large German firm of glass manufacturers are communicating with firms in this country to the effect that they are at present marking their chimneys for export to England with the mark "Fireproof" etched on the chimneys; whether he realises the danger involved in this to all British glass works, and whether he will not take legislative steps before Christmas to cause all foreign goods to be marked clearly with the country of origin?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The possibility of introducing a short Bill to deal with this matter before Christmas has received anxious consideration and I regret that the time available makes it impracticable to carry such a measure this Session.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Leader of the House if he can tell us what will be the business for next week?
Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday we shall take

Housing (Scotland) Bill, Second Reading.

Registrar-General (Scotland) Bill, Second Reading.

Acquisition of Land Bill, Second Reading.

Gold and Silver Bill, Committee.

Tuesday:

Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill, Second Reading.

Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, Report.

Wednesday:

Continuance of Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, Report.

Juvenile Courts (Metropolis) Bill, Report.

Thursday:
Debate on Expenditure.
Mr. LAMBERT: When will the text of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill be in the hands of Members?
Mr. BONAR LAW: To-morrow morning.
Mr. HOGGE: How far do the Government intend to go to-night?
Mr. BONAR LAW: We hope to take the first two Bills, and to make some progress with Supplementary Estimates.
Major O'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended to take the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill this Session?
Mr. BONAR LAW: No; it is quite impossible to take it this Session.
Mr MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it intended to take the Teinds Bill this Session?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I think not.
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the question of finance, is it proposed to take the Committee stage of the Roads Bill on the floor of the House?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not undertake to take it on the floor of the House. It will be sent upstairs.
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it not a fact that it was proposed to take it on the floor of the House?
Mr. BONAR LAW: It may be that it is so. I cannot give an answer.
General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: Is it not an Amendment of the Finance Act of 1920?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Very likely.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
Mr. BILLING: At 11 o'clock this morning I sent to the Prime Minister a Private Notice Question on a matter of urgent public importance. It refers to the Treasury. May I ask that question now, as it deals with the loaning by the Treasury of large sums of money at 6 per cent, to public authorities, and the money being borrowed back by the Treasury at 6½ per cent.?
Mr. SPEAKER: I considered the hon. Member's question as soon as I received it, as to whether it was urgent or not. I consulted the Department and, after hearing from the Department, I came to the conclusion that it was not an urgent matter and might well appear on the Paper on Monday.
Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that when a Department transgresses gravely the common laws of finance, the Department is to be the court of appeal as to whether a matter is urgent or not, and are we to understand from your ruling that the matter of losing one half per cent, on £100,000,000 is not a question of any public urgency for the Government of the day?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not understand either of those things.
Major WATTS MORGAN: Owing to the growing importance of questions to the Minister of Food, especially with regard to bread, is it possible to change the rota, and for the Questions to appear earlier in the list on Tuesdays, or, as an alternative, can an additional day be given for such questions?
Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consult the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Edmund Talbot) as to the re-arrangement he may desire of any questions?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Consequential Amendment to Amendments to—
Derwent Valley Water Board Bill, without Amendment.
Unemployment (Relief Works) Bill, with Amendments.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Trusts in Scotland," presented by Mr. MUNRO; supported by Mr. Morison and Mr. C. D. Murray; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]
  LAND TENURE (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to amend the Law of Land Tenure in Scotland," presented by Mr. MUNRO supported by Mr. Morison and Mr. C. D. Murray; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 251.]
  CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL,
  "to amend the Law of Conveyancing in Scotland," presented by Mr. MUNRO; supported by Mr. Morison and Mr. C. D. Murray; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 252.]
  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to amend the Law relating to Housing in Scotland; and for purposes in connection therewith," presented by Mr. MUNRO; supported by Mr. Morison and Mr. C. D. Murray; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]
  DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL,
  "to regulate the importation of Dye-stuffs," presented by Sir ROBERT HORNE; supported by Dr. Addison, Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Kellaway, and Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 254.]
  UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF WORKS) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 255.]

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 225.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 225.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 256.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE E.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTSreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee E (in respect of the British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee) Bill): Lieut.-Colonel Buckley.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ROADS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  In asking the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I will refer very briefly to its provisions. It is the outcome, firstly, of the financial provisions altering the taxation of mechanically-propelled vehicles, from fuel to a horsepower tax or a weight tax. As those taxes take effect from 1st January next and the petrol tax ceases from that date, it is essential that we should have administrative powers to impose the new taxes. Roughly, one-half of the Bill deals with provisions for the administration of the new taxes and for giving effect to the conclusions of the House, on the Finance Bill. There is no important new principle involved. The second part of the Bill brings the statute into line with mere recent enactments, changes the possession of the funds belonging to the Road Board or under the control of the Road Board, and substitutes the Ministry of Transport for the Road Board in relation to those funds. We are amending the definition of "weight unladen" of a vehicle. "Weight unladen" was very loosely defined in the statute and was of importance only in so far as the speed of the vehicle was concerned. Five tons, for instance, was the term for the heavy motor, and in order to get a vehicle below five tons it was customary to strip it in a way which did not by any means give the real tare weight of the vehicle as such, but a hypothetical weight, in which condition the vehicle was unfit to work. Therefore we are, by definition, making the "weight unladen" more nearly approximate to the working tare weight of the vehicle.
  The Bill is the result of the most exhaustive consideration by a Departmental Committee, which has worked throughout the summer and autumn with great assiduity and has, I think, reached a wonderful measure of agreement in this rather difficult and intricate matter. I would like to pay a tribute to the Committee's very excellent and arduous
  1488
  work. Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the collection by county councils (which includes county borough councils) of the new vehicle taxation. Clause 2 provides financial machinery and for the payment of what is known as the assigned revenue, amounting in all to some £600,000, which hitherto has been paid by the Exchequer to local authorities, and which, if this Bill is passed, will have to be paid by the fund to the local authority. Clause 3 establishes a Road Fund. This looks as if it was a new fund, but it is the same thing as the Road Improvement Grant. The same Clause provides for the transfer to the Road Fund of such unexpended balances and investments of money, and any other property belonging to or in charge, of the old Road Improvement Grant. The Clause provides also for the necessary expenses both of the county councils and county borough councils and for the administration of the fund to be paid out of the Fund, also for the proper accountancy, audit and control of Parliament. Clause 4 is merely an amendment and repeal of obsolete enactments Clauses 5 and 6 provide for licences and registration to meet the new conditions and also for certain penalties, which, I believe, are in common form. Clause 7 provides for a definition of "weight unladen" and also for another rather important matter, namely, that all licence fees and penalties shall be paid in future into the Road Fund of the county councils and county borough councils and for the reimbursing of their expenditure and the getting of the assigned revenue out of the Road Fund, so clearing up miscellaneous provisions which are not very regular.
  Clauses 8 and 9 provide for certain concessions which were not dealt with in the Finance Act. There is a provision, for instance, in relation to tramcars and in relation to vehicles of a commercial character which are used also for carrying employés to and from their work. It also provides for the various uses of vehicles. For example, there is a growing custom in the North of regarding as hackney carriages vehicles which are, in fact, cycles with sidecars or trailers. Then there is the concession which we promised to consider when the Finance Act was before the House in the case of manufacturers and traders who wish to get a red identification plate

  1489
  at a reduced rate. It provides further what, hon. Members will recollect, has been referred to often in questions in this House—an appeal to the Ministry in the event of a local authority refusing to give this red identification plate to a trader. Clause 10 provides for a reconsideration and adjustment of all old mileage charges and annual payments, because the whole essence of the new taxation is that it shall be one tax, and that all the other taxes shall be merged in it or otherwise wiped out. The commercial vehicle owner will thus know exactly what he has to pay, and his payment will be in one tax, without irritating additions. Clause 11 provides for, a proper hackney carriage mark for hackney carriages. As many hon. Members know, a great many carriages are being used now nominally as hackney carriages with an ordinary mark, and for them a lower rate of taxation is paid. That is not fair. If we are going to adopt, as we have adopted, the basis that a vehicle using the road should pay a tax in accordance with its size or power or carrying capacity, and there is a special tax for hackney vehicles, such vehicles must be bona fide hackney carriages, and not, say, a private car handed over to a chauffeur.
  Clause 12 provides for the Minister making regulations, and I believe that it is a merely a replica, with slight modifications to meet altered circumstances, of powers which already exist, with the exception of paragraph (g) Paragraph (g) has reference to the prohibition of certain classes of vehicles on certain highways. This is inserted in response to a great many requests in this House that there should be some method of stopping unsuitable vehicles from using roads which are not fitted for them. I think it is a little bit wider, or could be interpreted as a little bit wider, than was intended, and in Committee I will consider with hon. Members a modification of it so as to prevent it being used in an abusive way. Clause 13 provides penalties which, although they look rather terrible, will, I think, be useful. There is nothing unusual in that. Clause 14 abolishes the old licensing fees, just as we have under another Clause abolished the old mileage annual payments. They are now all one general tax, and a refund on the basis of one-twelfth of the amount paid for each
  1490
  unexpired month is provided. The Bill has two classes of powers which no doubt will appear to many hon. Members as rather extensive powers in regard to the making of Orders in Council and Regulations. When the Bill comes to Committee I shall be happy to discuss with the Committee these particular powers. With the exception of the one I have mentioned under Regulations, the others are really all brought forward from previous Acts, but of course I quite recognise that in any case the House did not look through the same coloured spectacles upon Orders in Council as they do to-day, but we can discuss that in Committee. The two Schedules, I think I am right in saying, merely give effect to the principle that the Finance Act, the Ministry of Transport Act or the provisions of this Act, and no new provisions are introduced by the Schedule. I think that concludes all that it will be necessary for me to say at this stage on this Bill which does not really lend itself to a Second Reading speech, because it deals with principles already accepted. I had a suggestion from my hon. and gallant Friend that it would be of assistance to the House if I published a Chinese copy of the alterations to the Schedule. I shall have one prepared and circulated before the Committee stage, and I think it will be very useful indeed.
  Major BARNES: What is a Chinese copy?
  Sir E. GEDDES: That is what you call a copy with the words struck out showing the alterations. I hope the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill to-day. It is coming to the House later than I hoped, but I think it will have saved time. As those Members who have been taking an interest in the subject are well aware, the Committee have threshed out innumerable interesting points with great ability and with a measure of agreement which was unexpected. I think that this Bill really is the last page of a new chapter in roads. In 1909, as the hon. and gallant Baronet so well knows, we had practically no national road policy. We started in 1909 with only £700,000 a year, and now, by the general consent of the mechanical motor users and their remarkable generosity and broadminded-ness, having regard to the financial conditions that prevail, we are able to come

  1491
  forward to-day, with the local authorities, with a very large programme of road improvement to meet the altered condition of the times, and instead of having an income of £700,000 provided by taxation on motor vehicles, we have an income which I hope from the 1st January will amount to £8,000,000 a year, also provided by the motoring community by an extraordinary example of voluntary taxation. This is really an administrative Bill, and I would invite the House to give it a Second Reading.
  Mr. SUGDEN: How much of that income is derived from trade vehicles and how much from pleasure vehicles?
  Sir E. GEDDES: I can easily get the figure for my hon. Friend, but, speaking from memory, it is something like £2,250,000 from private vehicles, but I can give the exact figures during the Debate.
  General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I con gratulate my right hon. Friend on having found out that there is a Road Bill. Only on Monday he told us that he did not know there was such a Bill. I am sure it was only a slip and a temporary infirmity, which I hope will not last. Only on Monday a Noble Lord asked, "Will any classification be available before the Road Bill is carried in this House?" The right hon. Gentleman said he did not know of such a Bill. He said, "I am afraid I do not know what Roads Bill it is to which my Noble Friend refers."
  Sir E. GEDDES: I should like to correct the impression regarding what I said on Monday and the suggestion that I did not know about my own Bill. What I was speaking about was the classification next February and not about this Bill.
  Sir I PHILIPPS: I do not think that is a very satisfactory explanation. Because £8,000,000 were to be spent upon the roads we wanted to know how it was to be distributed. That was the reason the Noble Lord and other members interested in the Bill asked the question. The right hon. Gentleman has made a very temperate speech and has held out very great hopes of serious modification of the Bill when we get into Committee Therefore my remarks will be consider ably modified. The Bill has reference to
  1492
  the Finance Act and I am surprised to see no representative from the Treasury here. On all these occasions the House is entitled to have some Member on the Treasury present. The House ought to know how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to spend £8,000,000. The right hon Gentleman in introducing the measure has slurred over some of the points to which financial criticism may be directed. For instance, he has already told us that he will consider the question of Orders in Council and Regulations I should like to know whether we cannot see the draft copies of the proposed Orders in Council and the proposed Regulations before we go into Committee on the Bill. Members have already had the privilege of seeing draft copies or notes on these Regulations in the Press. Why should the House be debarred when they can for a penny be put in possession of information which the House has not got? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will supply to the House before we go into Committee full draft copies of these Regulations and Orders in Council which he proposes to issue, because a great deal depends upon the nature of those Regulations. If these proposals are adopted there will be considerable additional outlay on staff. That is why I am so surprised not to see anyone here from the Treasury, looking after the interests of the public purse. The Minister of Transport takes very autocratic powers throughout this Bill. I hope when he comes to consider this in Committee he will agree to include in the Bill that in cases where there is a question of an Order in Council or Regulations, they shall be laid on the Table of the House according to the usual custom, and that they shall cease upon a Resolution passed against them before a certain number of days. But the great move here which the right hon. Gentleman has passed over as a slight matter, is that he has placed at his disposal for the first time the large sum of £8,000,000 to do what he likes with. The Bill applies no restrictions whatever to him. Section 3 leaves the entire matter of control and management to the Minister. That is why I think he might have told us a little more how he proposes to use this very large sum. He can use it as he pleases. I am sure he will use it in the right way, but at the

  1493
  same time he has taken powers to use it any way he likes. For instance, at the present moment he has a great scheme for placing a barrage across the Severn. He will probably find that it will cost a great deal more than he thinks. If he wanted to use the whole of the £8,000,000 to build that barrage he could do so under this Bill. He has produced nothing to show how he was going to distribute it. We ought to have that information now, or at least a White Paper, so that we may know what the proposals are.
  Sir E. GEDDES: My hon. and gallant Friend will excuse me if I say that all this was discussed under the Finance Act. The proposals of the Committee on which the Finance Act proposals were based went through the whole thing and laid a White Paper with a schedule of expenditure which provided out of the £8,000,000 a million and a quarter in a normal year of which there would be £500,000 this year and a £1,000,000 next year for new roads and for the maintenance and improvement of existing roads. Although those terms have not taken the form of an enactment, nevertheless they have been treated as binding upon us in every respect as a bargain with the community. We are to contribute 50 per cent, to first-class roads and 25 per cent, to second-class roads. That is set out in the fullest detail in the White Paper. My only reason for not mentioning it was that this was an administrative Bill and the whole expenditure was fully considered and I understood fully accepted.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. I did not remember it, but I remember it now. I think that a Clause to which very special attention ought to be drawn is Section 3, Sub-section (c). Salaries of the Road Department staff can be charged to this fund and need not be put down in the ordinary Estimate. It may possibly be a very large sum. I do not know how much. There are certain stories that large sums are to be paid to his staff and that a very large proportion of the money provided from this taxation is going to be absorbed by a Whitehall staff. I hope my right hon. Friend or the Parliamentary Secretary when he speaks will give us an estimate of the numbers of the staff and the amount he is going to take away from the
  1494
  £8,000,000 for clerical and supervisory persons.
  This is a point I should like the House to remember, of very great significance. The Prime Minister has told us he has set up a Committee to cut down the Estimates to the lowest limit, and he asked the support of the nation, but here is a very easy way of pretending you have cut down Estimates and reduced your Whitehall staff, and putting it all on to the Road Tax. It is not in any Estimate.
  Sir E. GEDDES: Oh, yes. The whole of the staff of the Roads Department is in the last Estimate, and will be in every Estimate, although the whole of the staff of the Ministry is not debitable to the Roads Department.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: Am I correct in understanding that the whole of the staff of the Ministry of Transport, including the Roads Department, although a portion is paid for out of this tax, still comes under the Estimate of the Ministry of Transport?
  Sir E. GEDDES: Absolutely.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: That is a most important point. In regard to Clause 3, Sub-section (3, d), payment to local surveyors, I do not know that this is at all a satisfactory arrangement. It does not say that the Ministry are going to pay a portion of the surveyors of the local bodies, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some information on that point. Turning to Clause 12, I understand it is proposed to add very much to the cost and expense of registration marks, or number plates, as they are generally called nowadays, and according to the Press there is going to be a card. The public get to know these things through the Press in a way which is not permitted to Members of this House. I understand there is going to be a card attached to every car, that a large number of records have got to be kept, and that every motorist has got to go about with a little book in addition to his licence, something like a soldier's pocket book, with which, every time he buys or sells a car, or anything happens to him, he has got to report himself to the Minister of Transport. We are indeed getting governed by bureaucracy. It is bad enough if a soldier loses his pocket book, but what will the British public

  1495
  do? How many officials will there be to look after these pocket books that every motorist and every motor cyclist, every boy or girl who rides on a motor cycle, has got to carry like a soldier's pocket book? I do not know how many hundreds of thousands the Minister has already ordered, but the expense will certainly be enormous. We are told in the Press that there is going to be a card on every motor, and that means fittings to the car. It may seem a mere detail to an official in Whitehall, but it is a very serious tax on the public, and a very great hindrance to their freedom and their liberty when all these restrictions are placed upon them without any benefit whatever. It is bad enough with all the number plates. It is almost impossible for the ordinary man to know whether the number plates on his car are right or wrong, for if the painter puts the number on an eighth of an inch too wide, the owner is liable to heavy penalites. Throughout this Bill there are crimes for which you are liable, with all kinds of penalties attached, that you may be altogether ignorant of, and where that is the case I hope the Minister will agree to put in the word "knowingly."
  I was very pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to change the present system of charging heavy omnibuses for the use of the roads, and in this connection I do not quite understand why Clause 10 is necessary, as I should have thought that under Clause 14 you could have brought in that matter as an omission. The main objection I have to the Bill is that it hands over very large sums of money to a Department without any control in this House. We are handing over absolute control to one Minister. If that is necessary—and T doubt it—anyhow I think we should have some advisory committee or somebody to help the Minister. If this House hands over such a responsible charge to one Minister, it may be workable now, although some of us doubt whether the roads would receive the attention of my right hon. Friend, because we know he is more interested in railways than in roads, but there is a large body of public opinion which fears that much of this money may be wasted, or that it may be used not to encourage any use or improvement of the roads. There is one Clause, Clause 12, Sub-section (1, g)
  1496
  "prohibiting or restricting, on the application of the county council concerned, the driving of any vehicle or any class of vehicle on any specified highway or part of a highway."
  That might be a most dangerous provision. As it stands, a local body might say to motorists: "You pay, under this horse-power tax, something towards first-class roads and something towards second-class roads, and therefore you have a right to use them, but you pay nothing for the third, fourth, and fifth-class roads, and therefore you have no right to use them at all." Under this Bill, as drafted, that power might be used as a great lever to close up a great number of roads to motor transport. An hon. Member says "A good thing too," but I do not agree with him at all. The public have had the use of these roads for all time, and to restrict them in any way would, I think, be disastrous to the country. The chief point I wish to make is that we should see draft copies of the Regulations and Orders in Council which are now proposed to be issued, and that when those Orders and Regulations are issued, they should be laid on this Table under the usual system before they come into operation.
  Mr. TURTON: My hon. and gallant Friend opposite seemed to find fault with the suggestion that these £8,000,000 should be placed under the control of a Minister. I think it is rather ungrateful of him, because I believe he is not entirely unconnected with Wales, and he seems to have forgotten that one of the very first grants which was given out of the Roads Board was made to gallant Wales. Some of us in England thought at that time they were receiving too much.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: Wales pays its share of taxation as well as England.
  Mr. TURTON: Yes, but its share of taxation was entirely out of proportion to the grant that was made. I only want to say a few words on behalf of the County Councils' Association of England and Wales. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in bringing in this Bill, which is a corollary to the Finance Act and which meets with the unanimous approval of all the county councils' associations in England and Wales. I think one or two small drafting Amendments will be necessary, and I

  1497
  desire to call my right hon. Friend's attention to Clause 1, Sub-section (5), where we shall propose, after the word "Council" ["Provision may be made by Order in Council"], to introduce the words" after consultation with the county councils." The important matter to the county councils is the Clause providing for the refunding of the expenses of collection. My right hon. Friend, on the 6th July, told us that every penny of the cost of collection would be refunded out of the proceeds of the tax with as little delay as possible. I am not quite sure whether the concluding words of the Sub-section, "subject to Treasury Regulations," mean that the cost of collection will also have to be subject to Treasury Regulations. If they do, I protest against the Treasury being brought into the matter at all. We have had the very greatest difficulty in the past in obtaining our just share and proportion of the cost of collection. This very year we have had interviews with the Treasury to try to come to some arrangement with them with regard to the cost of collection of other local taxation licences. Under this Bill the local taxation licences are going to be divided under two heads. There is going to be the Vehicle Tax on the one hand, and, on the other hand, there will be the small game licences, gun licences, hawkers' licences, and so on. In regard to that latter part, we have had these interviews with the Treasury to see whether we could come to some agreement. They offered us 5 per cent., but it is utterly impossible for the smaller counties to defray the cost of collection of these taxes out of 5 per cent. Therefore I hope my right hon. Friend, in Committee, will consent to see that the pledge he gave on the 6th July is carried out literatim and verbatim, and that we are going to be recouped. We have had to pay far too much in the past for the collection of these licences.
  We congratulate the Minister on dealing with the question of these manufacturers' motors which are so often sent out on joy-rides into the country, having on them the plate under which, by a subterfuge, they suggest that they are simply testing the car. As Chairman of Quarter Sessions, I can only say that it is idle for the police to attempt to hold Tip any of these ears, even although they know it is ridiculous to suggest that the car is only being tested. It is nothing of
  1498
  the sort, but if they are stopped by a policeman, they have only to go to the nearest telephone office, and telephone up to the manufacturer's office and say: "If any inquiries are made, say the car is out for testing." I hope this Clause will be put stringently into force. I am very pleased, indeed, from the county council point of view, that the Bill intends to deal with those smaller roads which can be closed to chars-a-banc and heavy traffic. At the present time, under the Motor Car Act, it is impossible to get a road closed partially to very heavy vehicles. If you get a road under 16 feet wide, you can make a complaint to the county council, and the highways committee of the council makes an inquiry on the spot, and then the Minister, if he is satisfied, closes the road, but it has to be closed altogether. Now there are a great number of roads all over the country which are not strong enough and which are not wide enough at the present time to carry this heavy char-a-banc traffic, and therefore, under this Clause as it is drafted, you will be able to have chars-à-banc warned off these roads, and at the same time other lighter motors would be able to go in peace over them. I can only say that I am very pleased, as Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee, to assure my right hon. Friend that he will get the greatest possible support for his measure in Committee from the Association, and to thank him on their behalf for carrying out the pledges he gave on the 6th July.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am inclined to speak of this Bill and the Minister in charge of it in the words of the Duchess in "Alice in Wonderland," in which she says:
  "He only does it to annoy,
  Because he knows it teases"
  This Bill, to my mind, is annoying and aggravating. It puts one in a bad temper almost to read it. What had the Minister to do? He had to provide machinery to put into force provisions which were passed under the Finance Act. We have got to remember that he has already promised us that next Session we shall have a Bill dealing with motoring in its broad aspects and comprehensively. But what has he done in this Bill? He seems to me to have rushed in "where angels fear to tread" and to mix up with this Bill quite contentious legislation which should

  1499
  really be brought in next Session under his other Bill. Just as an exemple, let me quote such things as the new regulations with regard to the fixing of your number plate, the prohibition of certain traffic over certain roads, and the power which he gives himself to regulate the speed of such vehicles as agricultural tractors. To my mind, there are two classes of legislation that we pass in the House of Commons. One class of legislation is for experts; it has got to be dealt with by such people as county councils and bodies of that sort who are largely helped by Civil Servants. This Bill is not so much for them as for the man-in-the-street who is going to be shot at. He has got to understand about all this Bill. I showed this Bill to a garage man, and really he could not understand it. He read Clause 4, which says:
  "Sections seven, twelve and fourteen of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, shall cease to have effect, and the amendments specified in the second column of the First Schedule to this Act shall be made in the provisions of that Act specified in the first column of that Schedule."
  That conveyed absolutely nothing to him. I do maintain that a Bill of this sort, which is going to hit the man-in-the-street, should be made patent and clear, and should not be dealt with in this very ambiguous way. I could have forgiven the Minister in charge if he had introduced into this Bill Regulations, not so much to make new roads as to save the roads we have at present. After all, there are two ways of dealing with roads. One is to keep on building very expensive and very desirable roads all over England, but another way is to see that the traffic which goes over the present-day roads does as little damage as possible. Unless one has gone into the subject a little, one has no idea of the hammering effect a heavy lorry has on the roads. May I illustrate in a way what happens? If I were to put on a knuckle-duster and hit you, Mr. Speaker, very hard on the nose, it would do you an enormous amount of damage, but if you were quickly to interpose two cushions between yourself and myself no damage would be done at all. The force of the blow would be actually the same, but you would have spread the time of impact over a longer period. In plain words, it means that you have got to see that your vehicles are designed to
  1500
  do as little damage to the roads as possible. No manufacturer when he makes his drawings for the building, say, of a three-ton lorry ever thinks of what harm he is going to do to the roads. He builds his back axle entirely unsuspended, with the result that when he goes over a new road he does thousands of pounds' worth of damage to the road which could, by Regulation, be avoided. I intend in Committee to move to give power to the Minister to make Regulations for the construction of heavy vehicles, so that he can in a way avoid this.
  The other point I wish to mention is that there has been talk that all Army vehicles and vehicles belonging to the service of the Crown will not pay in any way their share as the public have to. Of course, it sounds at first as if you are robbing Peter to pay Paul; but it is not quite true, because a part of what is contributed goes towards the roads, and I do not think any of us has really seen a road rained unless such damage has been done by the military authorities. I do think that out of the Votes given to the Services a part should go towards our roads in some way to pay for the damage which they do.
  Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: I rise to ask, first of all, if this Bill refers to Ireland, I find various references in the Bill to England and Scotland and the officials connected therewith, but I find very little reference to Ireland. Perhaps the Minister in charge of the Bill will give me that information. I am given to understand that there are £8,000,000 set apart for the working of this Bill. We have such a thing in the collection and distribution of funds as an equivalent grant to the various countries, and if a sum is set apart for the roads of the United Kingdom, a proportion is usually set apart for England, Scotland, and Ireland. I was rather alarmed by the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench when he said that the Minister of Transport could spend this £8,000,000, if he liked, on the Severn barrage. I think, before a Bill like this goes through the House, there ought to be something in the Bill which will limit the expenditure on any one particular work, and prohibit the expenditure of all the money in any one particular area, and if

  1501
  the Bill refers to Ireland, I think part of this money should be earmarked for Ireland, as I presume part of it will be earmarked for Scotland.
  If the Bill does refer to Ireland, I would also like to ask a question with reference to Clause 3. I would like to give the right hon. Gentleman an illustration of what is happening at the moment. The Road Board's grant has been given to the widening of a bridge on a main road, provided that a number of ex-soldiers shall be employed. The point is that that grant has been given, the work is "going on, and these men are being employed. But recently a communication has been received by that local authority from the Local Government Board in Ireland to the effect that all unexpended money on the 31st March must be returned to the Treasury. These men then, for the time being, will be discharged, and I suppose the work will remain at a standstill until a fresh application is made and a fresh grant is given. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to Clause 3, if that" will facilitate a matter of that kind. It says:
  "(1) There shall be established for the purposes of this Act, in accordance with Regulations to be made by the Treasury for the purpose, a fund to be called the Road Fund…
  (2) There shall be transferred or paid to the Road Fund all moneys which on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, are standing to the account of the road improvement grant or are payable to that account, and all investments."
  If all this sum of money is to be set apart for this purpose, and paid to someone of whom the Treasury will approve, and is continuously under the control of the Road Board, then the difficulty with regard to the grant to which I have referred in my own constituency will be avoided. If it is not so, I should be glad if 'the right hon. Gentleman would give that power, because it does seem to me, in the case I have instanced, perfectly absurd that some large work should be held up for the time being, because it comes near the 31st March, when funds so granted by the Treasury must go back to the Treasury, be asked for again, another grant given, and so on. Some of the important work suggested may take years to complete. In the meantime, that local authority has received the intima-
  1502
  tion from the Local Government Board in Ireland that money not expended, but which will be expended if the work is continued, must go back to the Treasury on 31st March. I should like to know, if this Bill extends to Ireland, will a case like that be dealt with under Clause 3 in a businesslike way?
  5.0 P.M.
  Commander Viscount CURZON: I desire to welcome the introduction of this Bill into the House of Commons. At the same time, there are one or two points at which I should like to level some criticism. On the whole, I myself, as a road user, very much welcome this effort of the Ministry to deal with the all-important question of roads. But, so far as this Bill affects motors—and it really is mainly, and, in fact, solely concerned with motors, and no other form of traffic—it does seem to me an example of piecemeal legislation. I am very sorry that one or two of the provisions of this Bill could not have been held over until the promised motor legislation is introduced by the Minister next Session. I quite realise it is necessary for the Minister to legalise the levying of the taxes, and provide for how the money is to be spent. The first point I would like to press upon the Minister is that the money derived from taxation of motors should be spent, as far as possible, on improvement. It is a very difficult thing to define where improvement begins and maintenance ends, but I hope that the Minister, when administering funds under this Bill, will see that as far as possible they go towards the improvement of roads and road surfaces. We have had very short time to consider this Bill, and possibly other points of criticism may arise, but one matter which I wish to refer to now is the question of penalties. Penalties under this Bill seem to be enormous. As a Member of Parliament, I have suffered somewhat from the penalties attaching to motor legislation in the past, and I am a little nervous as to the penalties that may possibly be inflicted upon me if, unhappily, I transgress any of the Regulations in this Bill. I hope that in Committee the Minister will be able to reduce to a certain extent the penalties attaching to one or two offences. There are penalties of £50 under this Bill, whereas in former Acts relating to the

  1503
  same subject the penalty was only £20 for the first offence, and £50 for a second.
  The main question which affects motorists is that of the licence. I have only got a very hazy idea of what is intended under this Bill, but as I understand it the Minister will make Regulations which will compel every motorist to carry a card of some kind in a watertight case in a conspicuous place somewhere on his car. The Minister himself has not indicated exactly where this card will have to be carried, but it is important to motorists that they should know, because they will have to provide the case in which it is to be carried, and between now and the 1st of January they will want to know exactly where that case has to be fitted on the car. I hope that in these Regulations as much elasticity as possible will be given to motorists. Then we come to the registration, and this is another Regulation which a motorist may very easily transgress without, as it is put in the language of the police court, malice aforethought, and in any case it is casting an additional responsibility upon him. Supposing he loses his registration book, it will cost something to replace it, I understand, and, further, it will mean going to the county council and filling in fresh forms. Supposing I want to sell a car to somebody else through the medium of a third party, somebody in the second-hand car trade. I may not wish to have my identity disclosed to the person to whom I am selling the car; it might affect the price very considerably; yet nobody would ever buy a car unless the registration book was available—he might be buying a stolen car for all he knew—and it seems to me that a little elasticity should be allowed in any Regulations which the Minister may make in this connection for a case of that kind.
  Then there is the question of red number plates. I believe this question has caused more anxiety to the motor industry than any other question for some time. The present charge for a red number plate is three guineas, and for that sum you have any number of red number plates, and the result has been almost unlimited abuse. Every Member of the House, probably, will congratulate the Minister on trying to put a stop to this abuse, but at the same time the fee in
  1504
  this Bill has been increased to no less than 15 guineas—fifteen guineas for every number plate he may take—a very high charge indeed. The British motor industry is now approaching a time of great difficulty and stress. We all know how we depended on it during the late War, and how we should have to depend upon it again in any future war, and, therefore, I think the industry ought to receive our special and most careful and anxious consideration, not only as a national trade, but from the point of view of the national defence. I hesitate very much to approve of any Regulation which may be held to be placing further burdens upon the industry at such a time. I realise that there has been a great deal of abuse of the red-number plate system, and that we must have a higher charge for the red-number plate, but can so high a charge as fifteen guineas be defended by the Minister? Will he not consider whether a lesser sum could not be taken?
  I should like to refer also to Clause 12 paragraph (g). I expect everybody in the House who uses motors must often have seen motor vehicles using roads which were really never intended for them, and I congratulate the Minister upon this attempt to deal with a very difficult situation. At the same time I do not think we ought to be entirely at the mercy of the Minister in such a matter, and I shall urge, as far as the opportunity presents itself to me, that before any Order is made prohibiting the use of any roads in this country an inquiry shall take place on the lines of the inquiry that has to be held before a special speed limit of 10 miles an hour can be imposed. I think it is only reasonable, and I think it would strengthen the hands of the Minister when he came to prohibit the use of a road. Coupled with the prohibition of the use of any road an obligation should be laid upon the authorities, whoever they may be, whether the Government or local authorities, so to improve the road as to make it as far as possible fit for the traffic which wishes to use it and which has not been allowed to do so by the Minister. I do not know whether the Minister will endeavour to do that by means of any powers he may get under this Bill.
  The present position with regard to some roads which chars-à-banc are using is really most unsatisfactory. There are

  1505
  several places in the country approached by little bye-roads largely used by motor traffic. I have one in my mind at Lull in Dorsetshire. There is a pretty little town, in one of the prettiest bays on the whole of the South Coast, which has been discovered by the town of Bournemouth, and enormous fleets of chars-à-banc take visitors out to this little town every day throughout the week, and pass over a road that is really, quite unfit to carry them. The road surface is really not strong enough, and the road is full of sharp turnings, and, in fact, any char-à-banc going along that road cannot pass another one, or any other vehicle upon it. It is obviously very much to the financial interest of the little town concerned that these motor coaches should go to it. There is a case where the local authority is not likely to protest against the use of the road, because of reaping a rich harvest, but at the same time it is very unsafe from the point of view of those who use the vehicles and of the public. That is a case which would be dealt with by the Minister under this Bill, and I think that the obligation should be laid upon those local authorities, or the Government, or both, to make that road suitable for such traffic. The only other point I would like to allude to is one raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Rochester (Lieut.-Colonel J. Moore-Brabazon), namely, the question of service cars. It is quite clear that cars employed by the services or by the Government ought to pay for the use of the roads in the same way as every other motorist in the country. It will be very unfair if they do not, because they use the roads and wear the roads down, and there is no reason why they should not pay their share to the road fund. I can only end up by congratulating the Minister on the introduction of this Bill, and hoping that it is really the first step towards taking all motor legislation in hand and revising it, and, as far as possible, bringing it up to date.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: The hon. Member for North Armagh (Lieut.-Colonel Allen) asked whether this Bill applied to Ireland. I am not sure whether it does or not, but I believe it applies to Scotland, yet I notice that the name of the Secretary for Scotland is not on the back of the Bill. I think it is usual in such cases that the name of the Member of the Cabinet who is responsible
  1506
  for Scotland should be on the back of the Bill, otherwise, how are we to know whether the Bill has his approval. I do not think the Minister in his speech made out a case for the registration books which he proposes to inflict upon motorists. We have got along very well without them so far, and I do not know what has occurred recently to necessitate such an additional burden upon the public, and, indeed, upon the Department of State and the local authorities concerned in issuing these books. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman sitting on the Front Bench (General Sir Ivor Philipps) asked the Minister whether before we go into Committee we might have copies of the Orders in Councils and Regulations, and I hope the Minister will consider that point in order that we may have that information at our disposal. I am not quite sure what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had in mind when he suggested that large sums were going to be handed over to a Government Department under this Bill, and that there will be no control by Parliament of those sums.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: No control of the expenditure of those sums. We collect it and we hand it over.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is not the case of the Road Board similar to what will happen under the Ministry of Transport? We have very little control over the expenditure of the Development Fund or the Road Board, and, as far as I am concerned, I am unable to understand the distinction drawn by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. May I thank the Minister for having accepted the suggestion I made to him and for issuing what he calls a Chinese copy of the Schedule. I must confess that I never before heard that term, but it does explain very clearly what I had in mind and what I found it difficult to put in words when I was drafting my question to him. I now come to paragraph (g) of Clause 12:
  "Prohibiting or restricting, on the application of the county council concerned of the driving of any vehicle or any class of vehicle on any specified highway or part of a highway."
  I think the Clause is a very important Clause and that this is a very important Sub-section. I am glad that the Minister has introduced it into this Bill instead of leaving it to his Omnibus Bill to be introduced next Session. To my mind it is

  1507
  most important in dealing with the question of motor chars-à-banc—or "motor bangs," as I believe they are commonly called on our country roads—these vehicles that have grown up like mushrooms in the night during the last six months, that we should have sufficient power. The legislation at present on the Statute Book is not competent adequately to deal with them. There are country roads, as hon. Members have said, and highways, and side-roads in this country which are not fit for these heavy motor chars-a-banc and in connection with which the county council have not adequate powers at present to ensure prohibition of the use of these roads. In point of fact orders have been issued by county councils under, I think, D.O.R.A., prohibiting the use of these roads by motor chars-k-banc. Such a case I know has happened in my own part of the country, where a Regulation was issued, but if and when D.O.R.A. comes to an end this Regulation also comes to an end. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has introduced this into his Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: We shall have peace sometime.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I am not sure that I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rochester (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) who suggested that the powers of this Clause are not sufficient. As I understand it, he suggested that the Ministry should have powers to decide the design of vehicles. I cannot go so far as that. It would mean that in every motor manufactory in this country you would have a Government inspector saying: "You shall build this type of vehicle and not that." I certainly should not support my hon. and gallant Friend knowing his intentions in that respect. Then my Noble Friend (Viscount Curzon) said that the powers of the Minister in this Subsection were too great. I do not know that I am inclined to agree with that either. He suggests that there should be an inquiry into the whole circumstances of the case before the Minister issues a Regulation under Clause 9. But I presume there will be an inquiry. If a county council applies to the Ministry for permission to issue a Regulation under Clause 9 the Ministry, in the ordinary course of events, will make an inquiry
  1508
  before they give that permission. Therefore, I do not quite follow the Noble Lord in that particular suggestion, nor do I follow him, nor would I agree with his suggestion, that the Minister should have power to compel the local authorities to improve a particular road so that it can bear the traffic which hitherto it has not been able to sustain. I do not agree with that. Let us take a particular instance. Take a small narrow bit of road in some part of the Highlands over which the Noble Lord wishes to drive at 50 miles an hour.
  Viscount CURZON: No, chars-à-banc.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: My Noble Friend says he refers to chars-a-banc that they may wish to drive over these roads at 50 miles an hour! But consider the idea of those concerned going to the Ministry of Transport and asking them to bring pressure to bear upon the county councils to spend vast sums of their money, and of the national money, to put a road in order so that the Noble Lord may travel over it once or twice a year! For these reasons I could not support the Noble Lord if he brings this forward in Committee. On the whole, I would wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing in this Bill, and I hope he will be able to consider, when we reach the Committee stage, some of the points put before him this afternoon.
  Mr. RENWICK: I desire to ask the Minister of Transport two or three questions. This Bill refers to mechanically-propelled vehicles. I read the preamble of the Bill, and it says, "The Bill is to
  "make provision for the collection and application of the Excise Duties on mechanically-propelled vehicles and on carriages."
  What are meant by carriages? If we refer to Clause 1 it says:
  "(1) The duties on licences for mechanically-propelled vehicles (in this Act referred to as 'vehicles'), imposed by Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by. this Act, and the Excise Duties on licences for carriages imposed by Section four of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888. …"
  and so on. In 1888 we practically had no mechanically-propelled vehicles. I want very clearly to know whether or not this Act only applies to mechanically-propelled vehicles. I also want to inquire, if the roads are closed for heavy mechanically-propelled vehicles carrying

  1509
  seven or eight tons, are they going also to be closed to horse-propelled vehicles also carrying seven or eight tons? Probably some hon. Members are not aware that it is quite common to-day for one horse to bring down a load of seven or eight tons. Perhaps they do not know that such horses continually bring to our wharf seven or eight tons? We do not want these roads closed also to horse-propelled vehicles carrying this load. They do not go at the same speed, naturally, as mechanically-propelled vehicles. I should like a very definite assurance on this point that we are not 40 be interfered with.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Cruelty to animals!
  Mr. RENWICK: My right hon. Friend says it is cruelty to animals. It is not cruelty to animals.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I say it is!
  Mr. RENWICK: Then you and I differ upon that. What I say is that if the right hon. Baronet were to come down to our wharf, I could show him a horse-propelled vehicle carrying seven or eight tons. Only last week my son found fault with a man for badly using one of our horses, and when he asked the man what the load was he was told it was only seven tons. It is quite easy for a horse on a level road to pull a load of seven or eight tons. They are doing it, and I am prepared to show it at any moment to any hon. Gentleman. I want, I say, a definite assurance that we are not to be interfered with in this matter of horse-propelled vehicles.
  There is another defect in this Act, a defect that practically all the Bills that are brought in at the present time have—no one on earth can understand them. Take this Bill. Look at Clause 1. It says, after referring to Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, that there are to be certain duties levied in accordance with the provisions to be made for the purpose by Order in Council. We want the Bill that deals with purposes of this sort one that everybody who has anything to do with vehicles can understand. Take Subsection (2). It says:
  "(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and of any Order in Council made under this Section."
  Take Sub-section (3). It says:
  "(3) Every county council shall, subject to the provisions of any Order in Council,"
  1510
  Sub-sections (4), (5), and (6) all deal with these Orders in Council. Who on earth is to understand this? We want a Bill that can be understood by any man in a garage, say, or other places connected with these vehicles where vehicles may call at any moment for repairs, and such like. Why should we have in every Bill these references to Orders in Council? Surely we want Bills brought in that can be understood, and I trust the Committee, when they thrash this thing out, will try and get rid of these Orders in Council. I would like two answers definitely from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. First, does this Bill only refer to mechanically-propelled vehicles; and next I would appeal to him to get rid, if possible, of these references to Orders in Council, and give us a Bill that everybody can understand.
  Mr. SUGDEN: I should not have risen this afternoon—for I did not mean to speak—had it not been for the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton) who spoke on behalf of the county councils of Great Britain. Whilst many of us have enjoyed the splendid uses and purposes that follow the work and organisation in the counties of the various councils, we also know their sometimes autocratic powers in respect to urban and rural district councils. In this measure we are going to be put under the beneficent providence of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, under Orders in Council, under a representative of the Treasury, and not least, the county councils themselves. We who are associated with the rural and urban district councils are not quite sure whether we are going to have a say in respect to the little corporate existence we have so far possessed in regard to our roads, paths, and hedgerows. I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that the small communities, whether they be industrial or rural, shall have protection, and be able to say whether motor cars and the commercial motor-vehicles that are now ploughing their way through our midst shall continue to do so at their own sweet will and pleasure just whenever they like, and how they like, or whether we shall have the opportunity of saying whether our roads shall be made for commercial work or for pleasure work, and whether

  1511
  we may have a voice in deciding whether new roads are to be constructed, or old roads repaired, enlarged or altered.
  There are counties in this land of ours where the roads are made for beauty, pleasure, and commercial transport travel, but I think those associated with county councils will support me by reason of their knowledge of the facts when I say that although there may be one or two patriotic country gentlemen who represent some of these urban and rural councils in the county where they live, yet the predominating section of commercial men who represent the artisan hamlets and villages, give very little consideration to the wishes of the rural and the urban sections of the community; therefore, I want the Minister either to give mo an assurance or give this House a definite promise that he will introduce some Amendment making it possible for these rural folk to have their say in this matter of roads management, because there is no protection therein for them in the Bill. The same must obtain, and should obtain, in the case of the commercial sections. I know there are counties where the opposite state of things obtains, and where the dominating representation is rural and pastoral, and the commercial representations require protection I suggest that there should be brought into this Bill some protection from the powerful influence of the county council, which is helpful sometimes, but not always. I want this power in the Orders in Council of the Minister of Transport and the Treasury, so that little people may be saved from the gamut of this officialdom. We must consider exactly what proportion of the money is coming from the commercial vehicle and from the pleasure vehicle, and we must see that the outlay from, these two sources is proportionate to commercial farming and pastoral interests. Are the commercial people going to have their money spent only on roads which will be made more suitable for them, and the residential countryside demanding roads purely for beauty and the artistic? That state of things should not obtain, and the whole matter should be considered en bloc. I hope that protection will be given to the urban councils and the rural councils, in
  1512
  order that they may have a say in what fashion their roads should be made, altered, and "improved" for both pleasure and commercial vehicles, and that their corporate life may remain in their own hands. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to protect us in this matter.
  Mr. ATKEY: The Minister of Transport has referred to those members of the Advisory Committee who have been assisting him during the last month. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate the work they have done. I hope the Minister of Transport will not fall into the same error that so often is fallen into by Ministers of entirely relying upon the advice and conclusions arrived at by an advisory committee, and that he will remember that hon. Members of this House arc just as desirous of helping him to mould this legislation as those who have been good enough to assist him on the Advisory Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that we were starting a new era with regard to roads, and I think it would be a fitting opportunity to mark that new era in some other respects connected with motor legislation. I ask whether this is not an opportune moment to start a new era with regard to the general outlook upon the road problem. I think it is time that the Legislature should have some regard to the heavy penalties which are inflicted upon those who use the roads.
  In the early days, when there were no commercial vehicles at all on the roads, and when the only person using a mechanically-propelled vehicle was looked upon as a sort of outcast and regarded as a most undesirable person, the penalties then inflicted might possibly be justified. All that is gone, and I suggest that the penalties placed upon users of the roads should now be brought into conformity with the merits of the case. As one who has to administer this kind of legislation locally, I have often been struck with the entire disproportion of penalties to the nature of the offences committed. Viewed from the point of view of society generally, a man does greater harm to society by jumping on his wife or inflicting personal injury upon any other of his fellow-creatures, but if you do not send him to prison for that, a very modest fine is considered adequate to the occasion.

  1513
  On the other hand, if a motorist unfortunately forgets something it is laid down in the Act or violates a regulation, apparently he is considered such an exclusively aristocratic person that a fine of something like £20 is considered necessary to meet his case. [An HON. MEMBER: "It ought to be £50!"] I am referring to such trivial offences as a man failing to produce his licence, and failing to carry a card or having his number plate obscured. I am sure my right hon. Friend will find a very strong support if he will consider some modification of these penalties and regulations. We all want to assist in identifying any vehicle, but when the right hon. Gentleman proposes to introduce a system whereby the whole record of a motor car is to be kept in some sort of a book or form with a heavy penalty if it is lost, then I think he is inflicting an unnecessary amount of trouble and inconvenience, and he is also swelling the number of officials, both locally and imperially, who would be necessary if this system is to be followed up. Why a motor car should be selected for special legislation I cannot understand.
  I wish to say a word or two with regard to the red number plate. Already attention has been called to the abuse of the present plates. I have not a word to say in defence of such abuse, but these vehicles, although they may be using unauthorised plates, have paid their measure of taxation to the country. The point I wish to lay before the House is that merely because abuses have crept in with regard to a certain regulation, that does not afford any justification for unduly penalising or adding to the burden of an industry, which at the present moment has a very heavy load to bear. I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House how utterly impossible it is under existing conditions for certain manufacturers to comply with these suggestions. Take, for example, the case of a manufacturer delivering 100, 200, or 300 vehicles.
  We hear a good deal about mass production, and some of our manufacturers have laid themselves out to do that kind of thing. Supposing they are required to deliver a large number of vehicles on one day. They will have to buy separate plates for each to use, perhaps only for a very limited period of time. These plates, which cost £15, have to lie idle until they
  1514
  are used again. The case of the retailer or agent is harder still. You have all these small garages up and down the country, where the payment of £15 for a plate would be an enormous tax. One of these small repairers might want to send two or three repairs home on the same day, and he might have to spend no less than £45, although those three plates may only be required to be used four or five times during the year. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way either to entirely abolish this proposal or to very materially reduce the price.
  I have one suggestion, in conclusion, which I hope will be taken as being of a constructive character. Of all the abuses which have crept in with regard to the use of motor vehicles on the road, I think the meanest and most contemptible is where a private owner, who can well afford to pay the full duty licence, has evaded it by nominally disposing of, say, an expensive Rolls Boyce ear to his chauffeur, who pays 15s. and turns it into a hackney carriage with a little plate upon it, and that is the only penalty he has to pay for evading the proper amount of taxation. That is provided for in the Act. It is easier to stop these abuses at the source, and if the Minister could, on the formal application for a hackney carriage licence, make it necessary to have a declaration that the hackney carriage would never be used as a private carriage, then I think a good many people who have quite light-heartedly paid this 15s. for a hackney carriage licence would hesitate about doing so. I have some other points, but I will reserve my observations upon them until we reach the Committee stage.
  Sir F. BANBURY: While I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that the charges put upon the motor industry by this Bill may result to a certain extent in killing the industry, I cannot agree with him in regard to the provisions of this Bill. If there is anything which is nearly as dangerous as joining the Army and going to war, it is an endeavour to cross the streets of London. Every day I get up I doubt whether I shall be able to return to my home in safety, and I frequently hesitate on the kerbstone before I cross the street. If the hon. Member who has just spoken will look at the police return of accidents,

  1515
  he will see that an enormous number of serious injuries and a considerable number of deaths result every year amongst people who are run down by motor cars.
  Mr. ATKEY: I was not alluding to those Regulations. I was referring to the heavy penalties for such offences as a man failing to carry a bit of paper, or having his number-plate obscured by mud.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If a motorist runs over anybody he generally takes good care that his number plate is obscured, and it is to avoid those things that this Bill might prove effective. I should like to ask one or two questions as to the Bill. A number of observations have been made with regard to Clause 3, dealing with the establishment of the Road Fund, and it has been defended on the ground that there is a precedent for it. But surely that is no reason for repeating a bad system, and I hope we shall have some assurance either now or in Committee, that before any considerable sum is spent there will be a statement as to the method and manner in which the money is going to be spent. We are face to face with the fact that there is a great desire on the part of Departments to spend money, and we certainly want some more efficient check than that suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently. It is not sufficient to say that questions can be raised on the Vote for the salary of the Minister. It is quite possible that those Votes may be delayed till the end of the Session and then be passed under the guillotine, or it might be suggested that already so much of the money has been expended that it is not worth while or advisable to stop the outlay. Therefore I trust we shall have some statement from the Minister in Committee in regard to this expenditure, and that some such course will be adopted as was followed in the Transport Bill.
  I rather object to Clause 12, paragraph (g), which, it is suggested, may have the effect of preventing chars-a-banc from using country roads which are not fit for them. There has, I know, been considerable complaint on that ground, but we must not allow one's opinion on a subject to be controlled in such a way as to lead to the creation of other and greater grievances than the driving of chars-à-banc on narrow roads. As I read
  1516
  the Sub-section, there is nothing in it to prevent the London County Council from saying that no omnibuses should be run in London. We all know that the London County Council are desirous of stopping the running of omnibuses in London, because they have made a bad bargain in building their tramways, and, having made a bad bargain, they are desirous to perpetuate as far as they can a system which is altogether out of fashion at the present moment. I am afraid if we got a more powerful Minister in the position of the right hon. Gentleman, if we got someone who had been a member of the London County Council—and that would be quite possible under a Liberal Government—and if we got a Labour majority on the London County Council, the result would be that motor omnibuses would be prohibited using a large number of roads in London, and then a Bill would be introduced to put tramways down those roads, and all that would be done on the strength of powers put into an apparently innocent provision of this Bill with a view to preventing chars-a-banc using narrow roads. It might go very much further even than their mere prohibition of chars-a-banc, and have financial results which would be very serious. An hon. Member from Ireland objected to the old-fashioned but well-established system of compelling all sums of money not spent in the current financial year to be returned to the Exchequer. That has been a subject of much dispute for many years. In my humble opinion there are many reasons which could be advanced to show that the system is a proper one and should not be altered, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to it when he comes to reply. I thought that now we had passed the Home Rule Bill we would not be troubled with further demands from Ireland for money or anything else. But the hon. Member who spoke just now inquired whether Ireland was going to share in this particular grant. Personally I hope it will not. We have already spent a great deal too much money in Ireland, and I think it is time we kept some of it in our own pockets. All these Regulations about carrying plates in prominent positions, and doing certain things, or not doing other things, are symbolical of the bad system of the present Government. We can never do anything now without getting a permit from some official, and it is not unusual to

  1517
  have to get a permit from another official to enable the first official to issue the permit. I hope that all these small Regulations will be modified, and that a more simple procedure will obtain so that owners of motor vehicles may be able to use them without undue interference from officials.
  Mr. BILLING: In all these matters it would be perfectly sound policy for Members of this House to say, "No." The time has come "when any proposal put forward by the Government involving an expenditure of money should be automatically negatived by the House. I do not know what this Bill is, I know-nothing about its provisions, but from the speeches I have listened to I gather that it is extravagant and likely to prove vexatious. I join issue with the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) on one point. I have never known any case where a motorist has gone out deliberately to kill anybody and, to start with, has rubbed mud on his number plate. I think motorists are a very much maligned class. They are big taxpayers, they represent a great proportion of the industrial classes of the country and they get less consideration than any other class. They are the by-play for every policeman, and if the slightest accident happens^ to them, say the sudden disappearance of the tail light, or a slight increase in their speed beyond the limit—and the right hon. Gentleman who presented this Bill to the House knows how easy it is to exceed the speed limit—involves a fine immediately. It is not the 40s. or the 20s. that anyone complains of. No one would mind paying that; but it is the inconvenience to which the average motorist and especially the old motorist is put.
  6.0 P.M.
  I have been driving since 1899 consistently. I say that the average motorist regards his licence as something he should cherish and keep clean. It is a blot on his escutcheon to get it endorsed and I am proud to say that, after 21 years driving, I still have no endorsement whatever on my licence. That is due to the expenditure of an immense amount of time and money, I do not want hon. Members to misunderstand what I am saying. Every time I have been summoned I have made a point of appearing personally. Sometimes I have gone right to the North of England in order
  1518
  to answer a summons. It may be thought that I was foolish in so doing, but I preferred to personally conduct my own case in order to see that at least I got justice from the Bench. It is only after having taken an immense amount of trouble to point out how unjust it is that I should have been summoned that I have been enabled to escape the endorsement of my licence. If a motorist does not take that trouble, the first time his tail light goes out he gets summoned and fined, and if he does not appear his licence is endorsed. It is a most vexatious thing that a man who happens to be driving along Piccadilly at 8 o'clock at night, and who therefore could not possibly escape if his tail light goes out by accident, should be summoned. Surely a warning from the policeman would be quite sufficient in such a case. It all depends whether the policeman is a bureaucrat or not. If he is, then one is "in for it." Any hon. Member who has been listening to this Debate must realise that the vexatious restrictions proposed in this Bill will make the position of the average motorist absolutely hopeless. Other hon. Members may have chauffeurs who drive them hither and thither, and they may not notice these vexatious incidents, but the position is that, as compared with starting to drive a car after this Bill has become law, starting out to the North Pole will be a small thing. First one will have to look at the car to see if this is right or that is right; then one will have to search one's pockets to see if all the necessary papers are there that may have to be shown to an inquisitive policeman, and whether they are in proper order and all of the right date. The whole thing is preposterous for two reasons; firstly, because it is making matters more bureaucratic every minute, and life is becoming less worth living every day that this Government in power: and, secondly, because it is going to involve the raising of more money. Trade is to be victimised, and the motor is to be driven off the road in this country. Transport is a trivial thing in the minds of some people, but it is a very important thing in the minds of others. The most liquid form of transport—if I may so describe it—the most easily controlled, the most economical, and the one most calculated to do good to the industries of this country generally, is motor transport: and yet it

  1519
  is going to be penalised and worried out of existence. A heavy tax is now going to be put upon it in order that the Government may have more funds to pay more bureaucratic officials to tease the motorist off the road. That in itself, should be enough to put us in the Lobby against this Bill.
  What is even more important is the £8,000,000 which I have heard mentioned. Of course, it is only a trivial matter, this £8,000,000, but if this House of Commons does not put this Government in liquidation within the next few months, the Government will put practically every industry in this country into liquidation. That, at any rate, is the feeling outside the House. I do not know whether hon. Members feel as keenly about it when they are in the House as when they are out of it, but I wish they would come into the Chamber and talk half the stuff to the Government Bench that they talk in the smoking-room. We see nothing but ruin staring the country in the face—more legislation, every bit of it demanding more money; fresh taxation; unemployment rife, simply because the Government pouch all the wherewithal with which we could create employment if we could only be allowed to have it. Industry is being taxed out of existence. The Government have created unemployment by their own foolhardy recklessness in regard to finance. I wish that hon. Members, directly they see a new Bill, would refrain from reading it for fear that they might be swayed by any persuasive words or Clauses in it, and would simply ask the Government the straight question, "Does this Bill involve the expenditure of any public money?" And, if the answer is in the affirmative, simply vote solid against it, and vote early and vote often against every Clause. I think the time has come when we should do that. I do not consider that this Government is fit to handle the finance of this country. Yesterday afternoon the Treasury were lending money at 6½ per cent, at 4 o'clock, and were borrowing it back at 6½ per cent, at half-past 6. That is an actual fact, and the Treasury are frightened to face it, and therefore they do not answer Private Notice questions about it. I suggest that the very word "Treasury" will be a misnomer within the next three months unless the House does something with the present Government, for there will not be such a thing as "treasure"
  1520
  for them to look after. We are going to have a General Election before February; that is why the Government has dropped the Liquor Control Bill and the Education Bill.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): We cannot now discuss these matters.
  Mr. BILLING: I will try to be in order, but sometimes one's feelings run away with one. I only want to give my reasons for asking hon. Members to vote against this measure, and I would simply say to them, "Do vote against this Bill; it will be very sound electioneering stuff between now and next February."
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like, with all deference to my hon. Friend, to bring the Debate back to the Bill itself. This is not a Bill for raising taxation at all. It is a purely administrative Bill.
  Mr. BILLING: For spending money.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, to enable taxation to be raised which has already been authorised by this House in the Budget of this year. It merely enables my right hon. Friend the Minister to arrange with the county councils for the raising of the taxation which we have already authorised, and then to decide in what way the money sould be spent. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who represents the County Councils' Association, made one of those speeches which we are accustomed to hear from him from time to time. I sometimes think that he or the County Councils' Association must have descended lineally from the daughters of the horse leech. It is always "Give, give, give." My hon. Friend never makes a speech on behalf of the County Councils' Association without asking some Member of the Government to give them something more because they cannot afford to keep going. We have not, however, had a word of thanks from the hon. Gentleman for the taxation which we motorists have voluntarily placed upon ourselves under the provisions of the Budget of this present year. My right hon. Friend the Minister, I would say at once, has been more than courteous in acknowledging the free and open way in which the motorists have met the Government, but

  1521
  not one word of thanks have we had from the County Councils' Association, although we are providing, by special taxation placed upon users of motor cars, a sum of between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000 for the benefit of the roads, all of which must inure to the benefit of the county councils, who up to the present have been responsible for the roads.
  I am more or less joining in the chorus of praise which my right hon. Friend has received in regard to this Bill—but not quite. I am not opposing the Bill on Second Reading, because, as I have said, it is purely an administrative Bill, and must, I think, be amended in Committee. I must protest, however, on behalf of this House, against the introduction of another Bill of this kind, as it is one of the most vicious types of legislation by reference and by Orders-in-Council. It is a Bill to amend no less than four other Acts of Parliament. It amends them by references in the schedules and by reference Clauses which have been read out by hon. Members opposite, and I defy anyone, lawyer or no lawyer, when it has been passed, to find out what is the law in regard to these motor-car questions. There are two or three Clauses which provide for the making of Orders-in-Council, and there are two or three enabling my right hon. Friend to make Regulations which are to have the effect of law. The Bill does not provide that any of the Orders-in-Council, or any of these Regulations, shall be submitted to the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend takes the most complete power into his own hands. After all, everyone in the House knows that an 'Order-in-Council is merely a formal confirmation of the decision of the Minister who gets it passed through; His Majesty's Council is a mere matter of form, and there is really no reference to this House either in regard to 'Orders-in-Council or in regard to the Regulations which the Minster is entitled to make by his own mere ipse dixit.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and also my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Billing), referred to some of the penalties. My hon. Friend the Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Howard Gritten) will forgive me for saying that he represents, perhaps, the most dangerous vehicle of all—the push-
  1522
  bicycle, which shoots in and out through the streets, and is really far more dangerous than a motor car; but I do not think that he is really as hostile to motorists as he would have us believe, and I would ask him to join with me in protesting against the savage penalties which are included in this Bill. Under the old Act the penalty for non-compliance with the Regulations with regard to number-plates might be £20; my right hon. Friend has raised it to £50. I do not know whether that is included in the cost of living, which is supposed to have gone up 2½ times. Under Clause 13, which deals with a very minor question, a penalty of £100, or six months' imprisonment, is imposed, and for what? Not for driving a car to the common danger; not for running over even my hon. Friend the Member for the Hartlepools; but simply for making a misleading statement in filling up the form for obtaining a licence. That is really rather strong. If I make a misleading statement in filling up the form when taking out my licence—perfectly ignorantly and unknowingly, or even honestly—I am to be subject to a penalty of £100 or six months' imprisonment. Moreover—indeed, this is the most extraordinary provision in the Bill—I have to prove that I am innocent, and the Crown does not have to prove that I am guilty. It is one of the first principles of our criminal law that, if the Crown prosecutes a person for any crime or a breach of any Regulation, the Crown has to prove that the accused person is guilty. Instead of that, my right hon. Friend, in his zeal against motorists, puts in a Clause to the effect that the accused person shall be presumed to be guilty unless he can prove his innocence. That is the kind of support for which my right hon. Friend is angling—the motor-hater who comes from Hartlepool, and would like to see them all given six months or fined £100 for making a perfectly innocent mistake as to the horsepower of their motor car when applying for a licence. I think it must be agreed that that must be got rid of.
  With regard to the Road Fund which is created under the provisions of this Bill, the County Councils' Association wants to get the whole of that Fund for maintenance. It is very difficult to understand this Bill without referring to the Roads Development and Improvement Act,

  1523
  which was passed in 1909. That was the first Act which placed taxation upon motorists, in the form of the petrol tax, and under its provisions the whole of the funds raised were to be spent on improvements. Under the provisions of this present Bill—which, I admit, we have accepted in principle—we are prepared to agree that this Fund—which, fortunately, is a large one—should be spent, not merely for improvement, but for maintenance of existing roads. Nevertheless, I do want to see that a portion at least of this taxation which is placed upon us is definitely earmarked for improvement pure and simple, and not merely for maintenance improvement—the rounding of corners, the widening of streets here and there, and even the making of new roads. I know that my right hon. Friend differs from me in this respect, and it is a debate-able point, but I think we should have an assurance from him that there is a definite intention on the part of the Ministry not to spend the whole of this to satisfy the cry of my hon. Friend who represents the county councils. I think he will agree with me that it is fair that, as we provide the whole of the money, at least some of it should be spent on improving the roads and making new roads where they are wanted.
  I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he can tell us, as I think this will be a convenient opportunity, what he is doing with regard to new arterial roads in London. We understand that large new roads are going to be made, and that this particular Fund is going to be mortgaged for some years ahead in order to provide the cost of those roads. Can he tell us for how long he is going to mortgage this Road Fund for London arterial roads, leaving out altogether the new improvements required all over the country. I want to put this point also. I want to put this point to him—not offensively. The whole House knows unemployed and unskilled labour is much more costly than skilled labour. My right hon. Friend should be perfectly firm. This should be provided out of the, unemployed fund and not out of the road fund.
  The next point I desire to raise is, that under the Bill the whole of this £8,000,000 is to be spent as he may direct. That is an enormous power to put into the hands
  1524
  of the right hon. Gentleman. When the Transport Bill was going through this House last year, we did our best to provide him with Advisory Committees which to some extent could control his action. I do venture to suggest that a particular Advisory Committee set up by this House—The Roads Advisory Committee included in the Ministry of Transport Bill—was carefully formed. It was composed of not less than 11 members, five of them representing the highway authorities and the rest representing the users of roads. [AN HON. MEMBER: "And not one cyclist!"] That was not my fault. I did my best to get representatives of cyclists appointed upon this Committee. I should have been glad to see my hon. Friend on it. Parliament appointed this Committee to advise the Minister on road questions and they were to have power to make regulations as to their procedure and consider and report to the Minister upon any matters affecting traction, the improvement or maintenance of roads, or bridges, or regulations affecting the traffic thereon. That is a Statutory Committee and I should venture to ask the House, when we come to the Clause giving the Minister of Transport power to deal with this money, to say that he must consult that Committee. There is no good having a Committee of that kind unless it is going to meet and work. It has only met twice since the Bill was passed—once last winter and once last week. It is composed of men representing highway authorities, county surveyors, and representatives of the users of roads, who are eager and willing to help the right hon. Gentleman in his work of improving the roads of the country. I think the House would feel that it is desirable that it should be consulted by the Minister before the right hon. Gentleman spends such an enormous sum of money as £8,000,000, simply and solely as he likes to do.
  The only other thing I need refer to is paragraph (g) in Clause 12, which relates to the power given to the Minister to step in, in conjunction with the county council, and say that any particular highway may be closed to any vehicle whatever. He may make that Regulation without even laying it on the Table of this House, without any local inquiry, prohibiting and restricting, on the, application of the county council, any

  1525
  vehicle, or any class of vehicle, on any specific highway or any part of that highway. The Minister said he would be prepared to consider modifications of that Clause. He must see that his advisors have gone a great deal too far. He might close any road he liked. Complaints have been made about chars-a-banc. The House have no interest in chars-a-bancs. I hate meeting them when I am driving. But, after all, they are the motor-cars of the poor man. They have come to stay, and they are going to increase. This House must not set itself, and the County Councils' Association must not set itself, against any form of traction which is increasingly popular in our large centres of population, and which enables the workers, after their day of toil, to go out into the country and the seaside. There must be no dead set against them because we richer people do not like them.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: There is no dead set against them.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and gallant Friend is one of the worst offenders. I should like some of his poorer constituents to question and heckle him on his action in this House with regard to chars-à-banc. The Minister has said he would consider an Amendment of this Clause. I shall ask him to consider an Amendment on the lines that he should really satisfy himself by inquiry that it is in the public interest that these roads should be closed before he confirms the order. I have promised to put before my right hon. Friend the views of those in whom I have no personal interest—the traders. The motor trader before he sells his car has to take out a licence, and he can have a licence for three guineas, which enables him to put a red plate on his car. Of course there must be these number plates, but when the Bill was going through it was assumed that a certain number of millions would be provided by the motor industry and the motor users for this taxation. This system of allowing traders to pay one three guineas fee was only found out afterwards. Now my right hon. Friend in this Bill is to impose a tax of £15 per plate—some manufacturers have as many as 180 plates—which will produce a taxation of something like a quarter of a million over and above what the House has passed. I suggest that the people in America are so
  1526
  interested in the success of the motor trade there that they have merely put a nominal fee on the trade plate. The right hon. Gentleman should reduce the figure of £15 very substantially because we do not want to check the motor manufacturing industry in this country, particularly at the present time. It is in a very serious position. Shops and factories are being closed, men are being thrown out of work, and any additional burden, such as this £15 on, say, 100 plates, would be a very considerable one to all concerned.
  I am definitely authorised by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to agree to any Regulations you like to make in regard to penalties, however severe, for improper use of these plates. It could be done. It only needs a little ingenuity and care. The society desire me to assure the House that they are prepared to co-operate with my right hon. Friend in stopping the improper use of these plates. I think I am entitled on behalf of the trade, which needs encouragement and not discouragement, to ask the Minister to reconsider this particular Clause of the Bill and to considerably mitigate the amount of the licence duty he proposes to place upon them. I hope my right hon. Friend will consent during the progress of the Bill through Committee to moderate it in the direction suggested, particularly in regard to the laying before the House of Commons the Regulations and Orders in Council he proposes to make; and, secondly, in regard to utilising more fully the Roads Advisory Committee set up by this House; and, thirdly, in mitigating the severity of some of the penalties which, I think, are too severe.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. A. Neal): May I at once acknowledge on behalf of the Ministry the kindly reception which this Bill has received. One hon. Member made a confession that he had not read the Bill, and he advised other hon. Members not to read it. Certainly he was unable to criticise the contents of the Bill, and to speak on topics which seem to me to call for no reply. The hon. and gallant Member for Southampton (Sir Ivor Philipps) spoke of this Bill as an Amendment of the Finance Act. It is in one or two minor details a Bill of that description; but so far as

  1527
  it does amend the Finance Act, another opportunity can be given to the House to consider it under the appropriate Money and Ways and Means Resolution. The Amendments of the Finance Act are so slight and so technical that I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me if I do not pursue that at this particular stage. A good deal of criticism has been urged to the effect that the Bill mentions in several places provision to be made by Orders in Council and by Regulation. The Government is fully aware of the objection that Parliament entertains—with which I do not in the least degree quarrel—to legislation by Orders in Council and Regulation: but I think there must be something to be said in favour of a distinction being drawn as to the character and nature of Orders in Council and Regulation. So far as these are purely administrative machinery and details, surely they are more conveniently dealt with by Regulation than by enlarging Statutes. So far as they are due to absorption of the powers of Parliament by legislation of a direct character, they seem to me to be open to very great criticism. I think that, when hon. Members look at this matter in detail, as I know they will do in Committee, they will see that we have followed the precedents of the past in the Regulations and Orders in Council that are contemplated, and that they are of the less pernicious character I have indicated. Subject to the exigencies of time—because this legislation must be operative by the New Year—and to the necessity for the Orders in Council and the Regulations to be operative, we will do our best to meet the criticism which has been addressed to us on this particular matter.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: Can we see the draft copies beforehand?
  Mr. NEAL: At the present moment they are not in existence, but I hope that, by the time we reach the Committee stage, we may be able to meet in substance the wishes of the House as expressed in reference to that. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members have spoken of the creation of the Road Fund, and of what they assume to be the arbitrary right of the Ministry of Transport to administer that fund.
  This fund is created in substance under the Finance Act which received the assent
  1528
  of this House earlier in the year. It is an enlargement of the fund which was created by other forms of taxation under the Development and Roads (Improvement Funds) Act, 1909. The expenditure of this money is by no means so freely in the power of the Minister of Transport as the criticisms we have listened to would appear to indicate. Under the Development and Roads (Improvement Funds) Act, 1909, there are certain definite uses to which the fund must be applied. These are the improvement of existing roads and the construction of new roads. By the present Bill it is proposed to enlarge those powers to some slight extent by putting in the maintenance of roads because it is very little use bringing roads up to a good standard unless you are going in the future to endeavour to maintain them at that standard, and to prevent them getting into a condition which makes their use uncomfortable, and the cost of repairs excessive. In, addition there is a definite limitation upon the amount of the fund which the Minister may use for the purpose of the construction of new roads as distinct from other purposes. The object and intention of the Government in this matter is indicated most clearly in the Schedule which was put to the Report of the Departmental Committee, to which reference has been made, Command Paper 660, in which—and this answers the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Armagh (Lieut.-Colonel Allen)—there is a provisional balance sheet set out. The net income of the fund is estimated at £8,125,000. The expenditure is shown in detail as regards first-class roads and second-class roads in England and Wales and Scotland. In Ireland, a sum of £500,000 is set aside for that purpose. The balance which in a full year is estimated to be available for improvement purposes, new roads, etc., is £1,250,000.
  May I here deal with the question raised in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) as to the arterial roads in London and elsewhere, which are at present under construction or in contemplation? I hope he will forgive me if I fail to answer his question to-night, for the very good reason that there are Estimates which have to come under the consideration of the Committee within a very short time, probably to-night or to-morrow, when it would be more con-

  1529
  venient to deal with the matter in detail. My hon. Friend the Member for North Armagh spoke about the works in Ireland which, he fears, may be suspended owing to the usual Treasury Regulation that moneys which are not expended by the end of the financial year fall into the Exchequer and have to be re-voted. My hon. and gallant Friend did me the courtesy of mentioning this matter some time ago. It is only a question of a little prevision. There is no difficulty in the works being carried out if ordinary foresight is exercised. The money for those works is not money raised under this fund, but is money expended out of a particular fund ear-marked for the purpose of dealing with unemployment in Ireland.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Southampton (Sir Ivor Philipps) dealt with a point which I think my right hon. Friend covered by interruption, as to the cost to the Ministry of Transport in regard to this matter. The provision with respect to the allocation of the fund provides for certain prior charges. They provide for the making good to the local authorities a sum in lieu of carriage licences, and they provide for making good to them the cost of the collection of the revenue. Here, may I say, in answer to the hon. Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton), that the Minister has fully in recollection the statement which he made in the House on the 6th July, with regard to the reimbursing the local authorities the cost to which they may be put in collecting this particular revenue. My right hon. Friend would be one of the last men to go back on any statement which he has made; but that statement must be interpreted in reasonable terms, and it was not, and could not, be intended to mean that there should be no check whatever upon the expenditure which a council might incur. We hope to be able to meet my hon. Friend's point of view if he puts down an Amendment to the Clause.
  Something has been said as to the absence of Parliamentary control over this fund. This fund is very much in the nature of voluntary taxation of a particular kind. The motorists have consented to raise money by this particular tax, on the definite undertaking that the money shall be expended in the improvement of roads. It is a national object
  1530
  which they are helping in that direction, and it is one which is most urgently needed. The roads have to be brought up to a condition to deal with modern traffic and to be maintained in that condition. Therefore, this fund, specially raised by taxation of a particular class, is specially safeguarded against its expenditure being diverted from the use for which it is raised to the relief of general taxation. Bearing in mind the difficulties of the matter, I am sure my right hon. Friend would desire to have any assistance that can be given to him in order to see that this fund is reasonably and properly applied to the purpose for which it is designed.
  A good deal of attention has been paid to the licence which is to be attached to the car, and the registration book. This part of the scheme has received the unanimous approval of a Committee which was fully representative of motor manufacturers, motor users, and the general public. It is not a scheme which will impose a burden upon motorists, but will rather relieve them. I hold in my hand the kind of disc which is to be attached to the car. It will have in it the current licence. So far from its being any sort of trouble to the motorist, he will never be caught when he has left his licence at home and fined for not having it in his possession. It will be attached to the car. The registration book is entirely designed for his protection and convenience. It is not intended that he should carry it with him. He thus avoids the difficulty which so many of us experience of carrying everything we want, of all sorts and kinds, in our pockets, and forgetting to change them from time to time. The registration book will be the history of the car. It should be left at home. There is a liability to produce it when required, but that is all. I do not think that anybody who has studied the question will regard the registration book as imposing any burden upon the motorists. It is strongly believed that the registration book, being kept apart from the car, will be a very severe check upon the stealing of motor cars. The police hold that view very strongly.
  The new system has another advantage. The licence is in respect of the vehicle, and on the sale of the car it will be the ordinary course of business for the purchaser to pay a proportionate sum in respect of the unexpired value of the

  1531
  licence which has been paid. A point was raised by my Noble Friend (Viscount Curzon) with regard to the difficulty of having to disclose one's identity. That will not arise. You need not disclose your identity if you sell your car through an agent, until the moment that the contract is made and must be observed. In regard to Crown vehicles some observations were made, but I suggest that it is too late to raise that on this Bill. The Crown is not liable to taxation of any description unless by its leave, and that taxation is imposed by a Finance Act. This is not a Finance Act, but an administrative Act. Therefore, the question of Crown vehicles is one which will hardly be capable of being dealt with upon any stage of the present Bill. It has not been overlooked, but it is not one upon which it would be convenient for me to make a statement at the present time. Considerable discussion has taker, place about the position of the manufacturers and dealers under the red licence. I think it is common ground, as the result of the discussion, that these licences have been badly abused in the past. Apart from that, if I might put it on more general grounds, the vehicles to which these licences are attached are users of the road and, therefore, ought to contribute to the maintenance and upkeep of the roads just in the same way as vehicles of other classes. It is by no means an easy problem to settle what is the exact sum which shall be paid for this privilege. Vehicles which run upon the roads may vary between the lightest form of motor ear and the very heavy motor car. They may vary from those which pay duty of £6 and those which pay duty of £84. Therefore, to arrive at a correct sum is not easy. The question was carefully considered by the Advisory Committee and my hon. Friend (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) brought a deputation to see me on the matter. I have no doubt that in Committee the question can be further discussed, but I do not think it need be discussed at greater length to-day.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick) gave some interesting information as to the kind of loads which horses are apt to deal with in his district. He talked about horse-propelled vehicles, but if he puts seven tons behind a horse
  1532
  going down hill I think it will be the horse that will be propelled and not the vehicle.
  Mr. RENWICK: I did not mention going down hill, I said on a level road.
  Mr. NEAL: I do not know how the horse grapples with such a load on a level road. It seems to me to be a matter calling for inquiry from several points of view: First, from the point of view of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and secondly, from that of highway authorities, to see whether such a load with very narrow wheels is not highly destructive to the roads. Those are matters that we cannot inquire into too closely, unless my hon. Friend gives us particulars of the case.
  Mr. SUGDEN: May I ask for a reply to the point regarding urban councils?
  Mr. NEAL: I have looked through the Bill carefully to see what part there was which prejudicially affects small authorities, and at the moment have seen none.
  Mr. SUGDEN: Clause 1, Sub-section (5)—the Amendment was suggested by the hon. Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton).
  Mr. NEAL: I do not quite understand how that would assist my hon. Friend, and the smaller councils whose interests he has undertaken. For the moment I do not think that they are affected by the matter, but if he will be good enough to explain to me in detail later on, privately, what his point is we will take care to see whether we cannot meet him. At present I do not quite understand it. The remaining point which has been very much discussed is as to the control of motor traffic upon roads. As the law now stands there is great confusion, which makes it very difficult for any control whatever to be exercised over those vehicles. The Bill has been drawn purposely wide in its terms as a matter for discussion. There are certain interests to be regarded in this matter. It is difficult to deal with it by a general Clause prohibiting the use of certain vehicles on certain roads. That must be in every case, I think, the subject of inquiry. Then the drawbacks that have to be considered would seem to be, first, how far it is necessary to restrict the use of the roads, remembering the first principle that the roads are for the common use of the

  1533
  King's subjects. Second, how far the vehicles may ply upon the roads in existing circumstances with safety to their own occupants and also with safety to the other persons using the roads. You must have some regard to the width of the road, its condition and the amount of traffic. As the law stands we are advised that the Minister could in no case act except upon the initiative of the council, and if he acted at all he must prohibit vehicular traffic which he might not wish to prohibit on that particular road. This particular Sub-section certainly is one on which we desire in Committee all the assistance that can be given to the Minister to arrive at formula; which will enable him to carry out the duties with which Parliament may entrust him with reference to this matter. It must not be forgotten that chars-a-banc and heavy vehicles have come to stay. They are used largely by classes who cannot afford private vehicles for their own use, and we would not wish arbitrarily to interfere with the use of that particular type of vehicle on the roads. I hope that I have met the point raised in discussion, and I shall be grateful if the House will now allow the Bill to have a Second Reading.
  Colonel L. WARD: This matter is of great interest not only to me but also to many of my supporters in my own constituency, and I have had a great deal of correspondence on the subject. Unfortunately, owing to the fact that an important Committee was sitting upstairs the whole afternoon I have been unable to be in the House to listen to the entire Debate, and though I hurried down immediately, or, if anything, before the Committee finished its sitting, all I arrived in time to hear was a rather impassioned but extremely irrelevant attack on the Government financial policy as a whole which gave no information on the subject on which I wish to obtain it. I wish to add my protest to that of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) at the very drastic nature of the penalties which are likely to me enforced under this measure. I suppose that the penalty which is likely to be enforced more than any other is that in reference to false declarations, but I would submit that the owner of a car in very many cases is in other people's hands. Of course where anybody buys a car direct
  1534
  from the manufacturer, especially a car of a well-known type, the dimensions of the cylinders are almost common property, but if a person purchases a second-hand car of a type of which there are not many in this country—there are many types where the cylinder bore varies to a small degree—he is entirely at the mercy of the man from whom he buys the car unless he goes to the expense of having the engine taken down and carefully measured. In almost every case he will have the measurements given to him in millimetres and to convert that into fractions of inches is rather difficult and anybody who has left school for any length of time is liable to make a mistake. Therefore I respectfully suggest that the somewhat savage penalty of a fine of £100 or six months' imprisonment with hard labour, or both, is in excess of the needs of the case.
  Coming to the question of the use of motor vehicles as commercial vehicles, and the position of those who apply to use more than one vehicle under the cover of what is to be known as the red number plate, may I take it that, provided a man has 10 number plates and does not have more than 10 vehicles on the road, he is covered to all intents and purposes for these 10 cars? With regard to the new roads for motor traffic, are they to be used exclusively for motor traffic? I ask that question because the surface which gives the best results for motor traffic is almost universally admitted to be unsafe for use with horses, and we are constantly being confronted with complaints on one side or the other. If the road is designed for horses it is unsafe, for motors, and in the majority of cases very soon breaks up. If it is designed for motors it is very dangerous, and I would almost say very cruel to use horses on it. What are the intentions of the Ministry with regard to that? The hon. Gentleman who spoke last produced a very neat little round metal disc which he said was to carry a licence for a car. Are we to understand that in future the driving licence which we have hitherto had to carry is to be done away with and that that little metal disc carries both the licence of the car and that of the driver? If not, I fail to understand what is meant by the statement that it would be most convenient, because it appears that in future you will not only

  1535
  have to carry the car licence on that beautiful little metal disc, but also the driving licence in your pocket, and consequently if you happen to leave your coat behind, you are as you were before.
  Mr. HOHLER: There are two provisions of the Bill which interest me particularly. The first is the second Subsection of Clause 2 which says that the sum of money to be paid out of the local taxation account is fixed and based upon the amount that is paid within the year 1909 in respect of duties of carriage licences. As I understand the law the position at present is that the county in which you are granted your licence takes the fine. Therefore I ask myself, will the effect of limiting the period of time to the 31st March, 1909, cut down the fines to which the county council would otherwise be entitled? If that is so, I certainly object to this Clause, because, obviously, it will increase rates in the county. Since 1909 these licence duties which are payable to the county in regard to motor cars have largely increased, and if by a side wind it is proposed to diminish in any way the receipts of the county council from this source I shall oppose that portion of the Bill.
  The other point to which I wish to refer is Clause 7, Sub-section (4). There, again, you are going to deprive the county councils of relief which it received in the way of rates, because the Subsection provides
  "all sums received by a county council by way of fees for licences granted under Section 3 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, and all penalties recovered in respect of offences under the Motor Car Acts, 1896 and 1903, shall be paid into the Exchequer."
  7.0 P.M.
  Everybody must know that the fines for all offences in regard to extreme speed—I think I can say broadly, all highway offences—are payable to the county councils in aid of the police fund. I understand that they amount to a very large sum indeed. I see no compensation made to the county council which gives relief in respect to the police rate under this Bill. On the contrary, you are going to take away these sums recovered by virtue of prosecutions under the Acts referred to and hand them over to the Exchequer, and I can find no equivalent given to the county councils. I do not
  1536
  intend to oppose the Bill on Second Reading, but I do hope that some explanation will be given as to why that date, 1909, was selected, for if it does not offer the equivalent of the sums that the county councils are now receiving this Clause ought to be opposed, and I will do my best to oppose it. Again, if you are going, under the Bill, to deprive the county councils of these fines resulting from motor prosecutions and pay them into the Exchequer, then you ought to pay over to the county councils a like sum for this sum which is a very large one. I am satisfied it was never the intention of anybody who voted in favour of these increased licensed duties—and I personally am entirely in favour of them—that the county council should be mulcted in anything they hitherto received. The result would be to increase the rates by a purely side wind, and I do hope that even now the Minister of Transport or the Parliamentary Secretary will give some explanation as to that and as to why the year 1909 was fixed. These, to my mind, are important points, and the more so because, in my view, it is not desirable at this stage to do anything which will increase the rates of the county. To my mind, if this work were left to the local authorities it would not have been possible to distribute these moneys between the county councils and the county boroughs and the like and have got them to carry out on the highways the benefits which we expect without creating new departments, new surveyors and new officers going about the country at considerable expense. I would like some assurance that you are not reducing that which the county councils now receive in the way of licences. In the old days I am informed that the police pensions were entirely paid out of highway offences on which proceedings had been taken. My right hon. Friend laughs at the idea. I wonder if he has made the least inquiry. I have, and that is the information I have received. At any rate, the sum is considerable enough, and it is not to be lost sight of.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir E. Geddes.]

  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL. [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a short and simple Bill to amend the Official Secrets Act, 1911. Unfortunately one of the things which increase and develop in an imperfect world is the ingenuity of spies, and another is the elaboration of the systems and the methods of spying. The Official Secrets Act, 1911, after an interval of 22 years, re-enacted and amended the Official Secrets Act, 1889. Now, after a further interval of nine years, it becomes necessary to amend and extend the Act of 1911. That Act, as the House is aware, imposed penalties for spying, for harbouring spies, and for wrongful communication of information. The present Bill, which is the result of the labours of an inter-Departmental Committee, and springs from the experience of the past few years, deals, and deals temperately, with the same topics.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Which Departments?
  Sir G. HEWART: I speak from recollection. The Departments, among others, were the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Home Office. There may have been others, but there was a large inter-Departmental Committee.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear at this point that the Bill deals only with spying?
  Sir G. HEWART: I cannot possibly say it deals only with spying. If the hon. Member will have patience he will see that it deals also with certain other things. The function of the Bill is to extend the principal Act, that is to say, the Act of 1911, where experience has shown that it is less than adequate. The period of the War partly revealed and partly created fresh developments in the mischief of spying. During actual hostilities the omissions of the Statute were temporarily made good by Regulations; but some of those Regulations have to-day disappeared, and the rest will disappear before long. Hence the necessity of the present measure, the main features of which I will shortly summarise.
  1538
  Under the principal Act it is, as the House is aware, an offence for any person, for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, to enter a prohibited place, such as a dockyard or an arsenal. The present Bill usefully supplements that provision by making it an offence for any person, for the purpose of gaining admission to a prohibited place, to wear without authority a naval or military uniform, to make a false statement, or to tamper with official documents such as a passport, permit, or similar document. Experience during the War has made it quite plain that a provision of that kind is necessary if the work of foreign agents is to be checked. The Bill further prohibits the improper retention and the improper communication of official documents, a provision due to the fact that information of a secret nature is too often obtained from or through indiscreet persons. Those—and there are some—who have objected to this part of the Bill ignore at least one important matter. They forget, or they do not observe, that the retention which is made criminal is retention for some purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Who decides that?
  Sir G. HEWART: The courts. Another important provision of the Bill has to do with communications with enemy agents. Modern spying, assisted by contrivances like invisible ink, is extremely difficult to detect, and it happens in many cases that the only evidence available against a person well known to be a spy is the fact of his having visited or communicated with a known foreign agent. Accordingly, it is provided by Clause 2, Sub-section (i) of the Bill as follows:
  "In any proceedings against a person for an offence under Section 1 of the Principal Act, the fact that he has been in communication with, or attempted to communicate with, a foreign agent, whether within or without the United Kingdom, shall be evidence that he has, for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, obtained or attempted to obtain information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy."
  I will only say with regard to that quite deliberately drastic provision that experience shows a provision of that kind to be vitally necessary. There are two

  1539
  other provisions in the Bill to which I ought in a sentence or two to refer. With regard to the question asked a moment ago, does this Bill relate only to spying? It relates also to two similar and sometimes ancillary matters. The fourth Clause of the Bill contains the power to require the production of telegrams. The postal and cable censorship which we had during the War, and which was of the greatest possible value and importance, was removed shortly after the Armistice. That being so, it is necessary that there should be power at least to compel the production of the originals and the transcripts of certain telegrams. It is not a power to stop telegrams. It is merely a power to compel the production of the originals and transcripts sent to, or received from, any place out of the United Kingdom; and the main purpose or that provision is to enable the authorities to detect and deal with attempts at spying by foreign agents. The other provision upon which I might say one word is this. There are in this country some businesses which consist in the receipt of letters for persons whose real addresses are elsewhere, and this Bill provides for the registration and regulation of persons who carry on the business of receiving postal packets. It is -required that they shall register the names and addresses of their clients, and also register the particulars of business done. No honest or innocent person can have any objection to that provision.
  May I add one word more upon a particular kind of objection which, oddly enough, has sometimes been taken to this Bill? It is said that this Bill deals with the -Press. That seems to me to be an astonishing statement, and it is very strange that persons connected with the Press should say that this Bill deals with them. How can it possibly be said that it is the function of a journalist to retain for some purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State an official document that he has no right to retain, or which it is contrary to his duty to retain? So far from asserting that that is something aimed at journalists, I should have thought that the first comment of a journalist reading that provision would be this: "Whoever may be the persons referred to, they are certainly not journalists." It is proposed to put in the Bill, as I understand at the sug-
  1540
  gestion of some gentlemen connected with the Press, certain words in Clause 1 (c). There the Bill refers to "forging, altering, or tampering with any passport or any naval, military, air force, police, or official pass, permit, certificate, licence, or other document." It is said that that is too general, and it is desired that the words "of a similar character" should be inserted. I am going to propose that in Committee, but may I pause to say this, that the criticism directed against those words seems to me entirely to ignore the fact that the governing words are, "If any person for the purpose of gaining admission to a prohibited place" does these things, and that part of the Bill is not aimed at the alteration of a document as such. It is aimed at the alteration of a document of a certain kind for the purpose of gaining admission to a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State. Again, I should have thought, with great respect, that that is a class of document and a kind of purpose with which the Press of this country has nothing, and will never have anything to do.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months." His Majesty's Government have been wise in their choice of the Minister to bring this Bill forward, because from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman anyone who had not read the Bill, or, what is even more important, had not read the principal Act to which the Bill refers, would imagine that if ever there was an innocent Bill this was the one, and that it did not do anything really other than to add to the powers of the principal Act. Let me say a word on the existing powers of the State to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I think it is true to say that within 48 hours of the outbreak of war all the known enemy spies or suspected spies were laid by the heels, and it is also true to say, and here I am speaking with some knowledge, that the powers which were in the hands of the Executive were used with such effect that there was not one single instance of any damage either to person or property by agents or suspected agents of the enemy throughout Great Britain during the War. That is a wonderful record, and it shows that the Executive

  1541
  was amply clothed with powers to deal with the matter. I come now to the general question. It is of the greatest importance, now that we are free from active warfare though technically still at war, that we should exercise the greatest possible care to see that no legislation is passed through this Chamber which in any degree tends to further restrict the liberty of the subject. The war habit is a habit which the Departmental mind finds it very difficult to get rid of. We have had a very large experience in this House of legislation proposed, and passed sometimes and occasionally modified, which shows that the Departments of State still have the war mind. There has not, I believe, been any measure yet proposed from the Treasury Bench which is more indicative of that proposition than the measure now before us. He asked us why should the Press object to this proposal. There is no body of men in this country who know their own business better than the Press, and throughout the main organs of the Press there have been articles, obviously written by men who have studied the Bill very carefully, which expressed the most determined hostility to the measure now proposed on the ground that they fear, as they think, and they are very good judges, that if this Bill is passed in anything like its present form, their position as public servants in and through the Press would be very completely hampered.
  Sir G. HEWART: I do not want to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but perhaps he will allow me to say that when this Bill was in another place, where it was passed through all its stages, it was subjected to some criticism at the time, and in the result words were inserted to meet that criticism. It was conceded that those words went a very long way, but it was thought that something still remained to be done. Since June, when the Bill passed through its stages in another place, conferences have been held between those who are responsible for the Bill and those who represent the newspapers, and the Amendments which I indicated that I am about to move in Committee will, as I am informed, remove the objections.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: We will deal with that position when we arrive at it in Committee. What happened in another place was that the Bill was almost passing
  1542
  sub silentio when I believe Lord Burn ham interfered, and a hasty and rather incomplete discussion took place on the Third Reading. I think the Debate lather shows that the Noble Lords did not address themselves with their customary care to this matter, and it is quite evident from the speech of the Lord Chancellor that they rather left it to this House to exercise the more meticulous care which such a provision as this needs. Let me say a word as to why I conceive that the Press of this country should be more amply protected than at present. There is no proper definition of an official document, and the words suggested by my right hon. Friend are not sufficient to protect them. Then who is to decide what is prejudicial to the interests of the State?
  Sir G. HEWART: Those are the words in the principal Act.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Yes, but the original Act is very limited in its purposes. Section 1 of the Act of 1911 provides:
  "If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State approaches or is in the neighbourhood of or enters any prohibited place within the meaning of this Act or makes any sketch, plan, model, or note, which is calculated to be, or might be, or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy, or obtains or communicates to any other person any sketch, plan, model, article, or note, or other document, or information which is calculated to be, or might be, or is intended to be, directly or indirectly useful to an enemy,"
  The original Act was obviously aimed at what was definitely spy work. My main criticism of this Bill is that it extends that far wider than the original Act intended, and that it hits at the legitimate exercise of the functions of the Press, and certainly impinges, most harmfully, as I believe, on the liberty of the individual. Let us see what would happen, as I think, under the words of the Bill. I make no objection, certainly no very serious objection, to the powers which are asked for in Clause 1, Sub-section (1), which deal with persons using or wearing without lawful authority any naval, military or air force uniform. But in Sub-section (2) of that Clause the main question is really raised. It provides that
  "if any person retains for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the

  1543
  State any official document, whether or not completed or issued for use, when he has no right to retain it, or when it is contrary to his duty to retain it, or fails to comply with any directions issued by any Government Department, or any person authorised by such Department with regard to the return or disposal thereof."
  As we all know, the Press of this country during the whole of their modern existence have had, and I daresay have now, official documents, and what might happen with regard to them? Some Minister may have given an official document to a newspaper, and for some reason or another he suddenly desires its return, and at once threatens the holder of the document, unless he returns it, with all the penalties prescribed by this Bill. It is quite conceivable that the use which the newspaper makes of the communication may be of the greatest public useful ness. There is no doubt about that. It happens over and over again in all Governments; it has happened in the past, and in the present, and will, I suppose, in the future. The position in which the Press would be put under those circumstances is one which, I think, would very much militate against the public service which from time to time they render. There are very, very few instances in the long record of the British Press where information so given to them, whether strictly in accordance with Ministerial etiquette or otherwise, or official etiquette, has been misused, but there arc countless instances in which such information has been used greatly to the public advantage. The right hon. Gentleman read out these words, and asked what reputable journalists would desire to hold in his possession any in formation which might be prejudicial to the interests of the State. But who it going to decide that?
  Sir G. HEWART: The Courts.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: After it comes into Court? That is where the power comes in; that is where the menace comes in, and that is where the freedom of the Press, and as I venture to say, and the protection of the public comes in. That is where again I say the perpetuation and development of the war spirit comes in. I invite hon. Members to give their very careful attention to the whole of Sub-section (2) and the arguments which
  1544
  I have just submitted. If hon. Members will do me the honour of looking at Clause 1 (3) of the Bill, they will see what the whole thing really means, and how far-reaching are the powers which are sought here. It says:
  "In the case of any prosecution under this Section involving the proof of a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, Sub-section (2) of Section one of the principal Act shall apply in like manner as it applies to prosecutions under that Section."
  We have here again an instance of how unfair legislation by reference is, for I will just read Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the principal Act, and let the House remember that it may be a private individual or an editor of a newspaper who is prosecuted:
  "On a prosecution under this Section, it shall not be necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, and, notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case or his conduct or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State."
  You are by means of that Section placing any person in precisely the same position as if in time of war, or of war being feared, you dealt with an enemy spy. It is the complete abrogation of any semblance of justice, and it means that the Executive is trying to carry into times of peace all the war powers it ever had. How would they be used? The words, "prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State,'" would bring in the full range of social disorders, not necessarily by an enemy, but any person who is taking action which the Executive think is disruptive to the interests of the State. I am astonished at the attitude of the Government in making any such proposal as this and clothing it under the suggestion of simply developing necessary powers for dealing with spies. It is not that; if it were so, I should take a totally different view of it, but it is really seeking powers to strike at the root of public expression of free opinion in and through the Press and the liberty of the individual. My right hon. Friend spoke about Clause 4, and the powers which were exercised by the State during the War for the censorship of telegrams. That was quite right, and a potent means of protection during the War, but he did not really call

  1545
  attention to what the words of that Clause are. This is what it says:
  "Where it appears to a Secretary of State that such a course is expedient in the public interest, he may, by warrant under his hand"—
  That is to say, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty—
  Commander BELLAIRS: The First Lord of the Admiralty is not a Secretary of State.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Well, there are five or six of them, anyway, and any one of these gentlemen is entitled by this Clause, "by warrant under his hand," whenever he thinks it is expedient in the public interest, to demand from any private cable company copies of any telegrams, between any people, sent anywhere.
  Sir G. HEWART: They must be telegrams to or from any place out of the United Kingdom.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: That is what I said.
  Sir G. HEWART: No, the right hon. Gentleman said "telegrams between any people sent anywhere."
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I mentioned private cable companies, and there are no such companies for wiring inside the United Kingdom. I was thinking of foreign telegrams, and there is no answer to that. Is the House going to give that power to any Secretary of State? I am quite sure it will not. What power, again, is given in Clause 6?
  "It shall be the duty of every person to give on demand to a chief officer of police, or to a superintendent or other officer of police not below the rank of inspector appointed by a chief officer for the purpose, or to any member of His Majesty's forces engaged on guard, sentry, patrol, or other similar duty, any information in his power relating to an offence or suspected offence under the principal Act or this Act."
  If a citizen gets a tap on the shoulder and is told he must come and see the officer at a certain time or place to give him information, and that citizen declines to give the information and says, "This is not the way to treat me,' he is guilty of a misdemeanour and to imprisonment for two years. Is that the sort of Bill which was in the minds of hon. Members? Is that the idea of simply strengthening
  1546
  the powers of the Government against spies? The whole thing is full of confirmation of my suggestion that what the Executive are really after is not giving more power to legitimate authority to deal with enemy spies here, but it is to give them war power in peace time to destroy the liberties of the subject. When you come to look at Clause 8, Sub-section (4) you will find that if, in the course of the proceedings before a court, it seems necessary to the court, they can hear the whole of the evidence in secret, provided always that they sentence the citizen publicly. I find it difficult to confine my language in regard to this Bill within the range of Parliamentary propriety. It is another attempt to clamp the powers of war on to the liberties of the citizen in peace, and unless this House turns away this strangle-hold of bureaucracy, before another 12 months are over, we shall find that this Government has, with the aid of the Members of this House, curtailed in a manner which is most inimical to the true interests of social order those liberties of the British subject upon which the progress of this country at home and abroad has so long rested.
  Earl WINTERTON: I want to put one point to my right hon. Friend, and I am led to do so by what I must call the extraordinary speech to which we have just listened by the right hon. Member for Peebles, who has to my mind made use of very strong and unfair phrases. First of all, he said that the ordinary legislative powers for dealing with spies were absolutelly ample and satisfactory. That view will not be shared, I feel sure, by a single hon. Member of this House who has served in His Majesty's Forces.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: That is not so.
  Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman said that on the outbreak of the War it was possible to round up all these spies. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that it is a well-known fact of military administration that you are never going to stop espionage in war time unless you have in peace time adequate powers to deal with it. It is a well known fact, but I only mention that because I do not think it is right that it should be laid down that our powers at the outbreak of War were adequate for

  1547
  dealing with the spy question. I would put this point to the right hon. Gentleman who is so very anxious for the liberty of the subject, that if this country before the War has a system of legislation which enables practically any ill-disposed person to spy on this country without hindrance, then, when war breaks out, you will have to impose a much more drastic curtailment of the liberty of the subject than if you had in peace time a proper system for dealing with spies. I think that is an important point. My right hon. Friend must have overlooked the fact, when he complained that in another place the position of the Press was not properly considered, that the Bill was a matter of some controversy in the early days of last summer and that there were, I believe, conferences between Noble Lords in another place who represented the Government and representatives of the Press, conferences, for example, with Lord Burnham and Members of the Government. The result is the Bill in the form in which it has reached this House, and it is wrong to suppose that the position of the Press under the Bill was not properly considered in another place. I suggest that there is nothing in this Bill to interfere either with pressmen or any other persons going about their lawful occasions on legitimate business.
  There is another ground on which I would base my support of the Bill. Everyone knows we do not live in ordinary times. Everyone knows there are plots and conspiracies against this Realm which are being carried out in foreign countries and some parts of the British Empire, and that, however one may dislike the idea of imposing additional restrictions on the subject, it is necessary for the Government to have that power. I suggest there is nothing to interfere with a person going about his legitimate business. The right hon. Gentleman, for example, made great play with Clause 4 of the Bill. I had not the opportunity of reading the Bill fully through before, but I read it through during his speech, and I compared it with what he said. Surely he does not suggest that in the critical time in which we are living to-day a Secretary of State should not have power, if it seem desirable in the opinion of the Government that he should exercise that power, to find out what is being cabled to and from this country. Of
  1548
  course, it is a most necessary power, which every government ought to have. If you read the legislative enactments of the United States and France, our two great democratic Allies, you will find they have that power, and considerably fuller than in this country. I know of no country where ill-disposed persons prior to the War were given more opportunities of spying against the State than in this country. They were not allowed to do it in the United States or in France.
  I hope that in Committee the Government may see their way to extend the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, which says,
  "If any person retains for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State any official document."
  I should like to make it an offence for a person, who has had an official document in his possession, afterwards to make use of it either in the Press or in any book he publishes. I do not want to go into delicate questions, or to refer to any particular publication, but, in view of the extraordinary disclosures of official information in all sorts of books and papers lately by persons who have had access to such information, it is most desirable that the Government should have power to punish people who make use of official documents by subsequent publications in books, and I am convinced that if this were put to the country, there is not a public meeting composed of ordinary citizens who would not approve of power being given to the Government to prevent, and, if need be, punish the indiscreet publication of official information, even many months or years after the event, as it renders the carrying on of the government difficult, and makes dangerous our relations with foreign Powers. It is not often I do myself the pleasure of supporting the Government in Debate, but I certainly think on this occasion they will have the great bulk of their party behind them, not only in attempting to stop the possibility of spying in future, but also in putting an end to the indiscreet publication of official documents.
  Commander BELLAIRS: My Noble Friend referred to the impassioned speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but I think my Noble Friend's speech was quite as impassioned as that of the right hon. Gentleman. If an hon. Member is fighting in defence of liberty, he has far

  1549
  more right to make an impassioned speech than has an hon. Member who is trying to restrict liberty. I myself put down a Resolution on the Paper before ever the Government had their conference with the Press, and I am bound to say the Government have gone some way to meeting my objection to this Bill by proposing to introduce in Committee in Clause 1, paragraph (c) instead of the words "other document" the words "or any similar document," but I am not quite sure yet, because the learned Attorney-General defended the Bill on different grounds from those on which Lord Peel defended it. The learned Attorney-General said that the peccant Clause—that is Sub-section (2) which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) read—is governed by the words at the beginning of Clause 1, "If any person for the purpose of—
  Sir G. HEWART: That is a mistake. What I said was that the words to which I shall propose to add the words "of a similar character" in paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) are governed by the words:
  "If any person for the purpose of gaining admission, or of assisting any other person to gain admission, to a prohibited place" etc.
  I never suggested for a moment that those latter words governed Sub-section (2). What I said about Sub-section (2) was that the retention of the document, to be criminal, must be retention for a purpose prejudicial to the State, and of course what is spoken of as an official document in Sub-section (2) is what is described in paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1).
  Commander BELLAIRS: That makes the matter very much worse, because we are getting back to the old position, that anybody having an official document retained for any purpose prejudicial to the State
  "whether or not completed or issued for use, when he has no right to retain it, or when it is contrary to his duty to regain it,"
  that person is guilty of a misdemeanour. When the matter was in the House of Lords we were told by Lord Peel that that Sub-section was governed by the earlier words of Sub-section (1), paragraph (c):
  "Anybody who forges, alters, or tampers with any passport or any naval, military,
  1550
  air force, police, or official pass, permit, certificate, licence, or other document."
  You get back to the old position, of which the Press are complaining, unless we know what is governing this Sub-section (2), and I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that he should add certain words to Sub-section (2) such as, "If any person for the purpose of gaining admission, or of assisting any other person to get to a prohibited place." We then know it is limited to a prohibited place and to a spy, and will not be used by the Government as a tyranny against public individuals, publicists or editors of newspapers. Or else he might intro duce after the words "official document" the words, "relating to a prohibited place." If he would engage to introduce those words in Committee, it would determine my vote on this matter. My right hon. and learned Friend and my Noble Friend referred to the discussion in the House of Lords. I have looked up the Debate in the House of Lords. There was no discussion on Second Reading. Lord Peel merely introduced the Bill in a perfunctory manner, saying that it embodied our war experience in countering espionage. If the Bill only dealt with that, there is nothing I would not do to strengthen it, and I agree with my Noble Friend in everything he said with regard to espionage. In Committee there were three columns of discussion in the House of Lords, and on the Third Reading five columns. Everybody knows that is not an adequate discussion for a Bill of this kind. Now the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the only point governing this peccant Clause is that referring to the "safety or interests of the State."
  I would ask what becomes, then, of Lord Peel's words that this peccant Clause, Sub-section (2), about documents, is really governed by Clause 1, Subsection (1, c), which defines the documents? The Noble Lord who spoke for the Government said the words "or other documents" limited it to those specified articles mentioned in paragraph (c). That, of course, shortened the discussion in the House of Lords, because it was accepted; but now my right hon. and learned Friend puts quite another version on the matter. Even if it were limited to those things, I think it often happens that Members of this House and editors of newspapers have documents

  1551
  with reference to prohibited places. I remember, during a critical period of the War, when we were very short of shipping, it came to my knowledge that all the prohibited places in the Far East had mine channels extending twelve miles out to sea, and ships were kept till nine o'clock in the morning before being allowed to enter those channels, and lights were obscured on shore, although not a German vessel had been within thousands of miles of the Pacific and Indian ports for many months. These ports were all prohibited places. It is very useful for an editor to know facts like that, in order to bring pressure upon the Government when the Government is obviously neglecting its duty. That is a simple instance of the case in point.
  8.0 P.M.
  I must echo the protest made the other day by the right hon. Member for Peebles in reference to the complicated character of these Bills, and the difficulty of understanding them. Apparently, Members of the Government themselves do not understand them. I can only say that the Jews were very much to be congratulated that Moses went up the Mount unaccompanied, either by a lawyer or a draughtsman, and came down with the Tablets of Law. In spite of this difficulty, when discussing this very Bill the Lord Chancellor stated that every member of the public ought to know the 1911 Act, and to what he was liable under that Act. I tried to get it in the Vote Office, but could not get it as it was not stocked. I went to the Sales Office, and they said they would order a copy for me as they had none there. Eventually I had to study it in the Library. The Government must remember in regard to any suspicion the Press may feel and Members of the House may feel what are their objections. We have the public speeches of Members of the Government showing their anxiety to curtail the liberty of the Press during the War. It is not the one Government, but all Governments, both Conservative and Liberal. Both the present Lord Chancellor and the ex-Lord Chancellor, Lord Buckmaster, made speeches strongly urging the curtailing of the liberty of the Press, and the present Secretary of State for War has shown the greatest anxiety and made a speech in which he said members of the
  1552
  Press ought not to be at liberty to criticise the actions of the leaders of the nation, be they politicians or soldiers. The net result of these speeches, of which I have copies in my hand, is to leave on the mind an impression that Governments will always try to curtail the liberty of speech in these matters. With regard to what the learned Attorney-General said, that complete safety is given in this Clause by the reference, "for a purpose prejudicial to the safety of interests of the State," I cannot say that it gives protection. Clause 1 purports to deal with the unauthorised use of uniforms, falsification of reports, forgery, personation, and false documents, but my right hon and learned Friend leaves us in the old position that anybody who has an official document which is recalled by the Government of the day, and refuses to comply with the order is, under Clause 8, Section 2, which gives the punishment, liable to serve two years' imprisonment. I think that is a very drastic Clause indeed. I take, for instance, the lines 20 to 30 on page 2. They are very drastic indeed. Originally they read that the directions could be issued by any lawful authority. Lord Burnham complained that this might subject them to any soldier, sailor, or policeman, and the Government substituted the words, "by any Government Department or any person authorised by such Department with regard to the return or disposal thereof." I fail to see the protection. The Government might authorise anybody to order the return of any document, and everybody has to be a common informer in this matter. One's servant can go anywhere to see what official documents one has. I have dozens of official documents, mostly secret, and so on. Many are really quite of no value whatever. They have been given me at different times, some of the them by the late Lord Fisher. If hon. Members will read Clause 6 they will see that every person has to become a spy for the Government, otherwise that person is guilty of a misdemeanour. There is no safeguard for the subject of the State. I have read the Act of 1911 which really defines that point, "prejudicial to the safety or the interests of the State." It is clearly laid down that Section 1, Subsection (2) of the 19U Act shall apply to this Bill. What does it say about "safety or interests of the State"? This

  1553
  Section, which is to apply to this Bill, says:
  "On a prosecution under this Section, it shall not be necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, and, notwithstanding that no such, act is proved against him he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the cases, or his conduct, or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State."
  I submit that there is no protection whatever in these words. The learned Attorney-General says it is for the Courts to decide whether it is prejudicial to the interests or safety of the State. He does not realise what sensitive men publicists often are. They are men who bear an unblemished character and would flinch from the idea of having a charge like this made against them which puts them in the same category as spies and people working against the State. Therefore the Government by the same law may lessen very desirable criticism in this country. It is necessary for the real interests of the State that things should be made known in the newspapers, in pamphlets, and so forth. What is the limit that criticism and publicity can go I say it is simply this. You cannot allow people to work in the interests of the enemy or a possible enemy, because in that case the safety of the State is in danger; but the safety of the State is never in danger by real honest criticism. I submit that this Bill will promote secrecy, and secrecy, as we found in the later War, ruins the connection between the Army, the Navy and the people. It also leads to industrial unrest. I came across two quotations which show that. Just before the Revolution in Russia, before the Bolsheviks achieved success the "Times" on 11th November, 1916, published these words of Alexieff, the Russian Commander-in-Chief:
  "A hundred and one things could be safely disclosed. … We are unnecessarily deprived in the Army of a precious bond of union with the nation."
  So far from wishing to establish a maximum of secrecy, the whole object ought to be to establish the minimum of secrecy. And then in regard to industrial unrest. We appointed Commissioners in 1917 to inquire into industrial unrest in the West Midland area, and they reported that
  "the Government have all through been too much afraid of the public; they have not
  1554
  realised how solid and unbroken is the determination to finish the War, and they seem to have been led by a few spasmodic outbreaks and irresponsible utterances to the opinion that there was a dangerous element who might misuse any information it obtained. The result has been that the public has been kept in the dark, not only on military matters, but on matters on which no necessity for secrecy existed."
  I submit to the Government if this Subsection (2) of Clause 1 really stands as it is to-day we will be creating a very much greater evil than before, and I ask my learned Friend what is the position of newspaper proprietors who are in the Government. In France it is a common thing for newspaper men to be in the Government. Such newspaper proprietors as Lord Rothermere, Lord Northcliffe, and Lord Beaverbrook were in the Government, and under this Bill would have been a privileged class in regard to important documents whereas the others will not be privileged; they will be liable either to be searched or arrested in regard to documents, and they may be called upon to deliver up official documents. I do not for one moment doubt the good intentions of the Government, but I look upon this Bill as a Bill which may be enforced by some other Government. Some time after I put down the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne thought it a good Resolution and said he would support it, but I thought that that was not going to recommend it to my own political friends. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne distrusts this Bill because he distrusts the Government. I am not thinking of the Government of the day, but I am thinking when other people come into power and have this Bill to use, and they may use Clause 1, Sub-section 2 in the way which I disapprove of so strongly. It is not the intentions which matter. I believe that Dr. Guillotine's intentions were unimpeachable when he brought in a Bill to alleviate the sufferings of humanity which was used for quite other purposes, and Dr. Guillotine died of a broken heart. It seems to me evident that two Ministers of the Crown have given two totally different interpretations of this Clause. That is a very dangerous state of affairs, and would have to be remedied in Committee.
  Mr. SUGDEN: I listened with amazement to the speech which was made by

  1555
  the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles, more particularly having knowledge of the great responsibility that he carries as leader of a certain section of political thought in this House. I am just a new Back Bencher, but I must support this Bill, as I think any thoughtful man must see its vital necessity. What is the position? Those of us who were combatant officers in the war days knew to what a remarkable extent the enemies of this country had knowledge of the vulnerable and vital parts of our country as the result of the lack of application and the insufficiency of the 1911 Act. If the House will forgive a personal note, I will say that when stricken in the field for the third time, it became necessary for me to have other duties in France. My work became the obtaining knowledge of, and to take observations of, what was obtaining in other enemy countries. I was amazed, in respect to my own native part in Lancashire, more especially the towns of Rochdale and Oldham, to learn how the intricate and peculiarly vital knowledge of those towns was outlined fully by officers in connection with the enemy Powers. Those of us who have knowledge of books, guide books, and books of foreign travel know that other Continental nations have books dealing with the history of our country, its geographical position, with its civic administration, its personnel, and other sections to a remarkable and extra ordinary extent, all acquired through the weakness of Acts and Bills that have been brought before this House dealing with the secrets of our country. I want to say this, that if we as a House of Commons, with proper consideration for the full use of expression of every type of political mind and thought (this must be safeguarded), to the full, free use of the greatest educational factor that we have in this country, namely, the newspaper—for, with one or two insignificant exceptions, the whole of the Press of the country, whatever its political colour, is sound patriotically and proved itself as such during the war days—with these reservations, this type of legislation should be pressed and speeded up to see that what is vital for our existence shall be protected. My complaint is that this Bill—and I pay my tribute to the qualifications
  1556
  of the hon. and learned Gentleman who is one of the finest Attorney-Generals this country has ever had—is not strong enough. Let me take the first Clause, which says:
  "If any person for the purpose of gaining admission, or of assisting any other person to gain admission, to a prohibited place—"
  What is the definition of a "prohibited place?" I ask. The legal definition is very ambiguous, and requires further and clearer definition. Again, the 1911 Act goes on thus:
  "Any work of defence, arsenal, factory, dockyard, camp, ship, telegraph, signal station, or office belonging to His Majesty or any other place belonging to His Majesty."
  When this earlier Bill was debated here in 1911, Sir Rufus Isaacs, as he then was, said, "also to the Crown." But we want to remember that to-day there are secret processes of defence and scientific research in regard to the defence of this country which go on in premises not belonging to the Crown or to any Department of State. Therefore I do suggest that the Attorney-General would be advised to accept an Amendment covering these processes of defence which some of us hope may never be put into operation—that is to say, some of us who have definite and decisive hopes of the usefulness of the League of Nations, but acknowledging our responsibility for the protection of our homeland it is vital that we should be prepared. Hence I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should take cognizance of these processes.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What are they?
  Mr. SUGDEN: Workshops, laboratories, industrial places which deal with the preparation of the defensive and offensive organisation of the country, both naval and military. These are in business premises not owned by the Crown. I should like also to see a wide power given to the Competent Officer, who shall have the opportunity for search. The very essence of this matter is to ensure that search and, if necessary, arrest should go together with the proper protective measures for legitimate criticism, whether oratorical or journalistic. Protection should also be given in the matter of labour organisations, that they may not be prevented from fulfilling their proper functions in the protection of labour, which I believe is loyal, although it may hold a

  1557
  point of view not held by everyone. I suggest that it would be well to remember the record of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leyton (Mr. Malone) who is where he is to-day as a result of a speech that the law officers of the Crown considered was not such as ought to be delivered by a loyal man and a loyal Member of this House. In view of the fact that we may have that type of speech, I suggest that this Bill should be so enlarged as to make it impossible for suggested seditious speeches to be delivered, it may be, by some of the aliens who once again are coming to our shores. I ask the Attorney-General to be good enough to carefully consider the points I have tried to put before him; firstly, in respect to the secret processes; second, in respect to a limit to oratorical exposition; and thirdly, in respect of such powers as may be vital to our national existence, the absence of which might be prejudicial to our protection.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down opened his speech with the remark that if this Bill were carried into law, it would be one of the vital defences of the country. I expected to hear something from him to prove what seemed to be rather a wild assertion. In my judgment, his speech was damaging to the Bill and to the continuance of the espion age system that obtained in this country during the War. The Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) who spoke earlier, suggested that we should have in peace time all, or nearly all, the powers necessary in time of war, and the Noble Lord challenged the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles, as did the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, for saying that the powers in force and in the hands of the Government and the Executive at the commencement of the War were sufficient. On the contrary, what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles did say was, that they were sufficient for times of peace. I contend that the powers at present in the hands of the Government are sufficient for a time of peace. I object wholly to giving to the Executive powers such as are contained in this Bill. It does not concern me what particular Government they come from. I do not object to this Bill because it emanates from the present Government. I object to giving to the Executive, whatever
  1558
  Government may be in power, the extensive and wide powers contained in the measure under discussion.
  The Attorney-General said this was a very short and simple Bill. As various hon. Members have, however, pointed out, it contains much that can hardly be described as simple. I was very glad to hear from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Commander Bellairs) the criticisms that he brought against Section 1, Sub-section (2), of the Bill. He very rightly pointed out how dangerous this would be not only from the point of view of the responsible journalist, but also from the point of view of other individuals. I object to this Section on the ground that it is unfair as between individuals. The hon. and gallant Gentle man pointed out that the Executive to-day may prosecute under this Section the journalist who has been given official documents—we do not know what official documents mean—by, it may be, a particular Cabinet Minister. Similar documents may have been given to other individuals at the same time; and the second, though they were, it may be, given by another Cabinet Minister, will not be subjected to prosecution under this Clause. I am perfectly amazed that the Government should have put Clause 4 into the Bill. It says:
  "Where it appears to a Secretary of State that such a Court is expedient in the public interest he may by warrant under his hand require any person who owns or controls any telegraph cable or wire …"
  to produce to him the original transcript of telegrams. That would allow any Secretary of State to call on the Postmaster-General to produce any telegram in connection with anything whether in relation to offences under this Act or not That at least is as I read the Clause. If, in the opinion of the Secretary of State for War, telegrams are being despatched or received, and it is expedient in the public interest to do so, he—being the judge of what is expedient—may cause these telegrams to be produced. Section 5 is a further deliberate and unnecessary encroachment upon the liberty of the subject. If this Bill were merely designed to tighten up powers in connection with espionage, it ought to be subjected to the closest scrutiny, but some of the additional powers might be necessary. This measure, however, travels outside the powers necessary to deal with

  1559
  spies. I am sorry that an hon. and gallant Gentleman who had a special knowledge of espionage during the War it not present; and there is also another hon. and gallant Gentleman who had a particular knowledge of this question, and he is not here to defend the Government. I am sorry neither of them is present, but perhaps it is better for the Government that they are not present. This measure travels far outside any powers which are necessary for dealing with espionage. At the present time encroachment upon the liberty of the subject appears to be almost as infectious as influenza, and I shall be bound to oppose the Government when this measure goes to a Division.
  Mr. CLYNES: The Bill before the House was submitted in a very brief speech, and I hope we shall hear something more from the Government Bench before we go to a Division, in view of the criticisms which have been offered on this Bill. The hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden) claimed some personal knowledge of the ease with which information was secured for the German service during the later years of the War. I think a reasonable comment upon that revelation is that very little information was in the possession of Germany which was not easily obtainable at any shop in this country. Maps and information useful during times of war are in times of peace easily purchasable, and may be sent from country to country. I know nothing which has been revealed to us which could justify the making of a law so extremely rigid, not to deal with German spies, but to deal with British subjects.
  My hon. Friend intimated that it was a good thing to deal with suggested sedition. We have seen in this House how full of hate men can become because of actions taken or opinions expressed by hon. Members of this House from whom we differ, and it is a harmful thing to arm ourselves with instruments like these powers to deal with a question of this kind. I fear that freedom is gradually diminishing in face of a Bill such as that which is now before us. After all, what can we do in regard to a good or bad cause by legislation of this kind? At most, some individual can be arrested and perhaps imprisoned, and
  1560
  what he has said secures a publicity and a degree of public importance which it would never have got if it had been left alone. The tendency now is to regard opinion as harmful to the State if it does not harmonise with the settled opinions of those who guide the affairs of the State at the head of the Government. I decline to accept that position as being a justification of this measure. I would much prefer to rely on the outlet of even foolish doctrines and extreme utterances than exhibit the feeling which has prompted the Government to bring this Bill before the House.
  What is to be regarded as prejudicial to the State? Opinions are now freely help by many persons connected with two or three political parties in this country which I dare say by the Government would be regarded as prejudicial to the State, and under this Bill, should it become an Act, we have only to repeat or express our convictions to be at once pointed at as criminals and person? putting the State in some position of prejudice with a view to doing it some serious harm. During the War the other place often stood out as the exponent and defender of personal liberty. Many Members of the House of Lords did take a stand fully in keeping with the very best traditions of British liberty. The Bill now before us comes from the other place, and it certainly is not in keeping with the reputation earned during the course of the War.
  I find in this Bill what I regard as a totally new doctrine of law. I am not versed in the law, but I understand that we commonly regard a person innocent until he is proved to be guilty. The terms of this Bill require anybody proceeded against under it to prove himself innocent or else he is deemed to be guilty. Under this measure it would appear that a man may be arrested on the ground of having committed some offence under this Act, and if he does not establish his innocence he is to be regarded as guilty. I am, I think, clearly within the terms of this Bill, when I say that that reversal of British law, not to say common justice, is a step which I hope that this House will not sanction. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that this, on the whole, appears to be a measure more or less on the lines of scare legislation. There may be some exceptional cases for which due provision

  1561
  should be made, but they do not justify so sweeping a Bill as that now before the House. The present powers certainly are stern and extensive, if we are to judge by recent arrests, by some convictions, and by the imprisonment of persons of some note in this country and at the same time of persons more or less obscure. I think the Government would be well advised to rely on the present extent of the law, and not, at this stage of the Session ask the House to give it extensive powers which come so much in collision with the prized liberty of the individual in this country. It is all well for hon. Members who look on the State as having attained such a settled position of permanency in the affairs of the world as never to require any change or modification whatever, with the result that to attempt to modify or alter these conditions would be more or less an offence prejudicial to State interests. But many of us go the length of believing it would be for the good of the land to completely transform many of the conditions and customs upon which the State has been built. If we elaborate our views in strong language, and express them publicly, are we to expose oruselves to the risk of legal proceedings? Is the nation to be attacked in this way by strengthening the arm of the policeman and compelling us to show we are innocent of the crime with which we are charged? I think the Government have made out no case to justify the Second Reading of this Bill, and I trust, therefore, the House will reject it.
  Captain THORPE: An hon. Member congratulated the Government and the world in general that on the occasion when the original laws were given to Moses, there was not present either a barrister or a draftsman. I think it was a matter for congratulation that on the same occasion there was no discussion and no amendments. I must say, as I read this Bill, I can personally see no ground for taking exception to any of the parts which have been attacked to-night. The explanation of the Noble Lords in another place for not attacking it more vigorously was a comment on the very good sense and judgment of the Bill. I have listened to-night to what I consider with perfect honesty is a very poor and very fatuous attack on a very reasonable request of the Government. In my view,
  1562
  the attack on each occasion has been founded on a fallacy. The right hon. Gentleman who first spoke against this Bill suggested that it should have been brought in during a period of war, and that it ought never to have been brought in during a period of peace. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is an optimist. Where is peace? Is it peace to go into the Lobbies of the House and see oneself protected by Scotland Yard detectives and double police patrols? Is it peace to walk along Downing Street and find that even a Member of this House is not entitled to pass through Horse Guards because he may be a dangerous person? There is no peace, and no soft words from the Opposition Bench—no sweet platitudes can make peace. In my view the State is in great danger, and no power which would tend to protect it should be withheld from the Government. We heard something from the same right hon. Gentleman of the liberty of the subject. In my view, the subject has no liberty when it is in conflict with the good-being of the State. When the liberty of the individual conflicts in any way with the well-being of the State, then it becomes license.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Hoch der Kaiser!
  Captain THORPE: This, after all, is a matter of discipline. After the War, when I had the good fortune to be in the Intelligence Service at Cologne, I was amazed at the discipline of the ordinary German citizen suffering, as he was, under most galling defeat at the hands of his enemy. What is at the back of this Bill? I find in the first Clause the words, "purposes prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State." Surely no patriotic person will quarrel with those words. Then in Sub-section (2) I find the words, "retains for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State"; later on, in Clause 4, the words, "Where it appears to a Secretary of State such a course is expedient in the public interest," and later on still, the words, "any proceedings which will be prejudicial to the national safety." These are general terms to be interpreted not by the Attorney-General or by a Judge of the High Court, but by a jury of 12 Englishmen. Are hon. Members afraid of such a body? Are they afraid that a jury would be domineered by the

  1563
  wiles of the Attorney-General, or carried away by the eloquence of one of his devils? Surely any subject may rest assured that he will be perfectly safe if a charge of this kind is made against him in relying on the good judgment and common sense of a British jury, although some hon. Members opposite appear to doubt it. Personally, I would have no hesitation in asking a jury of British subjects to say whether I had, either as a newspaper offender or an editor, or a Cabinet Minister, committed any act prejudicial to the safety of the State. The right hon. Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) said he was not a lawyer. I have the good fortune or misfortune to be one. In referring to Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, where it says that "for the purposes of this subject, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision" a person shall "unless he proves to the contrary, be deemed to have been in communication with a foreign agent," the right hon. Gentleman said that this was a new principle in British law: that it is a new principle that a man should be deemed guilty until he has proved his innocence.
  May I tell him there is nothing new in that? One of the most common instances in criminal law is that of the doctrine of recent possession. If a man is found having in his possession goods which have been lately stolen it is immediately assumed that the onus is on him to prove how he came by them. You assume immediately that he stole them, and the onus is thrown on him of proving how he came by them. You say to him, "We assume that you are a guilty man. These things are found on you, and you have got to prove your innocence." What does this Bill do? It says in so many words that, if it is established that a man has been visiting the address of a foreign agent, either within or without the United Kingdom, or if he has the name or address of, or any other information regarding, a foreign agent, he is immediately regarded as a suspected person, and as a man whose possessions and conduct call for an explanation; and the onus is thrown upon him of proving what his friends were doing, or what was his reason for knowing them. I hope that this Bill will have, the support that it deserves. We are not at peace, and we want special legislation and special
  1564
  powers to deal with emergencies that may arise. Any emergency that is found to be prejudicial should be dealt with quickly and properly. The law-abiding citizen, the man who says that his country is his first consideration, need have nothing to fear whatever from the Clauses of this Bill. My right hon. Friend asked what the State was, and what is to happen supposing that I take a view that this country should be a republic and you take the view that this country should be in a state of absolutism. The answer to my right hon. Friend, surely, is that it is not prejudicial to the State to have different views. Every man in England is entitled to his views. But the State says this, that the minute the application of those views incites to violence, or is likely to cause a breach of common content and discipline, then those views become prejudicial to the State. These are the cases which are dealt with, and which, in my humble opinion, should be dealt with. The patriotic man, who honestly holds his own views, and is prepared to pursue the ordinary constitutional methods of instructing others and to rely on the ballot box, has nothing to fear. The only man who has anything to fear is the man who puts self before country, the man who says, "I want liberty, and the State can look after itself." He is a danger, and I congratulate the Government on the efficient manner in which they propose to deal with him.
  Mr. D. M. COWAN: I am sure that we have all listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down. He has given us a very clear explanation of his view of the case, and has shed a legal light upon it which is of advantage to some of us, at any rate. I am sure that no one in the House would seek to obstruct any legislation which was calculated to assure the safety of the State, but I cannot but feel that this measure is drafted in such fashion that we are not quite sure it will not go beyond assuring the safety of the State, and infringe upon what is really the treasured possession of this realm, that is to say, the liberty of the subject. We have heard from the Attorney-General a statement that there is no fear of that, but still the Bill, as it now stands, seems to me to create what might be termed indefinite misdemeanours. In Subsection (1) of Clause 1 we have a clear statement of what is meant, and the mis-

  1565
  demeanour is there made patent to all, but in Sub-section (2) there is no such clear definition. There we have loose phraseology, such as "any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State." That, of course, would be determined by the Courts. Further down we find the phrase, "when he has no right to retain it," and, after that, "when it is contrary to his duty to retain it." How is a person to determine when he has a right to retain a document, or when it is or is not his duty to retain it. On these matters the holder of any document will be entitled to make up his own mind, and a person who thought that he had the right to any document, and who thought that it was within the competence of his duty to retain it, and even to use it, may find afterwards that he has committed a misdemeanour.
  Further, Clause 6 appears to me to be far too wide. It throws open the door to official interference with perfectly innocent people. It may be, as the hon. and gallant Member has just said, that we are each of us willing to submit ourselves to the judgment of 12 good men and true. That may be so, and the result may be right; but it is not well that people should be in danger of being dragged even before 12 good men and true if there is no absolute occasion for it. Therefore, while I should be very reluctant to vote against this Measure, because I believe its intention to ensure the safety of the Realm to be perfectly honest, I should like to have, if possible, from some Member of the Government, an assurance that they are not too closely wedded to the present wording of the Bill, but will be willing to accept in Committee such Amendments as will make its purpose more definite, and at the same time secure the object in view. I hope that we shall have some such assurance from the Member of the Government who is to reply.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Member for Rusholme (Captain Thorpe) will, I am sure, take no exception to my remarking that his speech might have been taken from the very pages of Treitschke. There were the same glorifications of the State, the same contempt for the liberty of the individual against the State—the whole doctrine that led to the downfall of Prussia and the miserable condition in which Germany is to-day. After what has come and gone in the last six years,
  1566
  to find oneself listening to such a speech in the House of Commons, which is supposed to be the guardian of our liberties, is, honestly, almost like a miracle. I was astonished, and I admire the courage of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he said what was in the mind of the Government themselves in plain, honest words. The learned Attorney-General did not display the same honesty as the hon. and gallant Member for Rusholme, or my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden), or the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). The Government talk about defence against espionage, and means of dealing with foreign spies, but we have heard from these three hon. Members the real intention—the mind—the Geist, if I may use an expression from Treitschke—behind this Bill. If I had any doubts about voting against it, those speeches have confirmed me in my intention to do so. This Bill has been introduced in an atmosphere which is possibly appropriate—barricades in Downing Street, secret police scattered about this very building, the galleries cleared, everyone apparently in a panic—the fear of the people. It started before the wonderful Sinn Fein documents were discovered. It started on Armistice Day this year, when barricades were put up to keep people from seeing the Cenotaph, the monument to their own fallen soldiers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The mind of the Government was displayed there—the fear of the people. On the original Armistice Day nothing much happened, no barricades were put up. Now the Government have—
  Mr. LANE-MITCHELL: Shame!
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is no good the hon. Member opposite saying "Shame." Those barricades were an insult to the people, and a Government that can show its fear of the people in that way is well fitted to bring in this Bill, and deserves the support that it has had. The hon. Member for Royton who, I am sorry to say, is not now in the House, talked a lot about the terrific efficiency of the German espionage system, and shared the admiration of Prussianism that the hon. and gallant Member for Rusholme had. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate he admired the discipline, and the hon. Member for Royton admired the espionage. The espionage methods of

  1567
  the Prussians, however, were contemptible. Their lack of information was simply astonishing. We had very much more information about the German defences than they had about ours. At the beginning of the War we had a complete account of the defences of the Heligoland Bight, and of the vital strategical centres in Germany. I regret that one or two hon. and gallant Members are not here to bear me out. Our Intelligence Service before the War was admirable. The Germans were misinformed entirely. Had they known anything of the defenceless state of some of our naval bases they would have been able to inflict disastrous damage on our fleet at Scapa Flow and in the ports. Prisoners taken from the German submarines told us that the reason they had not made a frontal attack on the main entrances at Scapa Flow and the Forth was that they could not believe we had no secret defences. If the Germans had had any sort of espionage worth one-tenth of the money they spent on it they would have had us in an awkward position indeed.
  Hon. Members who talk about the wonders of the German espionage do not know what they are talking about. They have been misled by scare headlines in the newspapers. The German espionage system was rotten. I can speak, at any rate, of the naval part of it. Ours was infinitely better. This Bill is yet one more example of the creation of fresh offences. The Government, as I remarked the other day, are unique in discovering new crimes that the King's subjects may commit. We have got one or two more new crimes in this Bill. Some hon. Members may welcome these powers. They may say it is alright that any person with the address of a foreign agent shall be guilty of an offence unless he can prove otherwise, and shall receive, two years' hard labour. Perhaps the Attorney-General will correct me when I say that I do not think we are going to have the safeguard of the jury at all, because it says in Sub-section (4) of Clause 8 that the trial at the request of the prosecution may be held in secret. I rather think that means that there is to be no trial by jury. The trial for these misdemeanours will be before a police magistrate, who will pronounce judgment in public, but try in secret. I do not see where trial by jury is going to come in. Have hon. Members observed
  1568
  Sub-sction (5) of Section 8, under which it is provided:
  "Where the person guilty of an offence under the principal Act or this Act is a company or corporation every director and officer of the company or corporation shall be guilty of the like offence unless he proves that the act or omission constituting the offence took place without his knowledge or consent."
  That sort of Clause was inserted in the original Profiteering Act, and if I am not mistaken the Government, in answer to criticism from all parts of the House, took it out. They would be well advised in Committee to drop that Sub-section out of this Bill. The learned Attorney-General told us this is not aimed at the Press. There has been a great deal of criticism in another place and in the newspapers, and of course the Attorney-General would try to counter that if he could. I would like to know at whom it is aimed other than newspaper houses. The little people who keep postes restantes are not companies. The companies are the great newspaper houses of the country, who may have some documents in their possession—as, to quote Lord Burnham, every editor in the country has at one time or another—some document that the transient Government of the day may object to. These are the people who constitute the companies, and these are the people who are to be held guilty under this Act. To bring in a Bill of this kind two years after the so-called peace is asking too much even of this House, and in spite of one or two speeches we have had I hope that this Bill, if it is not rejected on Second Reading, is going to be seriously cut about in Committee. I sincerely hope it will. It is all very well for hon. Members to think it is a good thing to have these extra powers, I believe, and the speeches we have had to-night confirm me, that the Government mean to use this Bill to crush out opinion of which they disapprove. This matter of finding addresses of foreign agents will be extremely useful. Those of us who belong to my party in particular, and who take an interest in the affairs of the colonies and dominions and foreign countries generally, get a tremendous number of letters from abroad. I get all sorts of letters from Switzerland and Spain and so on, and some of them I do not trouble to read. Some of them I never see; my secretary deals with them. But some of these might be found in my house, and they might contain the

  1569
  addresses of foreign agents. Then again, if I had more ability and more oratorical power, the Government might object to my criticism and they could put me away for that sort of thing.
  Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: They would not put you away. You help them.
  9.0 P.M.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for the compliment, but they would if I was more deadly in my criticisms. And if they could not find these things, what is to prevent some unscrupulous secret service official—some member of the corps d'espoinage which is now flourishing at the Home Office—to send to me under cover the address of some foreign agent, and then to search my house next day? This is not quite so far-fetched as some hon. Members may think. The other day a case occurred of an hon. Member of this House. I am not going into the merits or demerits of that case, but documents were produced in evidence which were supposed to have been found in his abode during his absence. Our private houses might be raided, and some unscrupulous police official might go out of his way to make it quite certain that he would find some such document. These secret service men very often are men of low moral character. Anyone who has had anything to do with the Intelligence Departments of the fighting services will bear me out when I say that very often the most successful spies are men that no ordinary person would have anything to do with at all, the sort of people who ought to be in gaol, who live by their skill and quick wits, and who very often are released from gaol for just this sort of work. What is to prevent them, if they have to earn their pay and make their reputation, cooking up a case against anybody objectionable to the temporary Government of the day in that sort of way? Hon. Members who accuse us of not having the welfare of our country at heart because we criticise the temporary Government of the day are under a complete misapprehension. It is because we have an affection for our country and its ancient institutions that we resist all sorts of attempts like this Bill to curtail them. Objecting to the Government of the day is not the same thing as not wishing well of our country, and the sooner Members get to know that the better, because this Bill might
  1570
  be very useful under different circumstances with another Government in power. Let us suppose a Labour or a Socialist government came into power. Such a government might go in for drastic legislation affecting the rights of property and so on. There might be an objectionable Opposition, and in order to get rid of that Opposition—again from the point of view of the good of the State as against the individual Members—they might think it very useful to apply the provision of this Bill to their principal opponents in this House. There are past Members of Governments and Members who have held high position, who have documents in their possession which might be dealt with under Subsection (2) of the first Clause of this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member below me (Major-General Sir Charles Townshend), who has been in command of troops, may have documents of great importance which are now in his possession. The historian, the man who carries out research into historical facts, has again and again been able in the past to extract great truths and facts of great value in history from the private documents kept by ambassadors, Ministers of State, generals and others. Under this Bill, if anyone dares, especially if he is a critic of the Government, to keep any document, which might possibly be construed as confidential or secret, it might be interpreted by some pettifogging bureaucratic in the Office of the Secretary of State as being prejudicial to the transient government of the day.
  That we should be bringing in to-day a. new espionage Bill is a pretty commentary on the state of mind of the present Government and its supporters. It is a nice commentary on the settlement of the world by the Supreme Council that two years after the armistice with Germany we have to bring in a special Bill to deal with espionage. I am not talking about the objectionable features of this Bill, which it is possible to use against the perfectly honest critics of the Government, but I am talking about the purely contra-espionage sections of the Bill, which may be necessary, and I am afraid are necessary. To that part of the Bill I can give my support to the Government, because things being as they are such provisions may be necessary; but it is a pretty commentary on the war to end war, on the great peace that was coming to settle

  1571
  mankind, that two years after the armistice with Germany we have to introduce an even more drastic contra-espionage Bill than the Bill which was brought in in 1911. That is a commentary on the pretensions of the Government in the heat of the War as to what they would do if the country would give them their confidence.
  Mr. SPENCER: This Bill is one more affecting the spirit of the country than having anything to do with the mere machinery of putting an end to espionage. The ostensible purpose of the Bill is to put an end, as far as it is possible and practicable, to the system of espionage. We who have not had a military training cannot understand the very fine, punctilious points that are raised in relationship to diplomacy; but it does seem to us a very strange thing that the Government should be guilty of promoting and assisting the method of secret service for the purpose of collecting foreign information, and at the same time in its own House it should be passing an Act of Parliament to prevent foreign spies coming to this country. One would have thought, even with our limited knowledge, that the better plan would have been to have attempted to have come to some mutual understanding with the countries of the world for the purpose of putting an end to conditions which demand that spies shall be sent from one country to another to gather secret information, either for military or naval purposes. We are alarmed, and so far as this side of the House is concerned, we cannot disabuse our minds of the impression that the real intention of the Bill is not so much to deal with enemy spies, as to deal with the opinions of men in this country at the present time. I think it was Emerson who once said:
  "Difference from me is the measure of absurdity."
  It appears to me that difference from the political opinions of the Government is the measure of offence, and not so much the measure of absurdity. If you dare to differ from the prevailing political opinion in this House it seems to be an offence. Burke said in relationship to the French Revolution that we were at war with an armed doctrine. Burke was alarmed at the spread of ideas at that particular time, and he did his utmost to raise this country into a fever of military ardour
  1572
  for the purpose of stamping out the prevailing opinions and doctrines in France. Nearly all his prophecies have been falsified. The opinions which he sought to stamp out have become assimilated in French life. The point is that they did not harm the French nation as Burke thought they would. In so far as any Government Department conceives the idea of stamping out opinions which men may be holding in this country at the present time, because they happen to be different from the opinions that may be prevailing in this House, it is the worst possible thing that any Government could do, because if you begin to restrict the liberties of men in regard to their expression of opinion, if you begin to suppress their rights, either in speech or in pamphlet or in newspaper, immediately you drive these people into secrecy, and the natural consequences are that opinions which would perish if they are not founded upon morality and justice, and on the great cardinal principles of virtue, will have a tendency to grow and spread in secrecy and in darkness. The condition which gives them force is not the inherent moral force in the opinions themselves, but it is the set of circumstances which is created by secrecy, repression and intolerance which gives to some of these opinions a force and power that they would never have otherwise. If the Government are afraid of some of the prevalent foreign thought, political and economical, if they desire that that thought should be destroyed, the best way to destroy opinion of that character, if it can be destroyed, and if it ought to be destroyed, is by letting it have the utmost daylight, the utmost freedom of expansion. One might quote from a very thoughtful and very learned man somewhere in the New Testament to the effect that
  "If this thing be of God it will certainly live, but if it is not of Him it will perish."
  In relation to foreign opinion, if it is not based on equity, justice and the great cardinal virtues, it will perish of itself, but if it is based on these great cardinal principles, it has a right to live and flourish.
  Some time ago the Secretary of State for War sent out a circular to the Army as to what would be the opinions of the soldiers in relationship to trade unions. A certain journal got hold of that cir-

  1573
  cular and printed it, and it created in labour circles quite a sensation for the moment. What would be the position of that journal, if this Bill were passed, if the paper got hold of a document of that character and dared to publish it? Would it be an offence against the State? Could that journal be dragged into the Law Courts, and would the Court have the right to say that it had published the document whose very publication was a danger to the State, because it might have the effect of making organised labour more discontented, and might lead in some cases to what we call "direct action" and a strike? Could a journal be prosecuted for publishing a document of that description, which in my opinion they were justified in publishing? Because, so far as labour is concerned, the Government will make for contentment and peace in the labour world more by being candid and straight with labour than by seeking in secret to organise forces against labour to defeat them in their honest attempts to improve their position.
  I do not know a single foreign agent. I have never been in contact with one, and I do not know that I want to meet one, but letters come to our home from time to time and they are sent on. Would it be an offence by a Member, if he has in his possession the address of some particular person whom he has never seen, simply because the letter is sent on? There does seem to be that danger in the Bill in Clause 2, Subsection (2):
  "either within or without the United Kingdom the name or address of or any other information regarding foreign agents being found held in his possession."
  A Member of Parliament may receive communications from a foreign agent whom he has never met or seen and it becomes known to the police. He has this in his possession. It might bear a foreign postmark and the postman who delivers the letter might tell the police that he brought a foreign letter to the house of a certain Member of Parliament. The police will have the house searched and if they find that particular letter here is the provision under which he might be held guilty of an offence and dragged before a Court of Law and punished. If that is not the case I shall be delighted to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman when he replies.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. There is no one in this House who has a greater love than I have of personal liberty. During all the years I have been in this House I have always thought, in cases concerning the party to which the hon. Member belongs, that men should have the right to do what they like as long as they do not act against the personal property of someone else. Therefore, if the Bill did all that the hon. Member says it does, I should certainly vote against it. But, looking at the Bill, I doubt very much whether all the terrible effects to which he refers are likely to result. The hon. Member told us that in his opinion the proper way to deal with Bolshevism—he did not use the word, but that was what he meant—was to give it plenty of rope and allow its advocates to preach their pernicious doctrines where they liked and that the good sense of the majority of the people of this country would prevent them from being adopted and that these doctrines would die a natural death. To a great extent I agree with him, but I am not sure that you can carry that principle to too great a length. If there is any attack made on a Royal authority or something of that kind it might be necessary to take strong steps, but I agree that on the whole it is better to allow people to talk seditious nonsense provided they do not go too far, but there is nothing in this Bill which would prevent the hon. Member if he likes from going to Trafalgar Square and dilating on the low wages and long hours of members of trade unions.
  Mr. SPENCER: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 1 and the words "orally or in writing" he will see what I mean.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am not a lawyer, but I do not think that the passage referred to means anything except that if a person has a document and makes a false declaration concerning that particular document or forges another document he shall be punished, and I do not see why he should not be. I do not think that that touches the point raised by the hon. Member. The hon. Member referred to a circular which had been issued by the Secretary of State for War to the troops some years ago. I forget exactly what the circular said, but I know that it gave offence to trade unions. If the

  1575
  hon. Member will look at paragraph (b), Clause 1, he will find the words
  "or having obtained possession of any official document, by finding or otherwise, neglects or fails to restore it to the person or authority by whom or for whose use it was issued."
  I suppose that by straining those words, in the event of a newspaper having an official document and not returning it to the persons or authority by whom it was issued, or to a police constable, it might possibly be held that the newspaper editor was liable to punishment for two years with hard labour. I am not sure that I am right, but I think I am. It would not prevent the newspaper from publishing a document. The defence of the newspaper would be that it found the document or obtained it, "or otherwise." The words "or otherwise" are very vague, and provided they did not obtain the document by bribing some person who had no business to part with it, provided they obtained it from one of the soldiers to whom it was issued, and who handed it over to them, and, having published it, they immediately returned it to a police constable, the matter would end there.
  I would like to congratulate the Attorney-General upon having brought in a Bill which has only one fault—an extraordinary thing for the present Government to do. I remember in the last few- months their having brought in only one Bill with which I could wholly agree. I remember telling a Noble Friend that at last the Government had brought in a good Bill, and I came to the House in great joy, but to my horror they left out the only good part of the Bill. I hope they will not do that now. I can see no objection to any part of this Bill except the four lines I have just read. I think they are a little strong. Supposing I happened to find, on the Floor of the House or in the Lobby, an official document, and I put it into my pocket intending to give to a police constable, but I happened to forget it and did not give it to a police constable. I presume I might be punished with two years' hard labour. I do not know whether the Attorney-General would be sorry if I was absent from my place. I think he probably would be sorry. Therefore he would exercise all his official powers to see that no punishment fell upon me. None the less, I think these words should be amended in Com-
  1576
  mittee. As they can be readily amended in Committee, I shall have very great pleasure in voting for the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Sir G. HEWART: By leave of the House I should like to say a word or two in response to the criticisms directed against the Bill. I am bound to say that I have listened to the discussion with a good deal of interest, and, if surprise were any longer possible, I should add with a good deal of surprise. It has long been so clear that there are those who desire their predictions of evil to be fulfilled rather than have their apprehensions removed, that I cease to be surprised. One remembers the words of Swift about the prophets who predicted his death:
  "They'd rather that the Dean should die Than their predictions prove a lie."
  Critics of the Bill have adopted that attitude of mind to-night. They would rather that the Bill should be as mischievous as they represent it to be than that it should be made plain to them that it is nothing of the kind. I am not in the least complaining of that attitude, but I suggest that when criticisms of this tremendous character are to be made right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, if only for their own protection, should take the trouble to read the Bill. That is exactly what has not happened with our critics here. There was the hon. Member (Mr. Spencer) who regaled us with Burke, Emerson and the New Testament, and actually permitted himself to say that the real intention of the Government in this Bill is to deal, not with spies, but with the opinion of men in this country. One might wonder how it is that those who profess the loftiest sentiments are always willing, or are frequently willing, to impute to their political opponents the greatest dishonesty and meanness.
  Mr. SPENCER: Nothing of that sort was intended.
  Sir G. HEWART: Then the words I suppose were used in a Pickwickian sense. What is the matter with the hon. Member is that he has not taken the trouble to read the Bill.
  Mr. SPENCER: I have read every word of it.
  Sir G. HEWART: Well, the great bulk of the unfavourable criticism has been founded upon Sub-section (2) of Clause 1.

  1577
  After listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) I was a little surprised that such an experienced parliamentary hand as he should have fallen into the error which has beset so many. He said that in his view this Bill had only one fault, that that was limited to four lines, and that those four lines could be rectified in Committee. I think I shall be able to establish to his satisfaction that the Bill has not even that one fault. What was the foundation of that criticism, as it was the foundation of most of the criticisms that came from the Benches opposite? It was that in making these provisions in Subsection (2) of Clause 1 about official documents we were endangering, not merely the Press of this country, not merely individuals who, from generals, admirals and others, might have got into their possession documents which were the property of the Government, but that we were endangering the most harmless persons who had somehow got a document which someone might describe as official, and had kept it. There is only one thing to be said about those criticisms, but it is a serious thing. There is not the slightest foundation for them.
  If my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean), who was talking so eloquently about the strangle-hold of bureaucracy, would condescend to look for a moment at the Bill, I think he would see that there is not the slightest ground for what he said. Everything depends upon the words, "official document," and, as I said, I am prepared, and I intend in Committee, to ask the House to insert, after the word "document" in line 23 of paragraph (c) in Clause (1), Subsection (1), the words "of a similar character." They are not strictly necessary, because, as the words stand, they would be construed as limited to documents of a similar character to those named before, but in order that there may be no doubt we have undertaken to propose the addition of the words, "of a similar character." The words will then read:
  "forges, alters or tampers with any passport or any naval, military, air force, police or official pass, permit, certificate, licence or other document of a similar character, hereinafter in this Section referred to as an official document."
  That is what an official document is. It is a passport, or pass, or permit. The
  1578
  House will observe that the words are "hereinafter in this Section referred to as an official document," not "hereinafter in this Sub-section." When one comes to Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, it is still the same thing:
  "retains for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State any official document,"
  That is a permit, pass, certificate, licence or something of that kind. In other words, a passport may be issued to A B, and it may get into the hands of C D, who is a very different person. C D may retain it, having no right to do so, for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State. The words "official document" have nothing whatever to do with the kind of thing which has been mentioned, such as a circular, a Cabinet paper, a memorandum, or something stamped with a statement that it is the property of His Majesty's Government. They have no relation to that kind of document. We are dealing, and dealing only, with passports, passes, permits, certificates and the like. That is the description of official documents, and it is as clear as words can make it.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I had no intention of interrupting my right hon Friend when he gave way. I simply made a remark to my hon. Friend on the Bench beside me. Since he has given way I will state what was in my mind.
  Sir G. HEWART:: I was not inviting the right hon. Gentleman to make another speech. I thought he made a particular remark.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: What I said was, "That was not, I thought, in the Bill." I specifically stated in my speech that if the proposal was confined solely to Subsection (1) of Clause 1, I did not see much objection to the Bill. I said quite clearly it was because of the words of Subsection (2) and their general application that I objected to the Bill. It is a matter of relief to me to know that is not my right hon. Friend's intention; but it is not in the Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I overlooked the words to which my right hon. Friend has referred, and they remove my objection.
  Sir G. HEWART: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles says the

  1579
  words are not in the Bill, I would refer him to Sub-section (1) (c), which says, "hereinafter in this Section referred to as an official document." That is what is described in paragraph (c) which deals with passports, passes, permits, certificates, licences or other documents "hereinafter referred to as official documents." The mischief which is aimed at is the mischief of somebody finding or getting or wrongfully keeping a passport or permit which would admit to certain places, and which might be used for purposes prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State. The scope of the Clause is limited to that.
  Having said that I think I have really answered a very great deal of the criticism which has come from various quarters. May I refer particularly to the questions put by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer), who said that the real intention of this Bill was to interfere with opinion. He asked what would happen to a newspaper which got a circular about trade unions. This Bill has nothing to say to that.
  Mr. SPENCER: I did not say about trade unions. I said a report by the Secretary of State for War to his troops.
  Sir G. HEWART: This Bill has no relation to that at all. The same hon. Member asked what would follow if there happened to be in his correspondence a letter from a foreign agent, and he referred me to a Sub-section of Clause 2. With great respect may I say that one cannot understand a Clause in a Bill by reading three or four lines of it. One must begin at the beginning, and if he looks at Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 he will see these opening words:
  "In any proceedings against a person for an offence under Section One of the principal Act."
  The offence is that of approaching for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State a prohibited place, or making any sketch, plan, model or note calculated to be or intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy. The mere fact that the hon. Member had in his possession a letter from someone who was a foreign agent would be of itself, so far as this Bill is concerned, immaterial. But in a prosecution, if he were prosecuted, for going to a dockyard or arsenal or pro-
  1580
  hibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, it would be material to show that he had that letter in his possession, as something ancillary to the offence mentioned in Section 1 of the principal Act.
  I do not suppose that there are any further criticisms I have to deal with. All the wild talk that we heard about this Bill being directed against opinion and against criticism falls to the ground when once hon. Members take the trouble to read the definition of the term official document. But, it was said, because under this Bill trials may take place in camera, it follows that the accused is not to have the benefit of trial by jury. That, again, with great respect, is a complete misunderstanding. Clause 8, Sub-section (4), provides:
  "In addition and without prejudice to any powers which a Court may possess to order the exclusion of the public from any proceedings if, in the course of proceedings before a Court against any person for an offence under the principal Act or this Act or the proceedings on appeal, or in the course of the trial of a person for felony or misdemeanour under the principal Act or this Act, application is made by the prosecution, on the ground that the publication of any evidence to be given or of any statement to be made in the course of the proceedings would be prejudicial to the national safety, that all or any portion of the public shall be excluded during any part of the hearing, the Court may make an order to that effect, but the passing of sentence shall in any case take place in public."
  The House is well aware that every Court has an inherent right to hold its proceedings in a proper case in camera, and all that this Clause says is that, in addition to that inherent right, it may be a ground for holding these proceedings in camera that the prosecution alleges that the publication of evidence to be given or any statement to be made would be prejudicial to the national safety. That has nothing whatever to do, and is not in the remotest degree connected, with the question whether or not there is to be trial by jury. Under the Incest Act, trials for that offence must take place in camera, but they always take place before a judge and a jury, and the question whether or not the proceedings are in camera is not in any degree whatever related to the question whether there shall be a jury or not.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the next Sub-section?
  Sir G. HEWART: Certainly. It says:
  "Where the person guilty, of an offence under the principal Act or this Act is a company or corporation, every director and officer of the company or corporation shall be guilty of the like offence unless he proves that the act or omission constituting the offence took place without his knowledge or consent."
  What does that mean? The law recognises two classes of persons, the real person, the living individual, and the artificial person, or company. It may be that the offence was committed by a company, and the question arises as to who is to be held responsible. This Bill says, as many other Bills have said, that in such circumstances we shall hold the directors and officers responsible
  unless they can show that they are not. We are not going to be foiled by the difficulty that we have not got a living person, but an artificial person, called a corporation. I venture to think, when this Bill is looked at fairly, without prejudice, and with the desire of ascertaining what it really does mean, and not with the desire of ascertaining that it means something tremendous which has no relation to it at all, that it will be found to be a Bill which deserves a Second Reading by this House.
  Question put: "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 34.

  Division No. 381.]

  AYES.

  [9.49 p.m.

  Addison. Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Mosley, Oswald

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Neal, Arthur

  Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Atkey, A. R.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Parker, James

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

  Barlow, Sir Montague

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Prescott, Major W. H.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Pulley, Charles Thornton

  Barrie, Charles Coupar

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Purchase, H. G.

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Remer, J. R.

  Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H (Devizes)

  Hinds, John

  Renwick, George

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Hood, Joseph

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Brown, Captain D. C.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Seager, Sir William

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Stevens, Marshall

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

  Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

  Sugden, W. H.

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

  Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

  Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Lonsdale, James Rolston

  Waring, Major Walter

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)

  Lorden, John William

  White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Donald, Thompson

  M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.

  Whitla, Sir William

  Doyle. N. Grattan

  M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

  Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

  Edge, Captain William

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

  Mallalieu, F. W.

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

  Wise, Frederick

  Foreman, Henry

  Mason, Robert

  Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Mitchell, William Lane

  Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Moles, Thomas

  Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Gardiner, James

  Morden, Colonel H. Grant

  Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Dudley Ward.

  NOES.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Cape, Thomas

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Graham, R. (Nelson and-Colne)

  Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Hayday, Arthur

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Kenworthy, Lieut. Commander J. M.

  Sexton, James

  Wignall, James

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothian)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer, George A.

  Morgan, Major D. Watts

  Swan, J. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

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

  Mr. G. Thorne and Major Barnes.

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.]

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1920–21.
      (CLASS 2.)

        MERCANTILE MARINE SERVICES.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £150,905, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund, and other services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions and Grants to the General Lighthouse Fund and other Lighthouse and Harbour Authorities."
        10.0 P.M.
        The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Horne): The sum of £150,905 in this Vote is made up of a small number of items which I am going to explain seriatim. The first item is a sum of £5,700 for an increase in salaries, wages, and allowances. There has been, in the course of the last few years, an investigation into the salaries of people who are carrying on the business of the Board of Trade in relation to the merchant services. The revisal of these salaries has shown that in some cases people were paid at a rate which was not really relative to the present type of salary which people in most services are getting, and as it is necessary that we should have a reliable body of people in whom the Department have confidence, it is necessary that you should pay them the market rate, or as nearly as you can to the market rate, at which other people are being paid. Most of the revisals took place in accordance with the Civil Service Arbitration Board's recommendation,
        1584
        and, in the result, to a certain extent the service was cut down, and to a certain extent salaries were increased. The total came out at £5,700 more than we had given in the previous year's Estimate. The second item is for £2,865 in respect of memorial scrolls, and plaques for the Mercantile Marine. I am sure the Committee will agree that it was very appropriate that some commemoration of the great services rendered by the Mercantile Marine should be given to widows and dependants of those who lost their lives in our service during the War. In accordance with the scheme, there is sent to each of the dependants of any man who lost his life in our Mercantile Marine a bronze plaque, together with a scroll, which commemorates the service in which he lost his life. The scroll has been approved by His Majesty, and, indeed, the whole scheme was based upon a suggestion which the King made. I am perfectly certain the Committee will not want to question that item in this Vote.
        The third item is connected with the North Atlantic Ice Patrol. It may be within the knowledge, of the Committee that, after the disaster to the "Titanic," an International Convention was entered into for the purpose of keeping the trade routes of the Atlantic clear of ice. The services, as a matter of fact, were performed by the United States, but a contribution was made by the various other States which entered into the Convention. The sum is more for us at the present time, owing to the failure of some of the States to contribute, as one can readily imagine, and the sum we have to pay at the present time is £8,960. The reason why this sum did not appear in the original Estimate was that, during the War, the whole system was in abeyance, while after the War the scheme once again came into operation. Through inadvertence, it was not estimated for when the original Estimates were made up, but, of course, we are under an obligation, and, indeed, for our own interest we would wish, to pay our share of the duty of keeping these trade routes clear of ice.

        1585
        The next item is one of £2,600 which, like the first item to which I referred, is the result of a revisal of the salaries of surveyors employed by the Board of Trade who examine ships to see that they arc safely constructed and all other matters connected with the investigation which the Board of Trade have to perform towards the mercantile marine. These increases, for the most part, were recommended under the Arbitration Board's recommendation in connection with the Civil Service, and such others as there are were approved by the Treasury. The item which is lettered "U" is a sum of £5,000 commission to Consuls, exchange, and incidentals. The Committee will remember that our Consuls throughout the world, when sailors come into the various ports, have to keep sums which they wish to deposit when they arrive, and they have to be remitted home from time to time by the Consul. By reason of the great fluctuation in exchange, of which the Committee is aware, there has been a very considerable variation in the commissions to which the Consuls are entitled. It is this extraordinary fluctuation in the exchange which is responsible for our failure accurately to estimate the amount of the commission to which the Consuls are entitled. Therefore, you have this increase of £5,000.
        The next item is one of £123,000 for fares of merchant seamen. This amount I am sure is an item which the Committee will not begrudge. In the first place, it represents what has to be paid to sailors who are brought into a port of disembarkation to which they would not ordinarily arrive and their fares are paid to their homes. In the next place, as a further concession—and if my memory serves me rightly it is the same concession given to soldiers—when a sailor who on arrival at port has a journey to make to reach his home he was allowed to make the journey at pre-War rates of travel, the Government undertaking to meet the difference between the pre-War rate and the subsequent rate. I ought to tell the Committee that this system has now come to an end, but £123,000 represents what has to be paid until the system did come to an end—I think from April, 1919, to July, 1920.
        Mr. HOGGE: November, 1920; page 9.
        Sir R. HORNE:It is the 1st April, 1919, to the 31st October, 1920. I think I am
        1586
        perfectly right about the date. That concession is now withdrawn. The amount is one which was not estimated for because indeed it could not. Nobody could say precisely during what time this concession would be granted and what the amount would probably be. That is the explanation of the sum of £123,000. With regard to the last item in the Supplementary Estimate, a sum of £2,780 for removal of the Dundee harbour wreck, the circumstances under which that sum had to be paid were these: A certain ship was damaged by a mine and came into the estuary of the Tay, where she sank and became dangerous to navigation. She lay within the jurisdiction of the Dundee Harbour Commission. When representation was made to the Board of Trade that they should perform the duty of removing this wreck, it was pointed out to the Harbour Commissioners that she lay within their jurisdiction and it was their duty to remove her. The Dundee Harbour Commissioners pressed the matter, urging very strongly that it was as a result of an act of war that this vessel came into the estuary injured and sank. The Board of Trade maintained that if they were to satisfy all these claims they would be removing wrecks all round the coast and it was an obligation of liability which they could not undertake. Ultimately, as a matter of concession, they agreed, not recognising any liability, to pay a third of the sum which it cost to remove this obstruction and the third of that sum is represented by the figure of £2,780 in the Supplementary Estimate. I hope these explanations will be satisfactory to the Committee.
        Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: The right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the item of £8,960 in respect to the North Atlantic Ice Patrol that this was a danger to other countries. Will he explain to the House why we are liable to pay this money because other countries have defaulted?
        Sir R. HORNE: The whole situation is this: We are the greatest seafaring nation in the world, and if any nation has an interest in keeping the seas clear, it is the British nation. If any sum has to be paid undoubtedly we shall not fail to do our duty in the matter. The reason why we have to pay more is because there are fewer contributions at the present time. Russia, Germany, and Austria have fallen

        1587
        out, and difficulties have arisen in obtaining payment from them. It has resulted in America and Britain and the other signatories to the Convention paying more than they would ordinarily have done.
        Mr. HAYDAY: I do not desire to offer keen criticism of the Estimates, but I do want to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the Committee to what I consider to be a very low amount, £2,865, allotted for memorial scrolls and plaques for the dependents of those unfortunate seamen who lost their lives in the Merchant Service during the War. Incidentally I want to say I do not think there has been sufficient credit given to the men who served in the Merchant Service during that period under conditions such as perhaps no other body was called upon to undergo, and to the very unsatisfactory treatment ultimately meted out to them. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will kindly give some additional information as to the total number of merchant seamen who lost their lives during the War period and the number of scrolls and placques already issued, if any at all, and whether it is not proposed to do something even further and to see whether in cases of distress or special cases of hardship amongst the dependents some other provision cannot also be made. I have in my mind—I can speak with some little authority on the Merchant Service—the arrangements that existed during the War period by the insurance companies. I believe the Board of Trade and the Shipping Board, where a seaman met with death while serving in the Merchant Service during the War period, dealt with him on the same lines as industrial workmen losing their lives in industry in the country, that is, the Workmen's Compensation Act was made to apply. No special provisions for the special risks undertaken by the merchant seamen were made, which went against the dependents. Members of the Committee will realise that many of these seamen before being finally sent to the bottom had been shipwrecked on two or three occasions. They had to get new outfits, and often had to pay fares, and in consequence were unable to make regular allowances to the dependents and parents who were left at home. When this final settlement of the Workmen's Com-
        1588
        pensation Act was taken in hand we were called upon to state what was the amount contributed by the deceased to the home. That amount necessarily fell short of what otherwise would have been the case had not the circumstances of the seaman's life intervened.
        We ought to remember that many of these men were 20 feet below the water-line, and that their risks were much greater than anything that can be imagined. If £2,800 represents the full recognition to the dependents of these gallant men and women—for there were many stewardesses on board—of the mercantile service, then I think some further consideration should be given, and something tendered more commensurate with the circumstances of the case. My criticism is, therefore, that there has not been sufficient provision made for merchant seamen and the mercantile service as a whole. I feel sure no one would complain of the £123,000; indeed, I cannot anticipate the greatest exponent of economy in this House objecting. Vessels were diverted from their original ports, and the seaman never knew when he went on board what port he would disembark at, and therefore it is only fair and reasonable to suppose that he should be given such facilities as were possible to reach his home, or the nearest port to it. Generally speaking, while I feel that the items cannot be questioned, because they are beyond the control of the right hon. Gentleman—I refer to the increase in salaries which I suppose are the usual bonus allowances permitted by the Treasury—I do ask that he may give some little attention to this item of £2,800.
        Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £100,000.
        I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question in regard to the first item, the increase of salaries by £5,700. I understood him to say that this was the result' of the previous year's mis-Estimate. If it is a miscalculation in this year's Estimates—
        Sir R. HORNE: I gave the reasons why these amounts had increased.
        Sir F. BANBURY: I understood it was in connection with the previous year's Estimate. Then in regard to Item D2 (Memorial Scrolls and Plaques for the-Mercantile Marine), £2,865, it would

        1589
        appear to me that this has nothing to do with the case raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hayday). That hon. Gentleman said, quite truly, that the merchant seamen had during the War, undergone great risks. No one denies that. Everyone admits that the House and the country owe a great debt of gratitude to the merchant seamen, and they owe a debt of gratitude to the Army and the Navy. Nobody questions that. But I would point out that the matter with which we are now dealing comes within the period ending 31st March of next year. Therefore we are beginning with a period at 18 months after the Armistice, which was practically the declaration of Peace, and, therefore, whatever ought to have been done has apparently been done, and if it has not special legislation will be required and the matter should not be brought in on an Estimate of this sort. Further, as to the scrolls. They are merely a memento to be handed down in the family to show that a member of the family had done his best to serve his country. This is not a question of giving the dependants something because these men have lost their lives, but it is some little memento to keep in their houses, in order that their children may know what has taken place. With regard to the North Atlantic Ice Patrol, I understand that owing to Russia having become Bolshevik, and therefore not being able to carry out her engagements, and Austria and Germany not having got any money for this purpose, we have to share in making up the deficiency. I understand, however, that America has taken her share of this deficiency, and therefore I have nothing to say about this Vote.
        I will deal now with the item of £123,000 for fares of merchant seamen. Before I come to my objection, I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon having put this amount into the Vote, because the practice of the Government has hitherto been not to charge the different Departments with the services rendered by the railway companies, but simply to lump it up in the deficiency or surplus of the railway companies, so that when the Estimates appear before the House they were not true and correct Estimates. Officials, passengers, and goods were sent over the railway lines, and instead of being debited to the accounts of the Departments concerned, they were lumped together in the general Railway Accounts, and nobody knew
        1590
        which Department had spent the money. Therefore, I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon having put this item into the Supplementary Estimates. I hope that all other similar amounts will appear not only in his Estimates but in the Estimates of other Departments. Now I come to the item itself of £123,000 for fares of merchant seamen. This sum is for
        "Provision for payments to railway companies in connection with the concession to merchant seamen to travel to their homes at pre-War fares. This concession was withdrawn from 1st November, 1920."
        A question was asked a few moments ago as to which period this sum related to, and my right hon. Friend said it was a period from the 31st October, 1919, to the 31st October this year.
        Sir R. HORNE: April, 1919.
        Sir F. BANBURY: Then the period is April, 1919, to the 31st of October this year. That is my objection. If this period started from April, 1919, why was it not in the original Estimates presented to this House in March this year. It should not have been left over and placed in a Supplementary Estimate covering about 18 months. That, I think, is wrong. I would point out that this occurred long after the War. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us who are these merchant seamen. I understand them to be men who are in the employ of private ship owners and of shipping companies. If that is right, why should we, so long after the War, be asked to impose on the British taxpayer a charge which should be borne by the shipowners and shipping companies? Surely, if these seamen have been for the last year and a half in the employ of these private people, the bur den should be borne by these employers, rather than by the State. Ship owners have made very large profits during the War, and they, and not the State, should bear this burden. Why should I put my hands in my pocket to pay a charge which should fall on men who have made big profits during the War—a thing which I have not done myself. I am not de preciating the great services rendered to the country by these seamen. They were well paid—
        Mr. HAYDAY: It was a night and day risk.
        Sir F. BANBURY: I quite appreciate that. But these payments refer to a period after the War and I fail to see why we should pay the charge when it is the duty of the shipowners and of the shipping companies to look after there own employés—I will not call them their servants. Unless the Government can justify this Vote I shall feel it right to go to a Division against it. In order to get an explanation I move a reduction of the whole Vote by £100,000.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think I can satisfy the right hon. Baronet. I take it that he agrees that ships were diverted all over the place, and that it was only fair to help the men back to their homes. The shipowners have protested vehemently against this system of control, and I think they are quite right. I am only talking now about the working of control as it affected shipping, and it has been disastrous. Some ports have been empty while others have been congested, and that is the reason why the payment has been kept up.
        Sir F. BANBURY: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, I have always been against all control, and I still am, but I cannot help thinking that, although the shipowners may well have wished to be without any control, they have not suffered much.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I agree that the shipowners have not done badly, but in cases which have been brought to my notice the control has been worked extremely badly, and the seamen have been hit in this way, so that I think it is fair and reasonable to keep up this concession in regard to fares; and, as neither the shipowners nor the seamen wanted control, I think it is only fair that we should foot the bill.
        I wish to make three remarks on three items in the Estimate. The first is on Item A, on the question of the outdoor officers of the Mercantile Marine Office staff. I see that Sub-section (iii) of Item A refers to the retention of the temporary staff necessitated by continued pressure of work. That may be justified, but this Mercantile Marine Office staff, which performs very useful work at the ports, includes a certain number of officers who were taken over from the local port authorities when the Board of Trade took this service over under an Act of
        1592
        Parliament, I think some 20 or 30 years ago. These original officers are treated differently from those appointed later, not as regards their pay, but as regards pensions, and they cannot get any definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether they are to receive pensions or not. I have written to him on the matter, and he has sent me very courteous replies, but I have not been able to get anything very satisfactory on behalf of these men. It is only a small matter, but it seems to me that, if we could do away with some of that temporary staff and apply the money saved to the formation of a pension fund for these old officials, who have borne the heat and burden for many years, it would be only justice. I would request my right hon. Friend to look into that matter. It is a small matter, but it is one that affects people who are held in great esteem in the ports, for they have done great services. With regard to "D 2—Memorial Scrolls and Plaques," I cannot refrain from saying this. We have had a lot of eulogy of the services of the Mercantile Marine, but their dependents have had the greatest difficulty in getting their just dues from the State. They are referred to the Admiralty, from there to the Ministry of Shipping, from there to the Board of Trade, from there to the Ministry of Pensions, and so on. Any Member who has a number of mercantile marine constituents will bear out this, I am sure, that it is extremely difficult to get the compensation and pensions to which the widows and dependents of the men who have actually lost their lives are entitled.
        We are voting £2,865 for memorial scrolls and plaques. Whatever sentimental value may be attached to them, I think we ought to see that the pensions due to these widows are paid. I do not complain of the methods of the President of the Board of Trade, for he is always exceedingly courteous in his replies to me when I write about these poor people; but I have a case now of an unfortunate ship's captain who went through the Dardanelles campaign, and who has been partly unfitted by his exposure and sufferings there, but he cannot get from the Admiralty or the Board of Trade, or his own shipowners, any compensation, and his wife and dependents are suffering heavily. The Government gave the most solemn pledge during the War that the

        1593
        dependents of these men would be looked after by the State.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I do not see how that arises on the Vote we are discussing.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My point is this. We are voting £2,865 for plaques which have only a sentimental value, but if the Government do not insist on doing their duty by the widows themselves this money might be better expended. There is great sentimental value in these plaques and scrolls, but a little practical sympathy would be better. The Prime Minister gave the most specific pledges on this point, and they have not been kept. My last remark is with regard to Item E 1—The North Atlantic Ice Patrol. This ought not to be here at all. When we dispose of the heavy reduction moved by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, I propose to move a reduction on this item. It ought to be on the Foreign Office Vote, and it ought to be undertaken by the League of Nations. It is the very sort of work the League of Nations could and should undertake. My right hon. Friend will say certain nations who ought to take a share and pay for a share in the Ice Patrol are not in the League of Nations.
        Sir R. HORNE: I was not going to make that remark.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is the remark I made.
        Sir R. HORNE: That, of course, commends it to me.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If this could be put on the League of Nations it is a matter with which they could occupy themselves. Unless I get a good explanation from the Board of Trade in this matter, I am going to move that this be taken off this Vote and put on the Vote of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. If it has not been transferred by now, this Ice Patrol ought to be transferred. I do not make these criticisms in any hostile spirit.
        Mr. C. BARRIE: There is one item on which I should like a little more explanation. On item "U" there is £5,000 for additional loss by exchange incurred on remittances to this country by officers abroad. It seems an extraordinary lack
        1594
        of business capacity on the part of the consuls abroad that, knowing the state of the exchanges, they should have been so remiss as to leave money lying about the consulates and failing to remit it, with the result that there has been a loss of £5,000. I presume that there must have been more loss, because this is "additional" loss. With respect to item. "Z," Dundee Harbour wreck removal, £2,780, the Government have got very well out of it. The Board of Trade is to be congratulated on getting off with such a small sum. I am not a Member for Dundee, but I have been an old member of the Dundee Harbour Board, and I think the Harbour Board should have had a larger sum. This should have been covered as a war risk and yet the Board of Trade get off with £2,780, while at the present time the Dundee Harbour Board have before them claims amounting to something like £500,000 sterling. With regard to item "XI," "Fares of merchant seamen," one of the reasons for this amount of £123,000 is that ships were diverted all over the country. They were taken off their regular routes, and the seamen wished to leave vessels at the out ports and travel home, and it was considered a natural concession made to them to travel home at pre-War fares, considering the great work which merchant seamen did during the War. The reason for diverting these ships was that the warehouses at the ports were full and the railways were glutted with the result that vessels had to be diverted to other ports where the cargoes could be discharged, and also that railway haulage from one part of the country to the other might be saved. As a shipping man I should like to make that explanation.
        Sir F. BANBURY: The greater part of this is for this year. All this could not happen this year. The hon. Member is one of those fortunate people who are connected with shipping. He has not done badly, therefore he ought to pay his share of this particular item.
        Mr. BARRIE: At the same time, we cannot fill ports and warehouses in a few months. The warehouses of London at present are absolutely blocked with goods. The same thing applies all over the country. I have no doubt that at those ports that were idle the Ministry of Labour, and other Departments, were very anxious to see the men employed.

        1595
        That is why the ports got blocked up and the ships had to be diverted.
        Mr. REMER: I am sorry that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend in reference to item Z.1, payment to the Dundee Harbour Trust, as to which we are entitled to further explanation. I do not suppose that there is a single harbour in the whole United Kingdom which has not a similar case. There are about half a dozen to my knowledge with wrecks in the harbour ways, caused by a similar kind of enemy action It seems to me that if you admit this claim by Dundee Harbour, you open the door to a whole series of similar claims by harbour trusts in other parts of the country. I understand that there has been considerable litigation in that case, and there are very large claims against this particular harbour trust amounting to something like £500,000, owing, it is alleged, to these wrecks having been wrongly located by the harbour people. We are entitled to further explanation as to whether the wrong location of that wreck was the fault of the Government or officials of the local harbour board.
        Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: In reference to D 2, memorial scrolls and plaques for the mercantile marine, it should be made clear by those of us who know that great value is placed on these memorials by the widows and mothers of the fallen. It is impossible for the State in any way to recompense them for what they have suffered, but these memorials are something which they and their families can hold to show what their closest and most valued relatives have done for our nation in the War. In reference to Item J 1 in which there has been an increase, I would ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade what were the figures for this amount in pre-War days? I would like to know what steps have been taken to see that in due course the amounts which are to be paid by other nations shall be paid as soon as possible. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) mentioned that the North Atlantic Ice Patrol should be paid for by the League of Nations. I have the greatest respect for the League of Nations and am an optimist regarding it, but I would like to know whether this is yet another method invented by the hon. and gallant
        1596
        Gentleman for throwing ridicule on the League. How are you going to persuade a country like Switzerland to contribute to the League for the purpose" of a North Atlantic Ice Patrol?
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Swiss subjects travel by sea, and I am sure Switzerland would be quite willing to subscribe.
        Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: No doubt they would do their best, but this is a matter dealing solely with the mercantile marine. I would like to say how much I appreciate the very valuable work done in connection with the Dundee Harbour Wreck Removal in not allowing more money to come out of the public purse to subsidise a particular Scottish locality.
        Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can enlighten us further with regard to the duties of the Atlantic Ice Patrol. He nodded acquiescence to a statement that it was to keep the sea clear of ice. Knowing somehing of the size of the Atlantic icebergs I must express astonishment at the small amount, of the Vote. With regard to the item dealing with the railway fares of merchant seamen, I agree with the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that it ought to have been in the original Estimate. There have been two or three suggestions as to the reason. I would add another suggestion. It is that this was a privilege granted, quite rightly, to the merchant seamen during the War, when they were put more or less on the same footing as the men in khaki. Probably the privilege was forgotten and allowed to continue until the Department was brought up with a round turn by receipt of the bill from the Ministry of Transport. Another theory is that it has been continued deliberately, in which case I suggest that it is nothing more nor less than an insult to the soldier, who, when he came home from France and was demobilised, found a similar privilege withdrawn in his case.
        Sir R. HORNE: The main element of criticism to which attention has been directed has been the item of £123,000, which has been paid in respect of the travelling concessions to merchant seamen. Undoubtedly, that concession was originally given to merchant seamen because, in point of fact, the merchant seamen belonged to the fighting forces

        1597
        of the country. The seaman has been put in the same category as the soldier in many respects, and I do not think anyone can suggest that he did not deserve it. The last speaker referred to the fact that the soldier, after demobilisation, no longer enjoyed these privileges. You cannot say at what point merchant seamen became demobilised. As everyone knows, shipping in this country was dislocated for a very long time after the War, and the difficulty was to determine the precise point at which such a concession should no longer be granted. I am perfectly certain the Committee is not generally of a mind to question the concession, even although it may have been continued for a short space longer than that at which, perhaps, it might have been possible to have stopped it. As to the item not appearing in the original Estimate, I quite admit that was a valid criticism, and I say quite frankly that some amount of this sum ought to have been foreseen and provided against. It was difficult to understand the complete extent of the negotiations or that the shipping of this country would still be kept in the hands of the State for a much longer period after the Armistice than anybody anticipated. With regard to the ice patrol, the last speaker must not assume that £8,760 represents the whole payment. Originally we paid 30 per cent, of the cost of this patrol, but now, since other countries have dropped out, we pay 38 per cent. The sum here does not represent the whole of the amount of the service. I readily assent to what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) and the hon. Member who spoke first, as to the obligations we owe to the widows and dependants of the merchant seamen. This granting of a plaque and scroll, I am sure, is something which is pleasing to those who receive it, and I do not think anybody grudges the expenditure for that purpose. The Committee will remember that compensation is paid to widows and dependants. I am quite certain there are cases in which hardship is suffered, and which is not remedied so readily as it ought to have been. The hon. and gallant Member has brought cases of that kind to my notice from time to time, and I always do my best to have them looked into and to have the proper concession granted at as
        1598
        speedy a rate as possible. I do not think there is any other point to answer, and I hope the Committee will grant me this amount now, because I understand it is for the convenience of the Committee that this matter should be concluded to-day.
        Amendment negatived.
        It being Eleven of the dock the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
        Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
        Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  LITTLE LONGSTONE CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
  Considered in Committee; Reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  ROADS [CONSOLIDATED FUND],
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of a sum equal to the proceeds of the duties on licences for mechanically-propelled vehicles and for carriages and of all other sums paid into the Exchequer under any Act of the present Session to make provision for the collection and application of the Excise duties on mechanically-propelled vehicles and on carnages; to amend the Finance Act, 1920, as respects such duties; and to amend the Motor Car Acts, 1896 and 1903, and the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909: and to make other provision with respect to roads and vehicles used on roads, and for purposes connected therewith.—(King's recommendation signified)—Tomorrow.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT. GREECE.—ALLIES' ACTION.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can give the House any information with regard to the position in Greece?
  Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am glad at the earliest possible opportunity to give the House a decision which was arrived at to-day by the representatives of the Governments of France, of Italy, and of Great Britain. It was decided to send a communication, which has now been forwarded, to the Greek Government in the following terms:
  "The British, French, and Italian Governments have constantly in the past given proof of their good will towards the Greek people, and have favoured the attainment of their secular aspirations. They have therefore been all the more keenly surprised by the events which have just occurred in Greece. They have no wish to interfere in the internal affairs of Greece, but they feel bound to declare publicly that the restoration to the Throne of Greece of a king whose disloyal attitude and conduct towards the Allies during the War caused them great embarrassment and loss could only be regarded by them as a ratification by Greece of his hostile acts. This step would create a new and unfavourable situation in the relations between Greece and the Allies, and in that case the three Governments reserve to themselves complete liberty in dealing with the situation thus created."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will make some explanation of this message at a later date, and give this House an opportunity of discussing this matter, which is of first-rate importance? I heard it stated in one of the Committees upstairs that there is some talk of adjourning for a few days while waiting for Bills to come down from another place, and I think, rather than do that, we ought to give at least a day for the discussion of this situation.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. and gallant Member need not, I think, be under any excessive anxiety as to the probability of an adjournment. I think he can rest in moderate comfort with regard to that particular. As regards the general question, I think this message is quite plain. "We begin by saying that we have no intention of interfering with the in-
  1600
  ternal affairs of Greece, but it is obvious, I think, to every member of the House that what has happened, on the assumption that King Constantine should return, has created a new situation, which, if the event arises, will then be considered by the Governments concerned in the light of events.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I would, with the permission of the House, ask my right hon. Friend this question. The statement he has made is one of first-class importance, as the House realises, and after a day or two, when it is possible to see the situation more in perspective than is at the present possible, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not refuse an opportunity for a discussion, if that is thought advisable, on the general situation thus created.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Most certainly. I do not think the announcement which I have made is in itself a reason for discussion, but obviously, as the situation develops, if there is any desire in the House for a discussion, we shall certainly arrange it. I wish at once to remove what may be a misunderstanding in the minds of hon. Members. This declaration begins by the statement that we do not intend to interfere with the internal affairs of Greece. That obviously means that if the Greek people choose to take a step which this country would deplore, we and the Allies would have no intention whatever to resort to hostile action in the sense of force to prevent them carrying out their object.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. HOGGE: Might I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to tell us the order in which the Supplementary Estimates are to be taken to-morrow?
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): To meet the general convenience of Members to-morrow, it is proposed to begin with the Food Vote, and then go on with the other Votes in their order on the Paper. Before the Food Vote is taken, the Lords Amendments to the Unemployment (Relief Works) Bill will be considered.

  DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATIONS).
  Major BARNES: At question time I asked the Lord Privy Seal if he would

  1601
  defer the Second Reading of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill until after the Report had been made by the Special Committee on Dyes appointed by the Central Profiteering Committee, and the answer I got from the Lord Privy Seal was that the Report would be as valuable after the Bill is passed as it would be before. This was rather a cryptic utterance which might mean that the Report is not regarded as being of any value at all. It that were the meaning I think it would be unfortunate that it should come from the Leader of the House to a body of men who have been giving a considerable amount of time on this work. But I take it that is not the meaning—
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not the meaning.
  Major BARNES: The other meaning may be that however valuable the Report may be the Government will not take any notice of it.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not the meaning either.
  Major BARNES: I want to assure the Lord Privy Seal that this question is being asked not with any desire to delay the introduction of this measure. It is something that has to be settled sooner or later, and we may as well have it out soon as late. But what I do think is important is that when the House is discussing this measure, which is an extremely important one, it should have at its command all the information that is possible. My question is simply directed to obtaining for this House the information it ought to have in coming to a decision on this question of dyestuffs. It would not be in order for me to discuss the Bill. It would not be possible, because I do not know what it is—it is not printed—but we do know that it is a Bill which arises out of the condition of the dyestuffs industry, and, that being so, it is material and germane that the House should know what the condition of that industry is. On that point the Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade has been sitting for over eight months. It was a Committee that was promised in October, 1919; it was appointed in December, 1919; its first sitting was not held till 10th March, 1920. It was not held because of reasons best known to the Board of Trade, but between
  1602
  October, 1919, and 10th March, 1920, the Board of Trade had fully satisfied itself that the personnel of the Committee was one that might be entrusted to go into this matter and report. Since March there have been fifteen meetings held, and at those meetings evidence has been taken from manufacturers of dyestuffs. from the owners and users, the textile associations, the calico printers, and the tannery and leather trades, so that there is in existence at the present time a great body of evidence on the conditions of the dyestuff industry. The Lord Privy Seal at question time said the Committee had only to do with profiteering. Let me read to him the terms of reference: "To ascertain to what extent supplies, prices and cost of dyes and dyestuffs in this country and the profits thereon were affected by any trade combination." That was a very much wider reference than the question of profiteering. It involved an inquiry into the whole state of the dye industry with regard to supplies, prices and costs, both before the combination of the British Dyestuffs Corporation and since. There is the position. The Government has at its disposal, and it might be at the disposal of the House, a whole body of evidence on the conditions of the dystuffs industry. What I am going to say now is evidence of the fact that it is not my desire to delay the introduction of this measure. I want to make this suggestion that the Government should not wait for the Report—I quite agree that the Report may be, and no doubt will be, affected by the opinion of the various people who were on the Committee, but to let the House have the evidence that has been taken upon which the Committee will have to base their Report. Do not wait for the Report, which may be coloured and biassed, but simply let the House have the benefit of the evidence which has been put before the Committee. There is no need for any real delay. We are not going to adjourn for a week or two. Only to-day two measures have been taken which have to be taken on the Floor of the House: the Roads Bill and the Official Secrets Bill. If these Bills were taken during next week, that would give ample time for the evidence to be printed and circulated with respect to the Dyestuffs Committee. The Lord Privy Seal is bound to recognise that this is a very real and

  1603
  substantial suggestion. It is not actuated by a desire to place any kind of coloured opinion before the House, but simply a desire that the whole body of Members of the House should have before them what that Committee has done, and the evidence that has been taken both as to the making and the using of dyes. I hope the President of the Board of Trade, if he is going to reply, will see that this is a reasonable and substantial suggestion and will not deprive the House of such valuable material upon which they can make up their minds on this exceedingly important matter.
  Sir R. HORNE. I appreciate the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Barnes), but I am not sure that I realise his view as to the importance of the evidence taken by the Committee. This Committee was set up under the Profiteering Act, and the inquiry, it is true, was limited strictly to the narrow question of profiteering; and to the question of the effect of a trade combination upon the prices at which dyes are sold to the people of this country. It has nothing to do with the import trade; the only question was the effect of the trade combination constituted in the dye industry known as the British Dye Stuffs Corporation on the keeping up of the prices in this country. That is undoubtedly a very important question in relation to the domestic consumer of dyes in Britain. If the Committee has stuck to its work it has little to do with the question with which the country is faced, namely, the effect to be produced on the dye-making industry in this country by German competition. We found it absolutely necessary, as the House knows, to promote the dye-making industry of this country during the War, to provide for chemical research in the more recondite branches of the chemical industry, etc. There was also the question of an organisation that could be readily used for the purpose of making these dyes here. It was under these circumstances that a pledge was given, by both Governments—that of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) was Leader, and that of which the present Prime Minister was Leader—both taking the same attitude to this question; and the pledge given was that the dye industry of the country should be
  1604
  protected for ten years and controlled by a system of licences. It is on this that the Government proposes to bring forward a Bill. But the Report of the Committee will be just as valuable after as before the Bill, for the purpose for which the Committee was set up. It is perfectly clear that it has no application to the question which we have in hand. Much as I would like to accept the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend, I feel certain that the matter is not worth the delay. In the second place, even if the House had the evidence before it, I do not think it could affect the proceedings on the Bill. Therefore I do not think that it would serve any good purpose to have this evidence printed. We have to get on with this Bill. We have to put it through, not merely this House, but it has to get through adventures in another place. Accordingly, I am afraid that I cannot accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. HOGGE: My right hon. Friend says that he has not seen the evidence. Therefore, all the remarks addressed to him as to the importance of the evidence cannot be very valuable. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the House has put down this Bill for Tuesday of next week. There is, therefore, a full week and weekend available. My right hon. Friend knows that if on Tuesday the Bill gets its Second Reading he will not get his first Committee on the Wednesday. It cannot possibly be before Monday or Tuesday, and the question of delay cannot, therefore, arise.
  Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I am more pessimistic.
  Mr. HOGGE: The Committee cannot meet on Friday, but it can meet on Thursday. Therefore it will be on Monday or Tuesday, and if the right hon. Gentleman is willing he can print the evidence in time.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the proportionate majority of the dye users who have agreed to the scheme of this Bill?
  Sir R. HORNE: I have been in touch with the dye users in this matter. Therefore I am in possession of all such evidence as I can get. The position is, according to my information, that about 90 per cent, of the dye users are in the

  1605
  organisation which have agreed to the suggested scheme.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: When the right hon. Gentleman says 90 per cent., does he mean 90 per cent, of the dye users as settled numerically? I happen to know that the largest consumers of dyes are not in agreement with him. If it has been represented to him that 90 per cent, of the users of dyes, reckoned by their consumption, are in favour, whoever made that representation deliberately conveyed a false impression to the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Report of this Committee is not germane to the Bill. If British Dyes, Limited, were a personal undertaking in all senses, the the right hon. Gentleman's argument would apply, but it is a combination of certain individuals with a Government Department, and therefore the Report of the Committee which has been investigating whether profiteering has taken place by that particular combination between the Government and private dye-makers, is extremely germane to the discussion of the whole question.
  Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Member is quite mistaken. No Government Department takes any part in the management of the business. It is true that the Government has representatives on the Board, but no Government Department takes any part in its management, and it is in fact worked as an ordinary business concern.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: With the exception that a very large amount of public money has been put into the business and therefore the Government is extremely interested in maintaining high prices for the productions of that particular firm. I wish to bring before the notice of the House this most vicious principle, that an interested party, being in a position to impose a tariff which will be destructive of one of the greatest of our industries, may make a thoroughly bad invest-
  1606
  ment on its part appear to be a good one. We know what has happened in other cases. There are grave suspicions. Three instances have occurred in which the Government has dealt in this manner with its business affairs. The Phosphate Company and the Cellulose Company are two of them, and, in the case of the Cellulose Company, the Government knows already that the net result of that transaction has been that the taxpayer has been, to use a city expression, "left carrying the baby." I have not the slightest doubt, from my own knowledge of the Phosphate Company and its actions in this matter, that we shall find eventually that in regard to Nauru we shall also be left "carrying the baby." Neither have I the least doubt that the officials of the Government are aware that in the case of British Dyes, Ltd., we shall be in the same lamentable position. The result of such a combination between a Government Department and a trading institution is that permanent officials who are negotiating in matters of this kind, with public money behind them, with some of the shrewdest persons in the business world, are absolutely as children in their hands, and in each case the interests of the taxpayers of this country go by the board. The public outside often think that that is because there is corruption. The public cannot conceive of such a lamentable lack of business ability on the part of the people who negotiate these things with trade interests outside. That is one of the greatest dangers to the political life of this country at present. The Government does things which bring it under suspicion of corruption. It is not that it is corrupt—I do not suggest or think any such thing—but in matters of business it is so infernally stupid, that it gets twisted every way by anyone with broad-minded views on commercial ethics.
  Adjourned accordingly, at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  QUEEN ALEXANDRA CONVALESCENT CENTRE, SALTASH.
  QUEEN ALEXANDRA CONVALESCENT CENTRE, SALTASH.
  AMALGAMATION OF AREAS.
  AMALGAMATION OF AREAS.
  PENSIONS ISSUE OFFICE, SCOTLAND.
  PENSIONS ISSUE OFFICE, SCOTLAND.
  SUBSTITUTION COMMITTEES.
  SUBSTITUTION COMMITTEES.
  LABOUR CORPS (R. C. GARDINER).
  LABOUR CORPS (R. C. GARDINER).
  ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.
  ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.
  LABOUR CORPS (PRIVATE B. R. C. PALMER).
  LABOUR CORPS (PRIVATE B. R. C. PALMER).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
BRITISH ARMY.
  MACHINE GUN CORPS (PRIVATE A. L. WARREN).
  MACHINE GUN CORPS (PRIVATE A. L. WARREN).
  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS (WAR SERVICE).
  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS (WAR SERVICE).
  PERSIA (BRITISH FORCES).
  PERSIA (BRITISH FORCES).
  ROYAL IRISH RIFLES (LIEUTENANT GLENDINNING).
  ROYAL IRISH RIFLES (LIEUTENANT GLENDINNING).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  PROMOTION.
  PROMOTION.
  TRANSFERS.
  TRANSFERS.
ROYAL NAVY.
  NAVAL YARD, SIMON'S TOWN (WAGES).
  NAVAL YARD, SIMON'S TOWN (WAGES).
  PARAVANE CLAIM.
  PARAVANE CLAIM.
IRELAND.
  CASUALTIES (MILITARY AND POLICE).
  CASUALTIES (MILITARY AND POLICE).
  CO-OPERATIVE PROPERTY.
  CO-OPERATIVE PROPERTY.
SCOTLAND.
  BUILDING RESTRICTIONS.
  BUILDING RESTRICTIONS.
INDIA.
  DR. S. BOSE (PASSPORT).
  DR. S. BOSE (PASSPORT).
RUSSIA.
  GOLD (CONFISCATION).
  GOLD (CONFISCATION).
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS, AMERICA.
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS, AMERICA.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  EXPORT CREDITS SCHEME.
  EXPORT CREDITS SCHEME.
  BRUSH-MAKING INDUSTRY.
  BRUSH-MAKING INDUSTRY.
  CANADIAN OILFIELDS.
  CANADIAN OILFIELDS.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  MANDATES.
  MANDATES.
  GERMANY AND RUSSIA.
  GERMANY AND RUSSIA.
  ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS (REPORTS).
  ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS (REPORTS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  LABOUR STATISTICS.
  LABOUR STATISTICS.
  ASIA MINOR (MUNITIONS).
  ASIA MINOR (MUNITIONS).
EDUCATION.
  TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.
  JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.
GOVERNMENT STAFFS AND ACCOMMODATION.
  WRITING ASSISTANTS (WOMEN).
  WRITING ASSISTANTS (WOMEN).
  ST. JAMES'S PARK HUTS.
  ST. JAMES'S PARK HUTS.
  LEGAL DEPARTMENTS, NON-PROFESSIONAL STAFFS.
  LEGAL DEPARTMENTS, NON-PROFESSIONAL STAFFS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  BUTTER.
  BUTTER.
  FLOUR STOCKS, FERNDALE.
  FLOUR STOCKS, FERNDALE.
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
POST OFFICE.
  SUB-OFFICE ASSISTANTS (WAGES).
  SUB-OFFICE ASSISTANTS (WAGES).
  TYLERSTOWN SUB-OFFICE (MISS MORGAN).
  TYLERSTOWN SUB-OFFICE (MISS MORGAN).
  TELEPHONES (ANTRIM).
  TELEPHONES (ANTRIM).
  STORNOWAY MAILS.
  STORNOWAY MAILS.
  PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (SALARIES).
  PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (SALARIES).
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  CHAMPAGNE DUTY.
  CHAMPAGNE DUTY.
  CURRENCY NOTES.
  CURRENCY NOTES.
  BRITISH DEBT (UNITED STATES).
  BRITISH DEBT (UNITED STATES).
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  ANGLO-FRENCH LOAN.
  ANGLO-FRENCH LOAN.
  REVENUE.
  REVENUE.
  ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
  ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (LICENCES).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (LICENCES).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  SUNDAY BUILDING WORK.
  SUNDAY BUILDING WORK.
  EAST AFRICAN CAMPAIGN (EXPENDITURE).
  EAST AFRICAN CAMPAIGN (EXPENDITURE).
  UGANDA RAILWAYS.
  UGANDA RAILWAYS.
  KENYA COLONY.
  KENYA COLONY.
  WOOL.
  WOOL.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 29th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 17th of June next" be dispensed with in respect of the said Bills, and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a.

THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, the three Motions which stand in my name refer to the same subject, and in view of the important debate which you are shortly going to resume I do not propose to explain this matter at length, unless any member of the House desires that I should do so.
In a few sentences I may say that the point is this. It is a matter which I have had the opportunity of discussing with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, and which follows from discussions that I had with his predecessor, my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster. The object is to make it possible for the Committee for Privileges to sit elsewhere than in your Lordships' House while your Lordships' House may be sitting judicially or for some other purpose. I confess that when the idea was originally discussed some years ago I hesitated very much about it, mainly because I regarded, and all of us regarded, the Committee for Privileges as a Committee of the Whole House. Subsequent investigation convinced me, and others, that this is an incorrect view. The Committee for Privileges is not a Committee of the Whole House, although there was one occasion, and one only, when the House did resolve itself into a Committee
912
for Privileges. With the wealth of legal talent available—to form a quorum of this Committee it is necessary that there should be three Law Lords present—obviously it would be desirable that the Committee for Privileges should be able to sit when the House was also sitting judicially, provided Law Lords are available for the purpose, in order to get through the business. At the same time you will notice that I propose in no way to make any diminution in the importance of the sittings of the Committee for Privileges by identifying them in any way less with the proceedings in this House. It will be arranged that the proceedings shall be recorded in the Journal as hitherto, and it will only sit as a Committee for Privileges elsewhere than in the House with the leave of the House. That, I think, secures the status of the Committee for Privileges, and therefore I beg to make the first Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That the Sessional Order of the 10th February last appointing the Committee for Privileges be amended by leaving out the words "in the House of Peers." —(The Chairman of Committees.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, may I say one word in sincere welcome of this proposal? I hope the House will not think that the wealth of judicial talent is superfluous. It is only just sufficient to meet the demands that are made upon it, but it is obviously of the utmost consequence that we should be able to economise all our forces as far as we possibly can and use them at any given moment in the place where they are most needed. That is the object of this Motion, and I sincerely hope that your Lordships will agree to it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I will only add one word upon the subject, and it is to inform your Lordships that I am satisfied, and the Lord Chairman is satisfied, that the Committee for Privileges, as one examines into its origin and history, ought not to be considered a Committee of the Whole House, and I wish very much to insist on the enormous economy of judicial time which will result from the acceptance of this Motion. It is impossible, unless the Motion is accepted, to constitute a Committee for Privileges without very much impairing the work that this House on its judicial side performs, and the work done by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which, as your Lordships

913
know, sits in two divisions. This Motion does not in any way affect the prestige of the Committee for Privileges, while I am certain it will result in a very great economy of legal time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SESSIONAL ORDERS AMENDED.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I now beg to make the other two Motions standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. LXXVIII be amended by adding at the end of the Standing Order the words "or in such place and at such time as the House may direct."—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved. That Standing Order No. LXXX be amended by leaving out the words "at the Bar."—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF WORKS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, there are a number of Amendments on the Paper standing in my name. They are of a purely drafting, character, and do not alter in any way the sense or purpose of any clauses to which they refer, and are only inserted in order to improve the wording of the Bill. That being so, I would ask the permission of your Lordships to move in one Resolution that these Amendments be agreed to. I beg to move accordingly.
Amendments moved
Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after the second ("Housing") insert ("Town Planning").
Clause 2, page 2, line 41, after ("has") insert ("or have")
Clause 2, page 3, line 13, leave out ("their") and insert ("the")
Clause 2, page 3, line 30, after ("section") insert ("he or")
Clause 2, page 3, lines 31 and 32, leave out ("shall as soon as may be after entering on the land") and insert ("for the purpose of the acquisition of any such land, the provisions of the
914
Lands Clauses Acts shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be deemed to be incorporated in this Act.
"(4) The Minister or local authority shall, as soon as may be after entering on any land under this section.")
Clause 2, page 3, line 34, leave out ("their") and insert ("the")
Clause 2, page 3, line 35,1eave out. ("they have entered on the land") and insert ("the entry on the land is made")
Clause 2, page 3, lines 36 and 37, leave out ("they had given such notice") and insert ("such notice had been given").
Clause 6, page 5, lines 31 to 37, leave out paragraphs (c.) and (d.)
Clause 6, page 6, lines 4 and 5, leave out paragraph (f) and insert:
"((f) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (2) and (3) of section three of this Act:
"(2) Expenses incurred by a local authority under this section shall be defrayed out of such assessment as the Scottish Board of Health may designate anti shall not be reckoned in any calculation as to the statutory limit of such assessment; and a local authority shall have power with the approval of the Board to borrow money for the purposes of any agreement entered into or any scheme made by the authority under this section on the security of such assessment as the Board may designate:
"(3)In this section the expression 'local authority' means a county council or a town council.")
Clause 6, page 6, line 8, at end insert:
("(b)) For the reference to the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act, 1909, and the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act, 1919, there shall be substituted a reference to the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1919.
"(c) For the reference to section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888, there shall be substituted a reference to Article 22 of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898.
"(d) For the reference to the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1908, there shall be substituted a reference to the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1919.
"(e) Where the Minister or a local authority have power to acquire land compulsorily by virtue of section two of this Act, the power shall be exerciseable in like manner as a power to acquire land compulsorily is exerciseable by virtue of a provisional order made under section ten of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and duly confirmed, and the provisions with respect to the service of notice under section eighteen of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall not apply").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next Amendment is in Clause 7, and stands in my name. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships upon the subject, because we have already on more than one occasion discussed it in your Lordships' House. I will say shortly that all it does is to make the Bill of a temporary character, limiting it to a period of twelve months. After conversations with my noble friend I have been able to arrive at an agreement with the Government that the arrangement may be allowed to pass. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 6, after line 10 insert the following new subsection:
("(2) This Act shall continue in force for twelve months and no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines, provided that the expiry of this Act shall not

(a) affect the previous operation thereof or of anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

(b) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred thereunder; or

(c) affect any legal proceeding, arbitration, remedy or investigation in respect of such right, privilege, obligation or liability as aforesaid

and any such legal proceeding, arbitration, remedy or investigation may be instituted, enforced or continued as if this Act had not expired.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: On behalf of the Government I accept the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DONOUGEMORE in the Chair.]
Discussion on Clause 11 resumed.
LORD SHANDONhad the following Amendment on the Paper—
Page 14, line 6, after subsection (2), insert the two following subsections:
("(3) The Irish Senate may originate any Bill which, if the subject-matter thereof related exclusively to Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, the Senate of Southern Ireland or the Senate of Northern Ireland would be competent to originate, and such a Bill if passed by the Irish
916
Senate shall be submitted to the Houses of Commons of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, and if passed by both the Houses of Parliament of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland on receiving His Majesty's Assent as provided by this Act shall have effect as identical Acts passed by the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland.
"(4) Bills which relate to matters affecting interests both in Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland in any case where the matter—

(a) is of such a nature that if it had affected interests in one of those areas only it would have been within the powers of the Parliament for that area; and

(b) is a matter to effect which it would, apart from this provision, have been necessary to apply to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by petition for leave to bring in a Private Bill;

shall be originated in the Irish Senate, and the provisions contained in the Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the procedure for the introduction and consideration of such Bills in the Irish Senate and such a Bill if passed by the Irish Senate shall be submitted to the Houses of Commons of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland and if passed by both the Houses of Commons of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland on receiving His Majesty's Assent as provided by this Act, shall have effect as identical Acts passed by the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: By favour of the House I have put down an Amendment in lieu of that which I moved last night, and which I did not press. I should say that there is a matter for which I am not responsible. The printers have printed the Amendment that I did not want to move—the one I was to withdraw—on top of the one which I do actually move. All that is necessary is for your Lordships to draw your pencil through the subsection beginning (3) which has no business to be there.
The Amendment is now perfectly clear. It may be right or it may be wrong, but there is no complication about it. With your Lordships' permission I will explain what it is. The clause which gave the Council of Ireland certain powers dealing with private Bills and certain other matters was necessarily removed having regard to the Resolutions of the House with respect to the other sections dealing with the Council, but the powers which the Council has have rationally and naturally to be transferred to the Joint Senate which your Lordships have approved—that is to say, the Senate of the North and the Senate of the South sitting together. I desire that there should be no misunderstanding. The effect is not to impose an

917
outside authority upon the North of Ireland in dealing with its own affairs.
In order to make security doubly secure, that safeguard has been expressly inserted in the draft. It now reads shall have power to deal with Bills which relate to matters affecting interests both in Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland in any case where the matter (a) is of such a nature that if it had affected interests in one of those areas only it would have been within the powers of the Parliament for that area; and (b) is a matter to effect which it would, apart from this provision, have been necessary to apply to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by petition for leave to bring in a Private Bill. Your Lordships will see by a reference to the Paper how the proposal goes on. So far from seeking to impose any obligation on Northern Ireland, or to coerce Northern Ireland in any way by external opinion, this section safeguards the North. If the joint body seeks to impose under this clause anything on Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland does not like, it must fail to do so if Northern Ireland rejects it. With regard to matters coining within the purview of the Northern Parliament, the Northern Parliament will be absolutely supreme. This clause would only come into effect when it is sought to do something in the nature of a joint arrangement.
That is the Amendment which now stands in my name, and which I submit is not revolutionary, is not contrary to the principle of the Bill, and in no way seeks to coerce the Northern Parliament. It certainly is not intended for that purpose, and submit it does not do that. I am not responsible in any way for what might be the future composition of the Senate in Northern Ireland or the Senate in Southern Ireland. The Senate of Southern Ireland as such is embodied in the existing Schedules of these Amendments, though not actually moved now. With regard to Northern Ireland it is left a blank. It is said that Northern Ireland is so democratic that it might object to a Senate on the same principle. I do not intend in any way to tilt against that proposition, but there is nothing difficult that I can see in the Northern Parliament having the most democratic Senate that they please, and that at the same time that Senate should meet with the Southern Senate whether it is democratically elected or not. In one way the difficulty is a matter of sentiment
918
and, perhaps, only a matter of sentiment. For my part I entirely yield to the sentiment. If there is to be a Senate for Northern Ireland, as I take it there is from the Resolutions as they stand, that Senate can be as democratic as you please, but it will not prevent the operation of this subsection as I read it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 6, after subsection (2), insert the following new subsection.
"(4) Bills which relate to matters affecting interests both in Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland in any case where the matter

(a) is of such a nature that if it had affected interests in one of those areas only it would have been within the powers of the Parliament for that area; and

(b) is a matter to effect which it would, apart from this provision, have been necessary to apply to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by petition for leave to bring in a Private Bill;

shall be originated in the Irish Senate, and the provisions contained in the Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the procedure for the introduction and consideration of such Bills in the Irish Senate and such a Bill if passed by the Irish Senate shall be submitted to the Houses of Commons of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland and if passed by both the Houses of Commons of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland on receiving His Majesty's Assent as provided by this Act, shall have effect as identical Acts passed by the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland")—(Lord Shandon.)
TEE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gather that subsection (3) was given birth to by the printer, and in some obscure fashion found its way upon the Paper. I need, therefore, deal only with the proposals which are contained in the new subsection (4). I understand that this subsection is intended to be an adaptation of the provisions of Clause 8 of the Bill which gave the Council of Ireland power to deal with Private Bill Legislation affecting the North and South. I cart only say of the procedure which is proposed by this new subsection that it is so complicated that I am quite sure the promoters of such Private Bills would find it far more convenient to adhere to the existing practice and come to the United Kingdom Parliament.
Consider what the course of business must be under the terms of the subsection proposed by the noble and learned Lord. A Private Bill under this proposed subsection is to be passed first by the Irish Senate. Then it must go to the Northern and Southern Houses of Commons, and

919
will not become law until it has been passed by both those Houses. Under the terms of the Bill the Irish Council consisting of forty people representing the North and South would have been in a position to deal with the matter in all its stages. In at least one clear and uncontroversial field in which all parties in Ireland, and I think I may add all parties in Scotland, have been asking for remedial legislation for many years, it was our hope that we had found a tribunal which every one would have admitted to be very suitable to deal with Private Bill legislation. I doubt whether any promoter of Private Bills will be willing to avail himself of the methods which the noble and learned Lord has proposed in this new subsection.
I do not understand why he has inserted in his Amendment the provision that these Bills shall originate in the Irish Senate. That would seem to prevent the initiation in any circumstances of such Bills in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. So that the simplification of procedure which we had hoped for will not eventuate if this subsection is adopted, because as I have already said a Private Bill has to be passed first by the Irish Senate and then by the Northern and Southern Houses of Commons and will not become law until it has been passed by both those Houses. That is an arrangement which I venture to think is infinitely more cumbrous and infinitely more complicated but not less expensive than the circumstances which have excited so much complaint to-day.
LORD PARMOOR: Within the terms of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment it would be perfectly easy to obtain a much less expensive and less cumbrous form of Private Bill legislation, and I do not think his Amendment would interfere with that. I understand that though he has suggested one method of dealing with it, any other less cumbrous method that could be devised would probably have his approval.
LORD SHANDON: That is so.
LORD PARMOOR: I am speaking from having had a great deal to do with Private Bill legislation, and I think it might be easy to devise some less cumbrous form, and that the noble and learned Lord would be prepared to accept it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only say that if the noble and learned Lord wishes to pursue what I should certainly have thought was not a fruitful line of inquiry I shall be very pleased, as is my duty, to give consideration to his proposals.
THE LORD CHAIRMANthen put the Question whether the proposed new subsection shall be here inserted; and said: I think the "Contents" have it.
A NOBLE LORD: I am not quite sure that that is so.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, but I certainly did not hear any dissent.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Does the noble and learned Lord accept the Amendment
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope I was not so obscure. I was under the impression that the noble and learned Lord, after the debate, was not going to press his Amendment, and I am afraid I did not challenge. But I am sure that noble Lords opposite will not press the point.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I can assure the noble and learned Lord that we are prepared to offer considerable further arguments in favour of the Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I will put the Question again.
On Question, whether the proposed new subsection shall be here inserted?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Midleton, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Dononghmore.)

Russell, E.

Crewe, M.

Wicklow, E.

Anslow, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

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

Allendale, V.

Askwith, L.

Bangor, V.

Avebury, L.

Iveagh, E.

Bryce, V.

Barrymore, L.

Kingston, E.

De Vesci, V

Bellew, L.

Mayo, E. [Teller.]

Harcourt, V.

Buckmaster, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Holm Patrick, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Crofton, L.

Inchiquin, L.

Parmoor, L.

de Mauley, L.

Islington, L.

Queenborough, L.

Decies, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Rathdonnell, L.

Denman, L.

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

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Farnham, L.

Killanin, L.

Shandon, L. [Teller.]

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Kilmaine, U

Southwark, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

MacDonnell, L.

Swaythling, L.

Hemphill. L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Vernon E

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Ernle, L.

Sandhurst, V (L. Chamberlain.)

Harris, L.

Sutherland, D.

Cave, V.

Hylton, L.

Churchill, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Falkland, V.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Finlay, V.

Phillimore, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Haldane, V.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Knollys, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Albemarle, E.

Peel, V.

Redesdale, L.

Bradford, E.

Rotherham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Abinger, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Drogheda, E.

Annesley, h. (V. Valentia.)

Saltoun, L.

Eldon, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Fortescue, E.

Atkinson, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lovelace, E.

Balfour, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Lucan, E.

Boston, L.

Sumner, L.

Lytton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Treowen, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wavertree, L.

Roden, E

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Deramore, L.

Wyfold, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD SHANDON: The remaining Amendments to Clause 11 are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 7, leave out ("Council") and insert ("Irish Senate").
Page 14, line 12, leave out ("Council of Ireland") and insert ("Irish Senate").
Page 14, line 25, leave out ("Council") and insert ("Irish Senate").
Page 14, line 26, leave out ("Council") and insert ("Irish Senate")
Page 14, line 36, leave out ("Council") and insert ("Irish Senate).
Page 14, line 39, leave out ("Council") and insert ("Irish Senate")
Page 14, line 42, leave out ("Council") and insert ("Irish Senate").
Page 15, line 6, leave out ("Council") and insert ("Irish Senate").
Page 15, line 11, leave out ("Council") and insert ("Irish Senate").
Page 15, line 18, leave out ("Council of Ireland") and insert ("Irish Senate").
Page 15, line 20, leave out ("Council") and insert ("Irish Senate").
Page 15, line 22, leave out ("Council of Ireland") and insert ("Irish Senate").
Page 15, line 25, lave out ("Council") and insert ("Irish Senate").
Page 15, line 31, leave out ("Council of Ireland").—(Lord Shandon.)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I must trouble your Lordships with a few observations owing to the entire misconception with regard to the Division which has just taken place. We fully understood on this side of the House that the Lord Chancellor, while objecting to the Amendment, did not propose to contest it. I am sure I am in the recollection of everybody in the House also when I say that after the Lord Chairman had given it that the "Contents" had it, we did not understand that that was challenged. But had we known that the Lord Chancellor wished to take the sense of your Lordships on the subject we should have been forced to point out that the proposal which is not now in the clause was the only one which could possibly be regarded as acceptable in the changed conditions. Take the case of a Private Bill having application to the two parts of Ireland. The Bill would have been initiated in the Senate and, if passed by the Senate, would have been sent to each House of Parliament for ratification. We venture to think that the proposal of the noble and learned Lord was a far more democratic proposal than the original proposal in the Bill and was in all respects consonant with the usual practice in this country, and I think, if we had had the opportunity of pointing that out to your

923
Lordships, probably the very small majority which was obtained against the Amendment—which I know was obtained entirely by inadvertence, because we were led to believe there was no further need for discussion—would have been altered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl grudges us even the scanty triumphs that we gain in the course of this debate. But I certainly was of opinion that I had indicated very clear grounds of opposition to the view put forward by the noble and learned Lord, and I did not think I could have made it plainer—unless I used the actual words that I proposed to divide the House upon it—that the proposal was not acceptable; and the intervention of Lord Parmoor (joining, I thought, in the condemnation on the technical side of these proposals) fortified me in that view. But I admit I think I was wrong technically in not challenging, because I had assumed, apparently quite erroneously, that the noble and learned Lord was not going to proceed further in the matter. But I think we shall all agree that a very important change has been made in the Bill—whether it survives our ultimate discussions or not I do not know, and I attempt no prediction upon that point; but certainly on the Report stage on either hypothesis (whether the noble and learned Lord's proposals are maintained or whether they are not) undoubtedly a great deal of redrafting will have to be done, and especially in relation to this new Senate, which really has not up to this point been sufficiently thought out. I will not, of course, challenge the main decision, but I am assuming for the moment that it stands. I suggest that a convenient course would be that the noble and learned Lord and his friends should consider the matter before the Report stage—any assistance which the draftsman can give him, without assenting in any way to the principle, will be forthcoming—and I think that before the Report stage some Amendment will have to be put down.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: After what the noble and learned Lord has said it would be very ungracious to press it, but we were left in some confusion by the absence of a challenge from the Government. But I agree with the Lord Chancellor that there is a certain amount of difficulty about this question. There are two matters really involved in this question
924
of the Senate. There is the question of whether each Parliament should have a Senate. That was decided by your Lordships by an enormous majority, and I earnestly hope that your Lordships will see fit to adhere to that, which is demanded by every instinct of justice. But there is also the question of whether these two Senates should act as a joint Senate in lieu of the Council which is provided in the Bill. That is a difficult matter. I shall not anticipate what decision your Lordships will finally come to upon it, but it arose in a very acute form in the Amendment on which we have just decided. I personally did not take any part in the Division, but for my part I feel that there is a great deal to be said on both sides, and I earnestly hope that the course to which the Lord Chancellor has alluded of a private conference will be followed, so that we may arrive at an agreement before the Report stage.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite agree that the course which the noble and learned Lord opposite has suggested is the only one that could properly be taken. I think there was confusion existing in the minds of sonic noble Lords owing to the quite inadvertent manner in which the question was put before its time. I cannot help thinking that sonic noble Lords conceived that all Private Bill legislation in Ireland was to go to the Joint Senate. That is not the case. The origination in the Joint Senate is only for those exceptional cases in which both parts of Ireland are affected. The North and the South of Ireland will each have control over its own Private Bill legislation— at least I assume so. I think some noble Lords imagined that this Joint Senate was going to take charge of all this Private Bill legislation in the way it was proposed the Council should. The matter will, of course, be cleared up before the Report stage.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:—
"14.—(1) The Senate of Southern Ireland shall be constituted as provided in the First Schedule to this Act.
"(2) The Senate of Northern Ireland shall be constituted as provided in the Second Schedule to this Act.")

925
"(3) The provisions contained in the Third Schedule of this Act shall have effect with respect to the nomination, election, and term of office of members of the Senates of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland."
The noble Lord said: These Amendments were put down at an earlier stage of the Bill, but; on the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor I postponed them until this period, as he said they would be more suitably inserted here. I propose to put down clauses dealing with all these matters. They are important matters which your Lordships may like to have time to consider before coming to a decision, and I therefore think the course I suggest will be a conveinent one. They will appear in the Schedule, and there will be ample time to consider whether they are such as will recommend themselves to your Lordships.
Amend snout moved—
After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Oranmore earl Browne.)
THE LORD HANCELLOR: I had been hoping that it might have been in the power of the noble Lord to tell us in detail, or at least to give us some general idea of, the scheme which, as he told us last night, he intends to put down as the basis for the constitution of the Senate of Northern Ireland. I quite understand that time has been short and that it may of have been possible for him to meet those members of this House who specially represent Ulster. I shall not divide against this proposal, but I must point out that it involves a rather anomalous consequence. It may be a necessary one, having regard to the decision that has been reached, but it is anomalous. We are now inserting a clause which provides that the Senate of Southern Ireland shall be constituted as provided in the First Schedule of this Act. We discussed a little last night how the Senate of Southern Ireland was constituted in the First Schedule, and I do not propose to add much to the observations I made then. But it is pertinent to bear in mind that at the time that scheme was adopted by the Convention the proposal was that there should be a united Ireland, and an attempt was being made by general consent to discover a form of Second Chamber which in order to give security and obtain assent of the united Ireland would be likely to lead to agreement. Of course, the only objection to it is this, that the scheme which is now
926
in its main features produced in the Schedule of the noble Lord has never received the assent of anybody in Ireland who so far as I know has been returned to Parliament since. It is an academic scheme, and no one who reads it can feel the least doubt that it is entirely an academic scheme. I cannot believe that such assent, under the changed conditions of this Bill which are wholly different to those contemplated by the Convention, can survive for a week or a month.
I agree with Lord Atkinson that if this Senate were to interfere with a Bill which carried with it the overwhelming support of a body fresh from the constituencies elected on the present basis it could not last for a month. It will indeed enjoy a wealth of sacerdotal and literary experience which is unusual in a deliberative assembly, but whether this will afford a barrier I am a little in doubt. I am always loyal to decisions which the House has given of course, but I must say a word with reference to the second subsection of the proposed new clause. It says that the Senate of Northern Ireland shall be constituted as provided in the Second Schedule to this Act. I am in a little difficulty, and surely the House is in a little difficulty too. We trust the noble Lord a great deal, and we are prepared, apparently, to agree that the Senate of Southern Ireland shall be constituted as provided by the First Schedule. The First Schedule is there. Now he asks us to agree that the Senate of Northern Ireland shall be constituted as provided by the Second Schedule. There is no Second Schedule in existence. He has told us that he anticipates he will become a parent in the course of the next few days' discussion, but at the present moment there is no Second Schedule there at all. It is not often that I am tempted to give an anecdote, but I am tempted on this occasion to recall a story I heard of an American who went to visit the Miracle play at Oberammergau, but having misunderstood the precise moment at which the performance was to begin he arrived at a time when the audience was completely non-existent. There was only one person on the stage. That person was Adam, waiting to be created, and it seems to me to bear a strong resemblance to the present situation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I cannot compete with the Lord Chancellor in humorous anecdotes, but there was an important Bill before your Lordships' House a few years ago—the

927
Reform Act—and in the course of its progress an Amendment in favour of proportional representation was inserted. That involved a Schedule, but at the moment it was passed the Schedule was blank. That precedent is I think quite sufficient.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I have tried to make it perfectly clear that in proposing a Senate for Northern and Southern Ireland all I asked the House to assent to was the principle of the proposition. I carefully avoided dealing with particulars of the Senate which should be set up, and I hope at a later stage to be able to define it and to show that it is not such an unreasonable body as the Lord Chancellor thinks. In the course of his remarks, yesterday and to-day, the Lord Chancellor has dwelt not so much on whether a Senate is or is not in itself a good thing but whether the particular Senate which I propose is one which should recommend itself to the House. I think noble Lords clearly understood that they were asked to consider the principles of the Senate. As to their being no Schedule setting out what the Senate of Northern Ireland is to be my noble friend Lord Salisbury has given a very good precedent for that. I may assure the Lord Chancellor that I am doing my very best to confer with noble Lords and members of another place from the North to see if I can propose a Second Chamber for Northern Ireland that will be acceptable to them.
Clause 14:
Constitution of the parliaments.
14.—(1) The House of Commons of Southern Ireland shall consist of one hundred and twenty-eight members returned by the constituencies in Ireland named in Part I. of the Second Schedule to this Act, and the number of members to be returned by each such constituency shall be the number mentioned in the second column of that Part.
(2) The House of Commons of Northern Ireland shall consist of fifty-two members returned by the constituencies in Ireland named in Part II. of the Second Schedule to this Act, and the number of members to be returned by each such constituency shall be the number mentioned in the second column of that Part.
(3) The members shall be elected by the same electors and in the same manner as members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, except that at any contested election of the full number of members the election shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each
928
elector having one transferable vote, as defined by the Representation of the People Act, 1918, and His Majesty in Council shall have the same power of making regulations in respect thereto as he has under subsection (3) of section twenty of that Act, and that subsection shall apply accordingly.
(4) The House of Commons of Southern Ireland and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland when summoned shall, unless sooner dissolved, have continuance for five years from the day on which the summons directs the House to meet and no longer.
(5) After three years from the day of the first meeting of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, that Parliament may alter the qualification and registration of the electors, the law relating to elections and the questioning of elections, the constituencies, and the distribution of the members among the constituencies, provided that in any new distribution the number of the members shall not be altered, and due regard shall be had to the population of the constituencies other than University constituencies.
LORD KILLANIN LORD KILLANIN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "Parliament of the United Kingdom" to the end of the subsection. The noble Lord said: My object in moving this Amendment is to secure that elections to Parliament in Ireland shall be managed on the same basis as elections in England, Scotland and Wales, and not by the method of Proportional Representation. I know that some of your Lordships have great faith in the efficacy and usefulness of Proportional Representation and I confess that on paper and in theory, as a piece of mere abstract reasoning, a very good case can be made out for it. But I also submit, from my observations of the working of Proportional Representation, that it does not secure the aim which it has in view and that it is in other ways very injurious to the best interest of public life.
What is the aim of Proportional Representation? It is to find a constituency for the minority man. In order to do this you have to go very far afield. You have to incorporate a large tract of country into one constituency, probably including what was formerly no fewer than three or four constituencies, and by the time you have secured this large district in which you think you will return a minority man, you have completely destroyed the possibility of success of one class of candidate to which I wish to draw attention—namely, the local man, who lives in his own part of the country, who is known to his neighbours and is trusted by them, and who is thoroughly familiar with all their affairs and interests. By being placed in this

929
vast region this candidate is completely swamped. He has to pay attention to a number of strange concerns over this wide area, about which he does not and cannot know. He may endeavour to cope with them, but while he does so his own stronghold is neglected by him and is attacked by the innumerable candidates that Proportional Representation brings into the field. Between all these the original strength of the local candidate—and I am talking of that class of candidate—is diluted and destroyed. I suggest to your Lordships that that is a pity. The local man who is chosen by his neighbours and the residents of the place in which he lives is a valuable factor in our public life, and your Lordships ought to be careful before you inaugurate any system that completely obliterates the chances of the local candidate in Parliamentary elections.
Who takes the place of the local man? We are told that the minority man is going to take his place. Who is he Who must he be? It is absolutely essential that he must be a sheer Party man. He is appealing to a large district where he cannot be known. He does not know its interests, but he has to appeal to this minority in the district. On what ground? On the ground that he is labelled as a Party man with their views. His label is his only introduction to the electors. He cannot and does not know their interests, but he comes as a nominee of a political Party. That is the only form of introduction that there can be for such a man in the large area to which he has to appeal. I think it is a great pity to abolish the local candidate and to replace him by this ultra-political—because he is bound to be ultra-political—nominee of an organisation—an extreme politician. No one else has a chance of appealing to the minority spread over this large tract of country which becomes a constituency under Proportional Representation.
Furthermore, will the minority man get in? I doubt it very much. My observation in Ireland is that he will not get in. He does not get in for these reasons. The very fact that he is a minority man means that he has not got the same organisation behind him that the other side possess, and when you have this large area it is the best organisation that carries the day. The district is so large, and the expenses are so great of canvassing, and travelling, and printing, and of having your polling
930
agents in the immense number of polling booths that there are in such a district, that it is impossible for the individual man, or even for a small organisation, to deal with the situation. The result is that the big organisation completely carries the day because it has the supporters and the money that can deal with this large tract of country. For these reasons—and I am not going into others to which I could refer—I am entirely opposed to the principle of Proportional Representation. I think also the multiplicity not only of candidates but of people who can be elected confuses matters very much. In the case of Ireland in the local government elections, I do not think there was much confusion over the actual voting, but there was great confusion over the fact that a large number of candidates from each place could be elected and over the large number of names before the electors.
I wish to say also that the supporters of Proportional Representation attach great importance to the transferable vote. That was completely eluded in Ireland. There was hardly any transfer of votes from one side to the other. The organisation ordained that its side should only vote for the men of its own party. As a matter of fact there was very little change in the various counts, and the transferable vote, which was supposed to confer a great advantage on the minority man, was perfectly useless. I have therefore no faith in the method of Proportional Representation. I do not think it meets the objects it has in view, and I think it has other very serious and very objectionable results. I would specially say that it is unsuited to rural districts, which are so large and impossible to cover on account of the sparseness of population. The district has to be made so large that really candidates cannot attempt to cover the ground. Ireland being almost purely a rural country, I think this system of Proportional Representation is particularly unsuitable to the conditions which prevail there. I would myself, from what I have heard, concede that it is possible that Proportional Representation does work in urban areas, where, in spite of the fact that you have enlarged the area, you have all the inhabitants in that area living in a fairly compact district, and being in a town they have more or less identical views. But it is a very different story if you have to travel across the county and endeavour to follow the affairs and con-

931
cerns of so large an area. For that reason I move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 29, leave out from ("Kingdom") to end of line 36.—(Lord Killanin.)
LORD PARMOOR: Perhaps before the Government answer I might say one or two words in reply to the argument used by the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment. I think he has forgotten the very large experience of the use of the principle of Proportional Representation which we have had during recent years. At the present time it applies to every country in Europe except France, and it is said that France is likely to adopt it at the next election. It has been applied in every case in which we have had new constitutions-created during recent days. For instance, it is proposed to be applied in the constitution which we are about to give to Malta. I do not want to go generally into the matters to which the noble Lord has referred but I think all experience shows that the fears which he anticipated do not culminate in fact when the experiment is tried.
I should like, however, to say a few words as regards recent experiments in this country. One of the earliest experiments, as the noble Lord knows, was in Sligo, where the experience was in every way satisfactory, and where practically a bankrupt corporation became a corporation solvent in character, because instead of being in the hands of one party all citizens were fairly represented upon the new corporate body. When the principle of Proportional Representation was applied throughout the boroughs of Ireland, on every ground and from every side one heard that the experiment acted admirably. It prevented, in Sinn Fein districts, their being the only body represented, and in every single case there was a considerable minority, whereas on the other hand in Belfast it has also shown that there was more than one body as regards municipal matters. I quite agree that when the matter came to the country districts in Ireland the conditions were such that no proper election could be held at all, and the people who really opposed Proportional Representation were the Sinn Feiners, with the result that they obtained a representation on the county councils in Ireland out of all proportion to their true numbers.
932
They succeeded by terrorism in making Proportional Representation practically inoperative. I may speak confidently upon that, because Mr. Humphreys, the Secretary of the Proportional Representation body, went over to Ireland to assist the Government in the county and borough elections. In the borough elections everything went satisfactorily, but in the county elections, owing to Sinn Fein, Proportional Representation had no opportunity at all.
I hope that the noble Lord will also recollect the enormous advantage of its use as regards the education question in Scotland. The adjusting of the education question between Roman Catholics on the one side and various Protestant communities on the other, was a very difficult question, yet from end to end of Scotland the system acted admirably. It has been successful not only in the representation of minorities—I think that is a wrong way of putting it—but by giving all parties an effective voice as regards the important matters in which they have a common interest. That is brought about by really a very simple process. Proportional Representation gives an effective power to the individual vote which an individual vote cannot have under any other conditions, and it is because each individual vote can be used in the most effective manner that you get a true representative vote. I do not propose to go into the questions of general principles, but I can think of nothing more disastrous for a Bill of this character than to exclude the principle of Proportional Representation which is now incorporated in it.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): I think Lord Killanin made quite clear what he desired. I will, however, in opposing this Amendment, remind your Lordships that the Irish Convention adopted this system of Proportional Representation and the single transferable vote in constituencies which return two, or it have been three, Members; and, furthermore, that Parliament has applied this system to local elections in Ireland, as we have been reminded by the noble and learned Lord. In the recent elections the system was worked, it is claimed, with success.
It is quite true that criticism exists, and broadly speaking it is based upon the reasons which we have just heard from Lord Killanin. He says that the local candidate is knocked out. I have no

933
objection at all to the local candidate, but the local candidate is not necessarily the best candidate. The noble Lord says that he will not be able to give attention to local politics. Perhaps that is rather a good thing. Where he sits for a single constituency, as so many of your Lordships know who have sat in the other House, a Member is always obliged to concentrate too much of his attention upon purely local questions, which are really questions of local government rather than for the Imperial Parliament. The bigger the constituency the more difficult does that become. The larger the aggregation of constituencies the more impossible does it become. Therefore the greater the physical difficulties of covering the ground the greater is the chance of polities being of an imperial rather than a parochial character.
The noble Lord says that having to appeal to large districts will prevent local interest. I do not think so; I believe it will stimulate rather broader views. And when he says it will exascerbate the tendency, no doubt deplorable, for candidates to be mere nominees of a Party caucus, I differ entirely. It does not mean that the local political caucus is without power. If the constituency is the aggregate of two or three or more separate constituencies you are not necessarily going to increase the power of the political Party caucus, and in some ways I think you would tend to reduce it. So I urge the Committee not to accept this Amendment: Proportional Representation is working in Ireland already; it was recommended by the Convention, and it was in the Act of 1914, framed by the Liberal Party; and if Ireland as a whole finds that Proportional Representation, as laid down in this Bill, does not work successfully, there is the remedy in subsection (5) of this clause, which entitles the Irish Parliament to alter the system of election on the expiration of three years from the date of the first meeting. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will support the Bill as it stands.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I should like to support this Amendment, because I have for many years been considered one of the Australian authorities on Proportional Representation. I often hear it said that Proportional Representation represents minorities. That is incorrect. It neither represents minorities
934
nor majorities. In our constitutional elections we found that we never got a majority of more than two or three on one side of the House or the other and for eight years out of ten the Cabinet could be put out of action by one independent member crossing the floor of the House. Another great disadvantage was that it entirely disfranchised the agricultural districts. I think it is well to explain these points to your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: We in the North of Ireland who are a majority do not like Proportional Representation. No Irishman has ever asked for it, and there is absolutely no demand for it. We dislike it in the North, and we do not understand why the Government should want to try it on us. It is really a case of "trying it on the dog." It is very expensive, as has already been pointed out, and it is very difficult to work. Take for example my own town in County Down. There are 9,300 electors, and any candidate contesting an election there is put to the expense of sending a leaflet to each elector. It almost makes it impossible for any one except a wealthy person to stand as a candidate.
Proportional Representation was originally introduced in order to stem Sinn Feiners. What has been the result? On the Mayo Council every seat is held by Sinn Fein, and the same applies to Roscommon, while South Tipperary and several other councils are mainly Sinn Fein. Proportional Representation simply delivered the country over to Sinn Fein. It was also said that by Proportional Representation you would get more efficient people to stand for the county councils. Nothing of the kind has happened. It was also supposed that one of the results would be that the rates would go down. What actually happened was this. Since Sinn Feiners have had charge the rates have risen from 16 s. 11 d. to 22 s. 6d. The Derry Corporation, which had a very small Unionist majority, became Nationalist, and the first thing it did was to raise the rates by 7s. in the pound.
Proportional Representation is extraordinarily complicated. People who can just read, and who have no education, find it difficult to understand, and when they see a long list of names which they cannot remember they give it up and do not vote at all. The school board elections last

935
year in Scotland afforded an example of what takes place with Proportional Representation. In Edinburgh, out of 130,000 electors only 24,000 went to the poll. In Glasgow with about 446,000 electors only 121,000 or 37 per cent. went to the poll. In Aberdeen, which had always prided itself on the number of its electors who went to the poll, the record fell to 14 percent. The result in Scotland was this. So far from Proportional Representation giving representation to minorities, the minority practically became a majority. There is this further point. If a member of a Council dies the wretched man who comes forward to offer himself for the vacancy has to make his appeal to the whole of the constituency. I ask your Lordships to imagine the expense of that. I do not know what my noble friend, Lord Midleton, feels upon this matter, but we in Ulster have no reason for feeling very kindly towards him for the way he is trying to destroy our aspirations. I hope that he will remember that we voted for him last night because we wanted to do good to the South, and I trust that he will to-day vote with us in order to help the North.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It really is too late in the clay for my noble friend who has just spoken to tell this House that Proportional Representation is a difficult and an obscure system to work. It is working in almost every part of the world except in this country, and it is working in every single case, except Tasmania, with marked and acknowledged success. The very case that the noble Lord cited, that of Scotland, would have shown him, had he taken the trouble to ascertain the views of Scots on the results of their elections, that he is wrong in his view of those results. So far as I could judge from the Scottish Press, and also from discussing the matter with my Scottish friends, the result of those school board elections in Scotland was almost universally acknowledge to be an extraordinary success. As for not being able to work the system, it was worked even in Ireland with success the other day. My noble friend shakes his head, but I am not making a point as to whether it is a good system or a bad one. What I am saying is that there was no difficulty in working it at these elections.
If you want a real argument in favour of the proposal of the Government, it is to be found in what the noble Lord has just said about the county council elections
936
in the South of Ireland. Under the single-member constituency system Sinn Fein would have had every seat for a certainty, and without taking any trouble in the matter. It was because they saw under the system of Proportional Representation, with its transferable vote, that they were going to lose the monopoly of representation and that minorities were for the first time going to have a look in that they swept forward in all their military organisation and terrorised the electors. There could not possibly be given a greater testimonial of the virtues of Proportional Representation than Sinn Fein gave on that occason. During the whole of my political life since Home Rule became a burning question I have been a warm friend of Ulster, but I think the Natonalists are entitled to their share of representation in the Ulster Parliament, and they cannot get it except from some such system as that of Proportional Representation.
Your Lordships will, perhaps, forgive me if I remind you that in this matter you hold a rather proud record. You had a difference of opinion with the other House in the last Parliament, and in that I say this House was emphatically right and the House of Commons was emphatically wrong. What was the consequence of the House of Commons rejecting the Amendments of the House of Lords on the Franchise Bill? That the Coalition Government obtained a majority far in excess of their real strength in the country; the Liberal Party was nearly wiped out, and the Labour Party received only a very small proportion of its due representation. In my humble judgment a very large proportion of our political and social troubles since have arisen from the fact that neither Liberals nor Labour have proper representation in the House of Commons. I beg your Lordships to remember this, and to give support to this principle.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I am not going into the whole question of Proportional Representation, because my experience is that to attack or even to appear to have any doubt on that subject is as dangerous as to embark on the question of liquor or of ecclesiastical law. I only wish to make it clear that if some of us do not go into the lobby with my noble friend it is not because we believe that any good will be done by Proportional Representation in the counties of the South. I think that in the boroughs—indeed I

937
thought it about the boroughs in this country—for the very reasons mentioned by Lord Killanin there might have been some advantage, but in the counties I believe that what he says about local candidates is absolutely correct.
As regards the particular minority with which I am connected, it is quite obvious that where you happen to be only 350,000 out of 3,000,000—one in ten—no system of Proportional Representation will give you any advantage. I recognise what my noble friend Lord Selborne has said with regard to the North, and I shall not be prepared to vote for my noble friend's Amendment.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I was a member of a County Council in the North of Ireland and saw some of the workings of the system of Proportional Representation. I can certainly bear out what my noble friend has expressed in many of his criticisms. It is a very complicated system. Instead of having one man to vote for and knowing exactly for whom you are going to vote, you have a list of seven or eight, and those who are not very literate meet with considerable difficulty in understanding for whom they are voting. There is an enormous amount of arithmetic connected with it, and I do not understand yet exactly how it is done. You vote for one man and if he does not get in his votes are added to some one else or they are subtracted from those of some one else, and heaven only knows who gets in.
The other criticism made by my noble friend is that it would be very expensive, and certainly there is a considerable amount of expense connected with the election of a county council on that system. You have to write letters to many hundreds of electors; you have to issue posters; you have to get a secretary and to spend money in many more directions than was the case formerly. Then there is of necessity a considerable amount of labour connected with it, in writing letters and going round the country. Those things are all right for Parliamentary candidates and those who are prepared to sue for the suffrages of their fellow men, but there are many of us who are not prepared to do that. While quite prepared to stand for a county council and to work in the county they are not prepared to go round the country and sue for the suffrages of the
938
electors in the same way as Parliamentary candidates. Just before the last council election in my county several members said that they were not prepared to undertake all this unnecessary labour in order to continue to be members of the County Council. Some said, "If they want me I am quite prepared to be a member, but I am not going to take up all this additional work in order to remain a member of the county council."
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MAC DONNELL LORD MAC DONNELL moved, in the first line of subsection (5), to leave out "three" and insert "six." The noble Lord said: It has been an interesting experience for me to find the principle of Proportional Representation questioned in this House. My mind goes back to the month of May, 1914, when that question was fully discussed here in a series of debates resulting in a division which was no division. A division was challenged, but when the time came for going into the Lobby a teller could not be found on the side of the opposition. Therefore the questioning of the principle of Proportional Representation in this House after a lapse of six years is an extraordinary instance of the fluctuation of political thought. I am extremely glad that the result has been such as it is. I was particularly pleased with the speech of the noble Earl, Lord. Selborne, especially with his remark regarding the operation of Proportional Representation in Ulster.
The Amendment which stands in my name is naturally connected with that matter. The question really is whether a voter, from the fact of his voting for the first time under the system of Proportional Representation, is able to understand its full bearing. I wish to urge upon your Lordships that he cannot at the offset understand the system, and that a certain time should be given—that is to say, two elections—before the Bill comes into force and it becomes the privilege of the Northern or Southern Government to put an end to the system of Proportional Representation.
We have heard to-day from some of the noble Lords from Ulster how Proportional Representation is regarded in that Province. In the Lower House the point which I bring to your Lordships' notice attracted the attention of the supporters of Proportional Representation and they

939
proposed that the Act should come into operation only after the second election; that is, after six instead of after three years. The Government in another place favoured that suggestion; but under the influence of the representatives of Ulster it was left to be dealt with by a vote of the House. Unfortunately a division was taken in a very sparse House and went against the supporters of Proportional Representation. I wish to ask your Lordships to reverse that vote in this House and to give a chance to the voter to understand what he is doing, and not to be excluded for ever from the advantages of Proportional Representation because of his initial ignorance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 1 leave out ("three") and insert ("six.")—(Lord Mac Donnell.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I oppose this Amendment. Surely, if you establish a Parliament, three years is quite long enough to give it time to look round to see how the Act works. It is not fair to us in Ulster to impose Proportional Representation for six years.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am very sorry to appear to oppose any of my noble friends from Ulster, but I think this a very reasonable Amendment. I do not think three years is long enough to enable a fair judgment to be based on a new system—and a system especially which meets at the start with prejudice in many people, arising from ignorance. The Government in the. House of Commons were very willing, I am informed, to accept this Amendment, and I sincerely hope they will not turn an absolutely deaf ear to it on this occasion.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not think the Government desires to turn an absolutely deaf ear to it, but, on the other hand, there is a good deal to be said in favour of the limitation to three years, as proposed in Clause 14. Lord MacDonnell, I think, based his objection to the period of three years chiefly on the point that the electors cannot understand the system, and that three years is therefore insufficient to give it a fair test. But we have just beard from, I think, Lord Selborne among others that the Irish people are already working local elections under this system, and that they do understand it; and Lord Clanwilliam is wrong in saying that the responsibility rests upon the electors of
940
doing all these complicated computations. It is the returning officer and his staff who have to perform that function. I should have thought myself that, if we set up Parliaments on broad grounds, the best thing is to allow them to re-arrange their electoral system, should they so desire, as soon as they so desire. I do not attach first-class importance to this Amendment; but my inclination certainly is to recommend your Lordships to support the three years as against the six.
THE EARL OF DESART: I hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude. It seems to me that in effect what is proposed in the Bill is that in three years they should pass a Reform Bill, and if you look back to the history of Reform Bills in this country, and the long intervals that have supervened between one Reform Bill and another, considerable time does elapse before people slowly realise what the defects of their system are. And, though it may not be of very great importance whether it is three or six years, it seems to me that six years is a more reasonable time. I doubt whether in three years you would realise whether some reform—this or any other—was necessary or not.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I agree with the noble Earl opposite that this cannot be treated as a matter of first importance, and, so far as it refers to proportional representation, nobody I suppose, conceives that that system will have a very great numerical effect on the composition of the Houses in Ireland. It will have some effect, as I firmly believe, but it will not have anything like a revolutionary effect. And therefore the matter is one which has to be regarded as a balance of advantage and disadvantage.
I confess I should have thought that there was a great deal to be said for the longer period. It would mean, I suppose, that one election is likely to occur before any change can be made. That seems to me a decided advantage. If the first elected House desires to make a change it is surely just as well that such a change should be submitted to the verdict of the electors. It is also, I think, desirable that the minds of the first elected House should not be diverted to this question of machinery at all, and that whatever is agreed as being the best machinery to begin upon should have a chance, at any rate for the term of the first Parliament.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: After what has fallen from Lord Crewe and other noble Lords I will undertake that Lord MacDonnell's proposal shall receive sympathetic consideration by the Government before the Report stage.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD MAC DONNELL: Perhaps I may be permitted to say that yesterday our attention was called to the fact that in the counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone there was a very large predominance of the Catholic population. They will require protection. They will require from the system of proportional representation such protection as they may be able to derive from it in order to send their representatives to the Parliament. I beg that that also may be considered. But in view of what the noble Earl has said, I do not insist upon the Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clauses—
"16. A member of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland shall be incapable of being chosen or elected or of sitting as a member of the Senate of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, and a member of the Senate of Son thorn Ireland or Northern Ireland shall be incapable of being chosen or elected or of sitting as a member of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland.
"17.-(1) Bills imposing taxation or appropriating revenue or moneys shall originate only in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland. But a Bill shall not be taken to impose taxation or to appropriate revenue by reason only of its containing provision for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary matters.
"(2) The Senate of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland may not amend any Bills so far as they impose taxation or appropriate revenue or moneys for the public services of the Government and may not amend any Bill so as to increase any proposed charges or burdens on the people."
The noble Lord said: The Lord Chancellor has once or twice complained that sufficient details were not given as to the composition of the Senate, and this Amendment is put down to a certain extent to do away with that objection. The new Clause 16 which I propose would make it impossible
942
for anyone to be a member of both Houses. I think that that would meet with general approval. With regard to subsection (1) of my new Clause 17, my legal advisers have told me that that is a common clause to be inserted with regard to a Money Bill; and as regards subsection (2), I understand that that follows the usual form with regard to Money Bills.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15, insert the said new clauses.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Some such clause as the noble Lord has moved would undoubtedly be necessary upon the establishment of the two Senates. Clause 16 is a reproduction of Section 12 (4) of the Act of 1914, and Clause 17 is a reproduction of Section 10 (1) of that Act. I certainly am not going to offer any opposition to this proposal. It is for the noble Lord to develop the symmetry of his own scheme.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Has the noble Lord considered this proposition? Why should not a member of the House of Commons be chosen for the Senate? May he not be a desirable person to be on the Senate? If the noble Lord would say "shall be incapable of sitting" it would be another matter; but if a member of the House of Commons is incapable of being chosen or elected a member of the Senate you would exclude from the Senate some one who is already a member of the House of Commons. Surely it would be enough to provide that he should not sit in both.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The words chosen appear in the Act of 1914.
Clause 16 agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following new clause—
".—(1) If the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland pass any Bill, and the Senate of Southern or Northern Ireland rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with amendments to which the House of Commons will not agree, and if the House of Commons in the next Session again passes the Bill with or without any amendments which have been made or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it or passes

943
it with amendments to which the House of Commons will not agree, the Lord Lieutenant may during that Session, convene a joint sitting of the members of such two Houses.
"(2) The members present at any such joint Session may deliberate and shall vote together upon the Bill as last proposed by the House of Commons and upon amendments, if any, which have been made therein by one House and not agreed to by the other, and any such amendments which are affirmed by a majority of the total number of members of such two Houses present at such sitting shall be taken to have been carried.
"(3) If the Bill with the amendment, if any, is affirmed by a majority of the members of the two Houses present at such sitting it shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses.
"Provided that, if the Senate of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland shall reject or fail to pass any Bill dealing with the imposition of taxation or the appropriation of revenue or moneys for the public service, such joint sitting may be convened during the same session in which the Senate so rejects or fails to pass such Bill."
The noble Lord said: The first two subsections provide what is to happen in the case of the House of Commons of Southern or Northern Ireland disagreeing with the Senate in that part of Ireland in regard to an ordinary Bill. In that case the Bill would not pass that year, but the following year, if it was re-introduced and passed the House of Commons but failed to pass the Senate, the two Houses would sit together and it would be decided by a majority of the votes whether the Bill should or should not become law. The last subsection refers to money Bills, and as that may be rather controversial I had better say a few words about it. The proposal is to give the Senate power not to amend but to reject money Bills, but in the case of the Senate so rejecting a money Bill the two Houses shall at once sit together in the same session and shall then decide, after debate, by a majority of the members of both Houses present whether or not the money Bill shall pass into law.
This provision is based on the recommendation of the Convention. I really am rather afraid of saying anything in favour of the Convention because so much cold water has been thrown on its suggestions by members of the Government with the one exception of Lord Crawford, who gave some praise to its recommendation with regard to proportional representation. It seems that because he Convention did not succeed in coming to a settlement of the Irish question; and the Nationalist members consequently were snowed under at the next General Election that its conclusions are of no importance; that it was composed of men whose views are not worthy
944
of consideration. That is not my view at all On the contrary, I look on the Irish Convention as one of the most remarkable assemblies of Irishmen since the time of the Kilkenny Council in the 17th Century.
I think your Lordships sometimes forget the amount of trouble His Majesty's Government took in forming the Convention. It is thought of as though it consisted only of Archbishops and Peers. There were a great many people there. Invitations were extended, and to a great extent accepted, to Chairmen of thirty-three County Councils, mostly representing the lower middle classes, and the Lord Mayors and Mayors of six county boroughs. There were representatives of Ulster, of the Southern Unionists, of the Nationalists—and a good many shades of Nationalist opinion from Mr. John Redmond to Mr. Devlin—the Chairmen of the Chambers of Commerce of Dublin, Belfast and Cork, representatives of Labour, representatives of the banking interests, railway interests and others; and all these men after much consultation came to the conclusion that certain safeguards were necessary for the protection of the Unionist minority, and were ready to afford them. These safeguards included a power of the Senate to deal to a certain extent with money Bills.
I should like to read to the House two extracts as showing the views held on this subject. One is from the Ulster representatives, and it is interesting to know what they said. It was at the end of the Convention when they had given up any hope or intention of coming to a settlement with the rest of their fellow members. Mr. Barrie, who made a suggestion of the exclusion of Ulster, said on March 12, 1918—
"Such safeguards which the Southern Unionists regard as necessary shall have the support of the Ulster Unionist representatives."
More important are the views which were put forward in a statement signed by all those who were called extreme Nationalist representatives, led by the Bishop of Raphoe. We must not forget that, although they were perfectly loyal to the King, their views were much akin to those of the moderate Sinn Feiner. They were in favour of complete control of Customs, complete fiscal autonomy, and they thought Ireland should have the power of raising a local military force for her protection. This is what they said—
"In regard to the safeguards for minorities in Ireland against any misuse of these powers that

945
they might fear, we have gone to extreme lengths in our anxiety to reach a settlement. We have agreed that an Irish House of Commons at the outset shall have a Unionist strength of 40 percent., and that the Upper House shall consist of nominated and ex-officio members, of Peers elected by their own order, and of other Members elected by their own class. The two Houses would sit and vote together on questions in dispute between them, including Money Bills. These arrangements are intended to give to commercial and industrial interests, and to Unionist views generally, a powerful voice in the final decision of all legislative questions, including financial measures."
It is all very well to say that these men were swept under by the election of 1918, but after all there is no one to take their place. We hope that they will come to the fore again and become members of the new Assembly, and therefore their views which they put forward ought to carry great weight.
The Lord Chancellor, like all advocates, must advocate the whole of the Bill. He naturally is bound to defend the whole Bill and says that if you have faith even to the extent of a grain of mustard seed you will believe that a man will not do wrong. I rather hold the view that it is better not to lead them into temptation, but to put in such safeguards that they will not be tempted to do injustice. I should like to point out again to the House that the Senate will only consist of half the number of members of the House of Commons, and it is very unlikely that they will all hold the same view, as if it is constituted in the way I propose there will be a large number of representatives of county councils and others. Therefore the most the Unionists could hope for in the case of a Money Bill would be that they would be able to put forward their views to the House of Commons and at any rate press them upon the fair judgment of their fellow countrymen.
It is also worthy of notice that in nearly every suggestion which has been made—for instance, the reform of your Lordships' House and the setting up of a new Chamber—certain powers have been given with regard to Money Bills. I believe that is the case in Lord Bryce's Report. I know the arrangement was rather complicated, and it would have resulted in the House of Commons having their own way in the long run, but there were consultations of various kinds between the two Houses and considerable conferences by which the House of Commons might be made acquainted with the views of the reformed House. In the same
946
way it is proposed that there should be an opportunity of conference between the two Houses of the Irish Parliament. I hope that this explanation may help to recommend the provision to your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As regards the noble Lord's proposal I neither assent to it nor dissent from it, nor do I say anything about it.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Representation of Ireland in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
18. Unless and until the Parliament of the United Kingdom otherwise determine, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) After the appointed day the number of members of be returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be forty-six, and the constituencies returning those members shall (in lieu of the existing constituencies) be the constituencies named in Parts I and II of the Second Schedule to this Act, and the number of members to be returned by each such constituency shall be the number mentioned in the third column of those Parts of that Schedule:

(b) The election laws and the laws relating to the qualification of parliamentary electors shall not, so far as they relate to elections of members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, be altered by the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland.

(c) On the appointed day, the members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall vacate their seats, and writs shall as soon as conveniently may be, be issued for the purpose of holding an election of members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the constituencies, mentioned in Parts I and II of the Second Schedule to this Act.

LORD KILLANIN LORD KILLANIN moved to delete from the clause the first three lines ending with the words "have effect," and to insert—
"So long as any of the duties and taxes mentioned in section twenty-one of this Act shall continue to be a reserved matter, the number of members to be returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United

947
Kingdom, and the constituencies returning those members shall not be altered by this Act, but if and when the powers of taxation and the powers of imposing and charging customs duties and excise duties reserved by this Act shall be transferred to the Parliament and Government of Ireland, or to the Parliaments and Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, the following provisions shall have effect unless and until the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall otherwise determine:—"
The noble Lord said: My Amendment to Clause 18 is put down in order to secure that until a certain stage is reached which is contemplated in connection with this Bill—namely, the handing over to Ireland of the powers of taxation which are reserved in Clause 20—Irish representation in this House of Commons should not be changed. When I say it should not be changed, I am not going into the question as to whether Ireland is over-represented. I know that a great deal can be said about the fact that Ireland is over-represented, and I used to think so myself until a couple of years ago. We had then 103 Members, but the Government brought in a Bill only two years ago raising the number to 105, and that made me doubt whether we ever had been over-represented. I am quite willing to take the figure mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, in his speech on the Second Reading in his suggestion that the true representation of Ireland at present would be 69. If my proposal would commend itself more to the Government, if instead of suggesting that the representation of Ireland should remain as it is I suggested that it should be changed to the figure of 69 until the event to which I refer, namely the taxation of Ireland, is handed over to the Irish Government, I personally would be quite willing to agree with that.
What is the position at present under this Bill? It is true that a certain number of Irish matters which I do not deny are important are being handed over to the Irish Parliaments. So far so good. But as long as the House of Commons is going to retain all the powers of the taxation of Ireland, Ireland is entitled under the old principle of "no taxation without representation" to her proper share of representation in the taxing Chamber, which will be the House of Commons in this country. I submit that that is a perfectly plain statement, and that not to abide by it will create an obvious and glaring injustice in Ireland, one quite out-of-date and quite unfitted in these days of con-
948
stitutional Government. That Irish representation should be reduced to some small insignificant quota, such as 46 in a House of 700, when almost all the powers of taxation of Ireland are being retained in the House of Commons in this country, would create a glaring injustice.
Let me give you the figures as regards the amount of taxation that is retained. The two Irish Parliaments will be concerned with the raising of £3,500,000; that is what is handed over to the two Irish Parliaments; but the House of Commons will retain powers of taxation in reference to £48,500,000 of the revenue of Ireland.
Six percent of the total revenue of Ireland will be raised by the Irish Parliaments, but 94 percent is to be raised by this House of Commons. Yet you reduce our representation in that Assembly where almost the entire amount of the taxation of the country is to be decided on to the insignificant figure of 46 in a House of over 700. I say if you do not make some change in this Bill you will on this matter be committing a perfectly obvious, glaring, unconstitutional, and out-of-date injustice to Ireland.
That is the main point of my Amendment. But I might give one or two additional reasons why Ireland's representation should not be reduced to this imperial quota figure of 46. A number of Irish services are still going to be reserved; all trade matters between Ireland and outside will be exclusively decided in this House of Commons; the control of land purchase and of postal services is left to this House of Commons. The management of the Royal Irish Constabulary and of the Dublin Metropolitan Police will remain in this House of Commons for a time. If these matters are going to be exclusively decided on this side why should we not have a proper representation in this House of Commons? It is almost comic to think of a member of the Irish House of Commons being elected and going to Dublin, as he imagines, to take part in the government of his country. He will have to sit in Dublin twiddling his thumbs while he observes a foreign Parliament over here settling the whole taxation of his country. The position will be monstrous, and quite indefensible in my opinion.
In reference to the Imperial contribution of £18,000,000 which is doubtless as the Bill stands a fixed sum, you may ask, What has it to do with the Irish? Has the

949
expenditure of →our →Imperial →contribution →nothing to do with us? You may fix the sum we raise, but do we take no interest in how it is expended? Are we to take no interest at all in future in the military and naval policy of this country to which this Imperial contribution goes? I may tell your Lordships that in the past one of the great grievances of Ireland has been the neglect of any form of Imperial patronage or Imperial expenditure in Ireland. We have never had our share of Imperial expenditure. I might mention a personal incident in reference to that matter. When I was elected some twenty years ago member for the Borough of Galway, having beaten the Nationalists, I thought it my duty when I came to this country to see if I could get any Imperial patronage or expenditure in Galway. I went first of all to the Admiralty Office where I saw two very important officials. I explained that I was Member for Galway and that Galway was on the sea. I said that a British man-of-war had not been in Galway Bay for a generation. I pointed out that as long as the Duke of Edinburgh was living he was rather fond of coming round with the Fleet to Galway, where there is good fishing and a good club. Unfortunately, His Royal Highness had died some years back, and since then not a single man-of-war had been in Galway Bay. A generation had grown up in the west of Ireland which did not know what a man-of-war was.
These officials said "You are Member for Galway. Galway! Where is Galway?" And one of them said "Galway is Tarbert," and I said "No, that is sixty miles from Galway at the mouth of the Shannon." He then said "It is in the Killaries," and I said "No, that is fifty miles north. H you get me a map I will point out where it is." I got a map and pointed it out. The result of the representations was that H.M.S. Camperdown, a man-of-war, was sent to Galway where it spent three weeks. There was a full complement of men but no provisions on board. All provisions were bought in Galway. The price of lobsters and chickens went up all over the place. Excursion trains were arranged from Ballinasloe, Castlebar, and other towns to see the amazing thing there was in Galway Bay called a than-of-war. It was old and out of date, but the people had never seen one at all. Five thousand people visited it. That is an instance of the difficulty we have of receiving any Imperial patron-
950
age in Ireland. I ceased to be Member and it was not my business to look after matters, and in the interval until the war still no British man-of-war visited Galway Bay. But I recollect seeing twelve German men-of-war in that bay.
hope I have laid before your Lordships the reasons why I consider that even in the distribution and expenditure of Imperial contributions we are entitled to our representation. I repeat that my main point is in reference to the taxation of the country. It seems to me a monstrous injustice that you should reduce our representation—to what? What is forty six? It is Ireland's possible Imperial quota if there was a Federal Government. But why should Ireland be given only the Imperial quota that we would have under the Federal system when England, Scotland and Wales retain their full representation? When they are reduced to their Imperial quotas, we of course will recognise our right to be reduced also. So long as 94 per cent. of the taxation of Ireland is going to be raised and collected by this Parliament it seems the most obvious injustice that. Ireland should not have a fair share of representation which I should be willing to allow to be based on her population.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 32, leave out front the beginning of the line to the end of line 44, and insert the said words—(Lord Killanin.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think this is a question of the very first importance, and those who remember the history of previous Home Rule Bills of 1886 and 1893 and the Act now on the Statute Book will realise what an amount of discussion has been given to it and what difficulty has been caused. There are two sets of considerations, both, as I think, possessing real validity but opposed to each other, the respective weight of which your Lordships will have to consider.
There are those, as will appear from the Paper, from the identical Amendments of my noble friend and myself, who conceive that if you are passing a Home Rule measure at all the disadvantages attaching to the presence of Irish Members in the House of Commons are so great that their presence ought to be dispensed with altogether. I will not say anything on that because that comes as a later Amendment. On the other hand, there are those, like my noble friend to whose speech we

951
have listened with such delight, who fix upon the principle that taxation and representation go together and therefore demand that so long as a great part of the taxation to be exacted from Ireland is a matter not for the Irish Parliament but for the House of Commons there should be a large and, as my noble friend hopes, if possible a full representation of Irish Members in the House of Commons.
I have merely risen to explain that I cannot support the Amendment of my noble friend, because he proposes that after what he conceives to be a temporary condition when there would be a hundred or more Irish Members remaining in the House of Commons—even after that, if and when these duties, powers of taxation and powers of imposing Customs Duties have been transferred to Ireland—there should still remain the representation provided in the Bill. I really do not very much care, if the Bill is to stand, whether the number of Members is 45 or 69 or 102. I shall be able to explain later the objections which I entertain to the presence of any Irish Members whatever, but in no circumstances, I fear, could I vote for the Amendment of my noble friend, worded as it is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment, and the only Amendment, before the House is to the effect that Ireland shall retain her present representation in the United Kingdom House of Commons when Customs Duties and Excise Duties are transferred to the Irish Parliament or Irish Parliaments. I really cannot believe that the noble Lord is likely to find very much support for this particular proposal. It has been a grievance, against which a loud and hitherto vain voice of protest have been raised for generations, that a wholly undue weight has been given to Ireland in the House of Commons. It has been a weight which has been used, as many of us believe, with very great prejudice to the fortunes of British politics, and this solid block of votes has been transferred at times to the great political Parties, not merely in order to give effect to a purpose in which the Irish nation profoundly believes, but to give effect to other purposes as a condition of bargaining, in which it was notorious the Irish nation and the Irish representatives took not the slightest interest.
952
No one, I think, in these circumstances would be prepared to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord in its existing form. The noble Lord, indeed, indicated that he might be prepared to accept a compromise under which some other number might be substituted. That being so, I would venture to suggest to the noble Lord that, inasmuch as his Amendment is immediately followed by one which other noble Lords put forward it might be of great assistance to noble Lords generally if we had the advantage of hearing their views, which would leave it still open to the noble Lord, if he wished to do so after hearing the discussion, to put down on the Report stage, not his present proposal, which I think he recognises as unacceptable, but the alternative figure of 67 or 68. I think the noble Lord will agree that it is an advantage to hear the other case strongly put by those who hold it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE had Amendments on the Paper to substitute for paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of Clause 18 the following—
"After the appointed day no member shall be returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
"On the appointed day, the members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall vacate their seats."
The noble Earl said: I think, notwithstanding what the noble and learned Lord has said, it will be more for the convenience of the House if we take the debate on the Amendment of Lord Stuart of Wortley and then the Amendment of Lord Crewe, which is the same as mine. Therefore I do not propose to move these Amendments.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, at the end of clause, to insert the following new paragraphs—
"(d) Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom returned by Irish constituencies as hereinbefore provided shall not vote or otherwise take part in proceedings upon Bills resolutions or other questions arising in the United Kingdom Parliament with regard to matters in Great Britain or any part thereof, as to which, if they arose with regard to Ireland or any part of Ireland, either of the Parliaments or Houses or the Council mentioned in clauses one, two, three or four of this Act would have jurisdiction.

953
(e) Questions as to the ascertainment or definition of the matters or occasions to which the prohibitions and disabilities contained in paragraph (d) should apply shall rest with the Speaker of the House of Commons, subject only to such reconsideration or directions as may be enjoined or given to him by the majority of the members of the House of Commons elected by constituencies in Great Britain."
The noble Lord said: If it is your Lordships' pleasure I rise to move the Amendment of which I have given notice. I have endeavoured to draw it in such a manner that it shall tell its own story, to show the mischief at which it is aimed and the remedy it proposes to apply. The mischief at which my Amendment is aimed has already been glanced at in speeches made to your Lordships, but I do not know what the attitude of the Government is going to be. It is open to the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to speak of the circumstances in which, the manner in which, and the lack of authority with which this Amendment is now proposed, and I shall doubtless be reminded that either in 1886 or in 1893 Mr. Gladstone said that to attempt discrimination of functions, such as is attempted in this Amendment, is a thing which passes the wit of man. Your Lordships may remember that Mr. Gladstone at one time made himself responsible for a proposal under which there should be no Irish Members in the Imperial House, and at another time for a proposal that there should be a limited number.
In what I should venture to call the somewhat over-fastidious days of mid-Victorian statesmanship it may very well have appeared that definition was impossible, and that the discriminations and demarcations which were desired were impracticable; but my case to-day is that a great deal has happened since then. We have attempted much more difficult definitions. We have put them into Acts of Parliament, and made criminal penalities hang upon them. We have defined not only "hoarding" but have actually 'coined a new word, "profiteering," and not only put it into the English language but into a penal Statute.
The mischief at which I aim is to be very shortly stated. We do not like in Great Britain a state of things in which our public houses, our schools, and our Churches can be deprived of their resources or any other of their attributes by persons who
954
are completely strangers to those questions. It is quite true that the Irish Parliaments will not have the power to endow a Church, but, as I read the clause, they will have power to endow one, and very likely they will proceed to exercise that power, and it may be remembered as we remember with great pain that a Church in Great Britain was disendowed largely by the votes of Members of the United Kingdom House who had no concern in the affairs of that Church except what I may tall the indirect influence of political alliance—a power which they ought not to have had.
Last night the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, with a sense of proportion which was no more than just, selected the two most prominent counties in England—Yorkshire and Hertfordshire—and said that they were not going to have their affairs dealt with by Irishmen in the Imperial Parliament unless those counties were given a like power of dealing with Irish affairs, which they were not going to have; and he said also that it was impossible to conceive such a state of things being allowed long low to continue. He said that it must lead in the end to federal devolution. But I am not content to have this state of injustice used as a mere leverage for federal devolution. For my part I cannot say that I am in love with the prospect of having to face what Mr. Balfour, I believe, in another place very wittily described as "seeing England cut up into lengths to suit the Irish standard."
There is one other recommendation for my Amendment. I think there is a great deal to be said for many of the considerations which were just now urged by my noble friend Lord Killanin. It is clear that if there is going to be a contribution to Imperial expenditure from the Kingdom of Ireland you have to settle in some way or another the relations between the Imperial House and the Irish representation in it. I submit that my Amendment, if it is passed, and if it eliminates these most objectionable matters of controversy and delivers us from the sense of this galling injustice, which is much greater than is usually supposed, leaves us free to make a much closer approach to the strict canons of justice in adjusting to Imperial burdens the representation in the Imperial House in the future. I said something about practicability as distinguished from principle.
Your Lordships will see that I have not shrunk from the questions of definition and enforcement.
In making arrangements which must be internal to the other branch of the Legislature one has to approach the matter with very great care and great respect for existing institutions, and I submit that I have done so with all that proper respect. No one can conceive of the decision remaining in other hands than those of the present Speaker of the present House, but when speaking of the practice of angling for Irish votes, which is the source of all the evils at which my Amendment is aimed, you have to contemplate some future day when the presiding officer may be swept away by the old temptation. I have provided that in that case there should be some kind of appeal to the majority of those who suffer from the evils at which my Amendment is aimed, and I submit that my Amendment will for the first time, and by no means too soon, make the members of the Imperial House of Commons really and truly, as well as in form, masters in their own House.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 17, at end insert the said new paragraphs.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The House has listened with great attention to the speech in which my noble friend behind me moved his interesting Amendment. It would be difficult for me not to trench to some extent, in saying a few words upon it, upon the subject-matter of the next Amendment—that is to say, the proposition to exclude the Irish Members altogether—and I hope I may be forgiven if I do so. What strikes me is that my noble friend looked at the matter entirely from the point of view of this country and of the interests of England in the House of Commons, almost one might say as an English Sinn Feiner, and with no reference to what the interests of Ireland might he in this matter.
I have always held that the presence of the Irish Members in the House of Commons under such a Bill as this when it becomes an Act would lead to distinct mischiefs, those on the one hand which Lord Stuart of Wortley has dealt with—that is to say, the obvious impropriety, in the circumstances which would arise, of British matters being possibly settled by Irish votes—and on the other hand there is the objec-
956
tion, which I feel quite as strongly from the point of view of a Home Rule measure, that it is a supreme disadvantage that Irish matters, after a Bill of this kind becomes an Act, should become the subject of discussion in the House of Commons. Against that the noble Lord's Amendment provides no safeguard. On the contrary, it almost provides encouragement, because if Irish Members are to be sent to the House of Commons representing Irish constituencies they will desire to occupy themselves by the discussion of Irish matters, and we shall see, I greatly fear, a repetition of what so often occurred in the past—namely, that a great deal of time is taken up and a great many tempers are lost over discussion on the floor of the House of Commons of some purely Irish question.
I do not know whether it is conceived by some that the presence of Irish Members in another place is going to act as a protection to minorities in Ireland. If that belief is held, I consider it to be mistaken in the hope of its results, and also likely to produce serious mischief. If you are going to start an Irish Parliament or Parliaments you must as far as possible leave it or them alone; you cannot revert to the practice with which you are so familiar of perpetual Irish discussions here. So far as protection of minorities is concerned, if the idea is that some Roman Catholic from Belfast who supposes that he has a grievance can get some Nationalist Irish Member to bring it up in the House of Commons, or that some Protestant in the South of Ireland who has a parallel grievance can get some Unionist Member (if that is the proper phrase) to bring it up, then I venture to think that is a delusion, and can only lead to trouble. Those who had a grievance in the past on the question of Home Rule have always maintained that the sense of responsibility in the Irish Parliament would bring about a sobriety of judgment and of action greater than that which has existed in the past. I am quite content to rely upon that now, either for the Northern or Southern Parliament. I do not want to have Irish grievances dragged up before the tribunal of the British Parliament. Therefore I should greatly prefer to see the Irish Members altogether standing out of the House of Commons, and I hope that your Lordships may be disposed to take that view.
I quite agree that to a certain extent my noble friend's Amendment does meet

957
the case, assuming it to be possible to do now what in the past was considered to be impossible—namely, to arrive at a real and workable distinction between British matters and matters which affect Ireland as well. I cannot think that the task would be quite so simple as my noble friend appears to hope. I do not know what has happened since 1893 to make one suppose that the task of definition will be so much easier now than it was then. I confess that I would sooner see my noble friend's Amendment carried than see the Bill stand as it is now printed, but I hope that your Lordships will not refuse to give consideration to the further Amendment for which my noble friend Lord Selborne and I are responsible.
There is, of course—and one has to face it—the formidable difficulty of the matter of taxation. We should solve that difficulty in a different way by giving Ireland far more control over taxation, but even as it is I venture to say that, pending the time when Ireland can be responsible for her own taxation and has the control over her own Customs and Excise, I would sooner, were I an Irishman, agree to be taxed for a term of years without any representation, rather than send Members to the House of Commons in the circumstances which I have tried to describe. I do not know, for I have not had the opportunity of discovering, what Irish opinion as a whole is on this matter. I cannot believe that Irishmen are particularly anxious to come to Westminster in the new circumstances, and the best talent of Ireland ought to be used in the Irish Parliament. If it comes over here and is tempted to engage in the sterile controversies of this Parliament, Ireland will suffer, and we shall suffer too; and I cannot help thinking that, if one had the opportunity of finding out what Irishmen as a whole think on this matter, they would prefer, even though they cannot get control over their own taxes, to stand away from Westminster for a time until the whole matter can be regularised by giving them fiscal and financial control, when naturally no question of representation need arise.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: The concluding sentence of my noble friend who has just spoken should allow me to put very briefly before your Lordships what seem to me very serious considerations.
958
If the view he has just put forward is adopted we have three proposals before us. The Government proposal to bring 46 Members to Westminster for all purposes; the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Stuart of Wortley, to bring the same number here but to allow them to debate and vote only on Imperial questions which affect Ireland and taxation; and then the suggestion of the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, that for the time they shall not attend Westminster at all although they are going to be taxed. Even if all Ireland said, "We would rather not come to Westminster," I assure your Lordships that we could not make a greater blunder than to supply those who will sit in the new Parliament and who cannot be parties to this arrangement with the first-class grievances that they are going to be taxed without representation.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: We discussed this matter at very great length two years ago. I allude to those discussions because they are the only opportunities we have had for testing Irish opinion, and I frankly admit that the very great responsibilities and important functions of coming to Westminster were not, as far as we could see, properly appreciated by those who had been sitting there in the past. The moment you took that privilege away you would have a complete revulsion of feeling throughout Ireland. We must put into the background, and I am not going to argue it now, the very strong and united determination of the whole of the South that they should have the control of the whole of their taxation. But it must be remembered that the trade between Great Britain and Ireland amounts to £250,000,000 annually, and have heard it said by a first-class statistician, though I have not been able to verify it, that it amounts to something like 40 per cent. of the whole trade of this country. I can hardly believe it, but it amounts to the sum I have mentioned, and the whole of that trade and all the provisions with regard to it must be in the hands of the Parliament at Westminster under the Bill. It would never do that we should put Ireland in the position of being able to say that the whole of that business was transacted behind her back.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Therefore I would urge your Lordships to accept the view that Ireland should be represented here possibly in rather larger numbers than the Government suggests (though that might be considered before the Report stage), but in the circumstances which my noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley proposes.
The noble Marquess said, "Has anything much changed since 1893?" It is a very small question in such big considerations, but one thing has changed remarkably and that is the whole treatment of the Estimates by the House of Commons. In the days when Mr. Gladstone found such difficulty Estimates came up on quite a different system. Now there is a limited number of days, and the assigning of the day has always been held, as I understand it, by the authorities of the House and the Prime Minister—those who have been more recently in the House of Commons will correct me if I am wrong—to be adjusted according to the wishes of the particular part of the House they desire to discuss. Nothing would be easier than to mass together the questions which Irishmen have to consider and take them on days that were convenient to the Irish Members and so prevent them being called over too frequently. That is a comparatively small question.
There is one, however, that I would ask my noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley to consider. In the last paragraph of his Amendment he suggests that the decision of what subjects are Irish and what are British should rest with the Speaker of the House of Commons "subject only to such reconsideration or direction as may be enjoined or given to him by the majority of the members of the House of Commons elected by constituencies in Great Britain." Two points arise on that. First of all, I should be sorry to see this House decide how the House of Commons is to advise its Speaker.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I should be very sorry if partial advice was secured for the Speaker on a question which so vitally affects the Irish Members—who will be by hypothesis in a very small minority—because they were excluded from advising him. I desire to support my noble friend's Amendment, and when the proper
960
time comes I will move that all words after "Speaker of the House of Commons" shall be left out.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: Like the noble Earl who has just sat down I was a Member of the House of Commons when the Home Rule Bills of 1886 and 1893 were before that House and had a good deal to do with drafting the latter Bill. Therefore I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a few words with regard to the different alternatives as they presented themselves then to the Cabinet and to the House of Commons. I must begin by admitting that what Mr. Gladstone said in those days has been verified by subsequent experience. It has passed the wit of man to devise any satisfactory or logical arrangement.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: The arrangement which the noble Lord, Lord Stuart of Wortley, proposes is not quite logical but it comes nearer to logic than any other suggestion which has been made yet.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: It was proposed in 1886 that the Irish Members should not come to the House of Commons at all, and Mr. Parnell acquiesced in that arrangement. It was proposed then as a means of reconciling the Conservative Party in Parliament to the Home Rule Bill upon the ground that it would rid them of the presence of the Irish Members. That was the ground upon which it was supposed it would please them, and it was one of the grounds which Mr. Parnell was willing to admit had its force. The objection taken then was that it would amount to a practical declaration that Ireland was going to be separate and that it would look like bidding good-bye to Ireland. That argument prevailed so much that in the long run instead of helping the Bill to pass it was one of the causes which contributed to its defeat.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: In 1893 we were obliged to try some other plan and after a great deal of hesitation we decided upon a plan like that which my noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley now puts forward.

961
The Irish Members were to be reduced in number to some extent though not altogether in proportion to the population, and it was to be provided that whenever a question arose which did not affect Ireland but affected the rest of the United Kingdom the Irish Members were to go out and not vote upon it. The only precedent we could find for that proposal was the system which then existed in the Hungarian Parliament to which Croatia was attached, and the Croat Members in the Hungarian Diet were allowed to come in and vote on questions which related to Hungary and Croatia taken together but not upon questions which related to Hungary alone At the very last moment in the House of Commons itself certain difficulties arose which made the Government throw over that proposal which was called the "in and out clause," and was made the object of such great derision by Opposition speakers that ultimately it was thrown over and we fell back upon the perfectly illogical proposition that Ireland should have a Legislature of her own and yet should have full powers over English and Scottish questions
Those were both highly illogical propositions but the most logical of the three was the solution which Lord Stuart of Wortley now proposes. I will not venture to argue the whole question because it will come up again upon the Amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe; therefore I will argue it only as against the Bill as it stands. As against the Bill as it stands, which proposes that the 46 Irish Members shall come to Westminster to speak and vote upon all questions, my noble friends' Amendment seems to be a distinct improvement. It comes nearer to logic, and it relieves the House of Commons from part at least of the difficulties which have confronted it by the presence of Irish Members—who, be it remembered, have no responsibility as regards English questions. The real trouble of having Irish Members voting on all questions in the House of Commons is that they are not responsible. They are there merely—if I may use a rather offensive term in an inoffensive sense—they are there in the market. They are there to be induced to vote for one or other party in connection with matters in which they are not interested themselves, and in which their constituents are not interested.
962
On the other hand, if you exclude them altogether, you are met by the very great difficulty that you have reserved foreign policy for the United Kingdom, and Irish Members are certainly entitled to have a voice on foreign policy; you have reserved the Army and Navy, and Irish Members are entitled to vote upon that; and if there were a Member for Galway now, as unfortunately there is not, be would still be able to bring a man-of-war round to Galway. And there is one point which has not yet been noticed—it is not a matter often likely to arise, but it might arise—and that is the discretion which is to be given to the Lord Lieutenant by the Imperial Government. If the Lord Lieutenant is directed by the Imperial Government to take a certain course, that is a course which affects Irish Government, and that is a course in which Irish Members might reasonably claim to have a voice when it comes to be discussed.
On the whole, therefore, while reserving one's opinion upon the general question of the presence of Irish Members altogether till we conic to discuss that question separately on the Amendments that are next on the Paper, I venture to think that strong reasons exist why this House should prefer the proposals of ray noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley to the Bill as it stands, and I do not see why the Government, on the principles of the Bill generally, should object to that solution. I believe that we thought at the time that it would be quite possible to draw a sufficiently clear line between Irish questions and other questions to enable the scheme to be worked as it was, in fact, worked, and with very little friction, in the Hungarian Diet. If my noble friend, therefore, goes to a Division I shall be very happy to support him.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is, I confess, to me a little astonishing that a proposal with so unfortunate a Parliamentary history should have met with such a considerable degree of support, and should have been attacked by no speaker. I should have thought that this particular proposal had had an extraordinarily unfortunate history. The noble Viscount who has just sat down, and who speaks with acknowledged authority upon these subjects in this House, is apparently in favour of the proposal. He finds it the most logical, and he intends to vote in favour as against the proposal which at present stands in the Bill. The noble

963
Viscount will understand the spirit in which I make this criticism when I say that I, for one, should be far more inclined to attach importance to what the noble Viscount did when he was in a position of responsibility and the Minister, than to what the noble Viscount advises now when, in relation to this Bill, he has only the responsibility of an ordinary member of the House.
The noble Viscount was, I think, a colleague in 1893, and a very important colleague of Mr. Gladstone's. These debates must have taken place over and over again between Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues. Every reader of contemporary history knows the anxiety and the difficulties which were occasioned by this proposal, and the noble Viscount has told your Lordships quite plainly that it was assailed with ridicule by its critics and opponents in the House of Commons. The noble Viscount is certainly not deficient in the power of repartee or in those gifts of historical and constitutional knowledge which would enable him to talk with his enemy in the gate; and no one will accuse the late Mr. Gladstone of being incompetent to reply to those who without good cause derided him. And vet we find that the noble Viscount's leader, Mr. Gladstone, and the noble Viscount, abandoning what he now thinks was the more logical course for a course which was obviously more open to attack than the present proposal of the Government—
A NOBLE LORDdissented.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, I think so; at any rate more open to the only attack which has been developed against the present proposals of the Government in this debate—the noble Viscount., I say, abandoning that, to-day asks your Lordships, at a time when he has not got the responsibility of these proposals, to say that this is the more logical course and therefore ought to be adopted. I have had my attention called (I do not now very often read these matters) to a speech that was made by Mr. Gladstone in 1893, when I think he was in retreat from the proposals which enlist the contemporary' enthusiasm of the noble Viscount. He said—
"I confess I myself hold that the inconvenience that would result from the Irish members leaving the House on certain occasions and coming back upon other occasions would be so great as to
964
utterly overpower any arguments that can be brought forward in support of the other proposition."
I dare say the noble Viscount listened to that speech—he was a colleague of Mr. Gladstone—he obviously agreed with it, or with the policy, or he would not have continued on so important a matter to be a colleague of Mr. Gladstone. And, sharing as he did those views, so expressed by Mr. Gladstone, I hope I may say without any offence that it is a very easy thing for the noble Viscount to come forward when ethers are obliged to confront the difficulties which were too great for the noble Viscount at that time, and to recommend to us at this period of time a plan which was discredited and failed and was broken in the hands of the noble Viscount in 1893.
Criticism, not of an identical, but of a similar kind falls to be made on the subject of the very interesting speech just contributed by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe. Lord Crewe adopted a very convenient course when he did not confine his observations to the strict subject-matter of this Amendment but, by anticipation, touched upon some of the topics which are more directly germane to his own. But the same reflection inevitably occurred to one when one was listening to Lord Crewe's speech. Lord Crewe conducted I think, the 1914 Bill through this House. Lord Crewe was a member of the Cabinet which decided all these things, and I myself remember that, with the activity which Oppositions in those days used to exhibit, in order that we might afford Ministers in the House of Commons every opportunity of explaining their policy from every angle which suggested itself to our ingenuity, it was our habit to put down every conceivable form of Amendment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Lord Buckmaster is much cheered, I observe, by these reminiscences. In the course of that procedure we put down, first of all, an Amendment that the Irish Members should be altogether excluded, then an Amendment that the numbers should be reduced, and then an Amendment upon the in-and-out lines. I observe that—I was going to say the Opposition in this House, but shall I say those who are less enthusiastic about the policy contained in this Bill?—have, by an interesting reversion to an older practice, adopted

965
incidentally exactly the same practice in this debate to-night. When the debate took place on the in-and-out proposal in another place on the 1914 Bill I recall that I myself took a part, and, such are the ironical changes which the passage of years and intervening events have brought about that I recall with great vividness the arguments—far more forcibly put than I can pretend to put them to-night—by which the then colleagues of Lord Crewe proved in the House of Commons that this was a foolish and. grotesque proposal, which had died with Mr. Gladstone, and which no one who ever gave any intelligent or informed attention to this subject was ever in the least likely to revive. What I cannot understand is why it did not occur to Lord Crewe at that time that this was such a good idea. Why did not Lord Crewe press upon his colleagues that the proposal was a fortiori extremely illogical, and must have been almost revolting to the noble Marquess's view, because he would altogether abandon the Irish representation in the House of Commons? But it does puzzle me to understand why the noble Viscount was. acquiescent in this other policy, holding as he must have held, unless he has changed his mind since, the view on which he has spoken to-night, that we ought to adopt the in-and-out arrangement.
THE MAEQUEESS OF CREWE: I think I had better explain to the Lord Chancellor that I am far from supporting the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Except by voting for it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: What I said was that if it could be worked—I do not believe it could—it would be preferable to keeping the Irish Members here for all purposes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The slight embarrassment I feel with regard to the noble Marquess is caused by the reflection that there is only one crude test which we can apply in order to determine whether or not he supports the Amendment. He prefaced his speech with the remark that he intended to vote for it.
TILE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I beg pardon; I did not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am pleased to hear that I was mistaken. I confess the announcement caused me very great anxiety, and I withdraw entirely the observations I made on that point. Surely we may draw some lesson from the fact that whatever Home Rule Bill is brought forward—and sonic critics have proposed the in-and-out system—no Government of all the successive Governments that have dealt with this matter have themselves, after consultation and discussion and after taking the opinion of their experts, ever persevered with the proposal. It has always been the irresponsible people who have thought that this was a possible scheme, and I am not in the least impressed by the precedent of Hungary and Croatia with which the noble Viscount indulged us. It was to me a remarkable circumstance that in all the history of this subject the only two Governments who have been so ill-advised and so foolish as to make this experiment were the Hungarian Government in dealing with the Croats, and Mr. Gladstone and the noble Viscount opposite who ran away from their own proposals after they had been submitted to Parliamentary criticism.
We have the responsibility; we ploughed the same gloomy road which every one of our predecessors has done before us, and decided that in all these undesirable alternatives we were adopting that alternative which on the whole presented fewest difficulties. I hope your Lordships will not think it right in a matter of this kind to adopt this proposal against the strongly expressed views of those who have had to frame this Bill, who have had the best advice that is obtainable in doing so and who are able, as their authorities and supporters, to point to all those who have preceded them in this road.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment. I was unfortunately out of the House and did not hear the speech of the mover, but the position is this, supposing this Bill becomes law with the Amendment. You have a Government dealing with some question which concerns Great Britain and does not concern Ireland. It might be that the Government was elected on some great wave of economy—an endeavour to carry out the old policy of retrenchment. Then you would have these Irish Members coining over here on some Irish grievance. There would be a minority in the House

967
of Commons against the Government, but the Irishmen would join with the minority which would thus become a majority, and the Government might be out about a week after it had been elected. Then the Irishmen, having settled their little quarrel with the Government, would go back to Ireland, and there would be a majority in the House of Commons again for the original Government. In that way you would have a Government "in and out" just as the Irishmen came and went. Mr. Gladstone tried it; he knew all the difficulties, and came to the conclusion that it passed the wit of man, and I am quite certain he was right.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I do not know whether I ought to give way or not. Of one thing I was quite certain, that the Lord Chancellor, who has stated the case for the Government, would shelter himself not behind the substance of the Amendment but behind the question of authority. My whole case is that things are profoundly changed since the days of Mr. Gladstone. We have ourselves made the Speaker of the House of Commons the sole and final judge in certifying that which relates to the restriction of the powers of this House over Money Bills. And that is not the only case. Half the arguments against this Amendment have been to the effect that I was trying to deprive Irishmen of their powers over taxes contributed by themselves. Nothing of the kind is the case. On the contrary, my Amendment leaves entirely intact all those powers, and by its terms recognises that they ought to exist and that Irish Members ought to be present in the Imperial House to enforce those rights.
It is true that my Amendment ought to suffer some verbal alteration because Councils have been struck out of the Bill. I would substitute the word Senate. I am quite willing to adopt the suggestion of Lord Midleton that my Amendment should not seek a direct solution on this question otherwise than by saying it should be vested in the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is obvious, if you say it shall rest with the Speaker, that after all he is bound to act, and does act, subject to any direction that the House may give him. Finally, I hope your Lordships will consider that the energy and satire with which alone the Lord Chancellor is able to meet this Amendment are really the measure of its justice and essential necessity.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I hope that the noble Lord will go to a Division. have had the honour of as long an experience of the House of Commons as most noble Lords, and there was always this crying evil—that we considered that English matters time after time were governed and decided by Irishmen; matter, in which they should have no voice what ever. These things have been forgotter during the last few years. A large section of the Irish Parliamentary Party have decided to remain away from the House of Commons, and consequently have not voted there. People no longer think of the trouble and grievance from which we suffered in years past. When the Lon Chancellor bases his objection to the scheme on the fact that there might be close majority on some occasion between Parties in the House of Commons ark that these forty-six Irish Members might occasionally put the Government in 01 out, let me point out the grievance which has occurred in the past, and which will certainly occur again in the future, and that is that the Government majority in the House of Commons may entirely be made up of Members from Ireland and legislation will be forced upon England which the elected Members of Great Britain do not require.
To my mind, if such a Bill is to be acceptable to the British people, it can never be and never will be acceptable as long as you make Irishmen judges in English matters when we are not allowed one word in their affairs. I have fought as many Home Rule Bills as the Lord Chancellor, and from my experience of constituencies in a good many contested elections I have always found a rooted dislike among the British people to this government of England by Ireland. In many elections it has been of enormous strength to the Conservative Party that they have always opposed this scheme, and I hope they will continue to oppose it now.
VISCOUNT CAVE: As the House is going to a Division on this Amendment I should like to say a word about it. The question of the representation of Ireland in this Parliament in the case of Home Rule has often been discussed in both Houses. I think only three solutions have been proposed. One is the solution which is favoured by the noble Marquess opposite, that Irishmen should not be represented

969
here at all As to that I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton. I think it is impossible to maintain that proposal so long as the House of Commons retains its powers over taxation in Ireland. I will not discuss: it now, because we may have to discuss it later on.
The second proposal has been that Ireland should be fully represented in the House of Commons according to its population, but that there should be this kind of in-and-out clause which would confine the votes of Irish Members to questions in which they have an interest. That, again, has been Wily dealt with by the noble and learned Lord, and by the quotations which he has made from Mr. Gladstone and others. I am sure that if it were worth the trouble, one might find a hundred quotations from Mr. Chamberlain, from Lord Hartington when he bore that name, and from many members who debated with me in the House of Commons against this in-and-out proposal. I do not think it would be a workable proposal, and I am sure it would introduce great confusion into our whole Parliamentary system to have a varying majority in the House of Commons.
The third proposal has been this, Let Ireland be represented; let her representatives vote upon all questions, but reduce their numbers—that is, give Ireland a fewer number of Members than her population would justify. 1t is on that proposal that finally the Liberal Party settled down. They have proposed before, and the Government propose to-day, that because Ireland is not interested in all questions the number of her Members shall be reduced, but that because of the difficulty in working the in-and-out clause they shall have the right to vote on all questions.
Those are the three proposals. The proposal of my noble friend opposite, Lord Stuart of Wortley, agrees with none of the three because he adopts the reduction of numbers which is in the Bill—the number given is forty-six instead of the due proportion of sixty-nine—but to that reduced number he applies his in-and-out scheme. That is hardly fair to Ireland. If they are to vote only on questions affecting Ireland, Ireland should be fully represented for the purpose of those votes. This is a hybrid proposal.
LORD STUART of WORTLEY: I said so in my speech.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I do not think the noble Lord dealt with this point in his speech. I accept, of course, the noble Lord's statement that he did say that, but at all events that is not the effect of his Amendment. We have passed the number forty-six; that stands in the Bill. It is on that number that he would attempt to graft his in-and-out clause. With great respect to the noble Lord I do not think that would be a fair thing to do, and I think we ought to take the course which, after many discussions, has been found to be the only one really workable—that is, to allow Ireland to be represented by diminished numbers but to let them vote on all questions.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I argued expressly that if my Amendment were adopted it would leave Parliament not only free but unafraid to raise the number of Irish Members in the imperial House to what justice and taxation might require.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The real truth is that none of these three proposals will stand examination for a minute. All these three plans are unworkable. Every one of them can be destroyed in argument. All we have to do is to choose the one we dislike least. My noble friend who has just spoken has put to you the case against the in-and-out arrangement, and the case against exclusion. Let me put the case against the proposal of the Government. You have a reduced number of Irish Members, but that number of 46 is quite enough, with the aid of a minority of British Members in the House of Commons, to force on the majority of British people any legislation, constitutional, physical, or social, to which they object. The Church of England might be disestablished and disendowed by the help of Irish votes against the votes of the great majority of the English people. You might have a certain system of taxation fixed on the whole of Great Britain against the wishes of the majority of the British people by the Irish vote, and all the time the only object which the 46 Irish Members in the House of Commons would have would be to sell their votes, not for their personal gain, but in order to get some improvement as they considered in the conditions of the Irish Constitution—in fact, the absolute destruction of the British Party system of Government in the House of Commons.

971
With all those three hideous alternatives to choose front, I say that the alternative of the Government is the most hideous; the alternative of my noble friend behind me is a better one, but best of all is that of Lord Crewe and myself.
THE LORD CHAIRMANThe noble Lord omits the last four lines of his Amendment, and I understand proposes to substitute the word "Senates" for the word "Council"—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Might I ask whether it is really his desire that this proposal should leave the House under circumstances which make the House of Lords impose this burden upon Mr. Speaker?
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am astonished to hear it, if I may say so.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord omits the last four lines of paragraph (e) and suggests the substitution of the word "Senates" for "Council" at the end of paragraph (d)?
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Yes.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Then the Amendment, as amended, is to insert the following new paragraphs—
"(d) Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom returned by Irish constituencies as hereinbefore provided shall not vote or otherwise take part in proceedings upon Bills resolutions or other questions arising in the United Kingdom Parliament with regard to matters in Great Britain or any part thereof, as to which, if they arose with regard to Ireland or any part of Ireland, either of the Parliaments or Houses or the Senates mentioned in clauses one, two, three or four of this Act would have jurisdiction.
"(e) Questions as to the ascertainment or definition of the matters or occasions to which the prohibitions and disabilities contained in paragraph (d) should apply shall rest with the Speaker of the House of Commons."
On Question, whether the proposed new paragraphs, as altered, be inserted in the clause?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 81.

CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Selborne, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Northumberland, D.

Stanhope, E.

Farnham, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Lincolnshire. M (L. Great Chamberlain.).)

Bangor, V.

Holm Patrick, L

Bryce, V.

Islington, L.

Salisbury, M.

Falmouth, V.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Ancaster, E. [Teller.]

Killanin, L.

Devon, E.

Askwith, L.

Kilmaine, L.

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

Avebury, L.

Lawrence, L.

Barrymore, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Drogheda, E.

Bellew, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Fortescue, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Rathdonnell, L.

Grey, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Redesdale, L.

Mayo, E.

de Mauley, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Midleton, E.

Dynevor, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L. [Teller.]

Morton, E.

Erskine, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Reading, E.

Atkinson, L.

Roden, E.

Balfour, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Sandwich, E.

Belper, L.

Ailsa, M.

Strafford, E.

Boston, L.

Bath, M.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Buckmaster, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Wicklow, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Clwyd, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Colebrooke, L,

Albemarle, E.

Cave, V.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Bradford, E.

De Vesci, V.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe)

Chesterfield, E.

Falkland, V.

Decies, L.

Eldon, E.

Finlay, V.

Doramore, L.

Howe, E.

Hood, V.

Desborough, L.

Lovelace, E.

Knollys, V.

Emmott, L.

Lucan, E.

Peel, V.

Ernle, L.

Lytton, E.

St. Davids, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Faringdon, L.

Onslow, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Gainford, L.

Hemphill, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Saltoun, L.

Hylton, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Sempill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Phillimore, L.

Shandon, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Queenborough, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lamington, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Stanmore, L. [Teller.)

Lee of Farcham, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Sumner, L.

Meston, L.

Riddell, L.

Treowen, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Wolverton, L.

Moulton, L.

On Question, Amendment negatived Clause 18 agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE moved to leave out Clause 18. The noble Marquess said: I can spare your Lordships any detailed speech on the question as to whether this clause should stand part of the Bill, because, by the courtesy of the House, I was allowed to say something on the subject of this Amendment when the last was being discussed, and indeed it was very difficult to avoid doing so. Perhaps, however, I may point out—not repeating what I said about what appears to me to be the serious disadvantage, from the point of view of Ireland and the success of the Irish Parliaments, which is the matter we have to consider, of the presence of Irish Members in the House of Commons—that the whole question turns upon this matter of taxation without representation That, I take it, is the big fence which has to be got over before my Amendment and that of my noble friend can be accepted.
I repeat that if it is the desire of Ireland, as we so often are told it is, to get within a reasonable space of time more control over her own finance—powers of taxation and dealing with Customs and Excise—she is infinitely more likely to get this if she agrees for a time to taxation without being represented than if she accepts the position proposed by the Bill—that is to say, limited representation at Westminster. If she accepts the latter, I venture to think that it is a position which is not likely to be reversed within any time that we can look forward to. I do not doubt that there are others who welcome this notion of Irish representation at Westminster, because it stamps the Irish Parliaments with the badge of inferiority. There are some people—I dare say there are some in your Lordships' House—who, objecting to the whole scheme, dislike the title of "Parliament" being conferred upon these new bodies, and would prefer to have them called
974
Provincial Councils or something of the kind; and they—I hope they are not very numerous—hold that their position is reinforced by the presence of the Irish Members at Westminster. There, again, I venture to think that if those views are favoured it is all to the bad as regards the success of the new experiment of the Irish Parliament. I do not wish to labour the matter further. I would merely once more express a strong view that it will be wise, for many reasons, both for those connected with purely British and Imperial politics on the one hand and those connected with Irish politics on the other, that Irish Members should stand out altogether from Westminster.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 18—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: I was a Home Ruler in my humble way long before the noble Marquess. I fought the election of 1886 and the election of 1892, both unfortunately unsuccessfully, in my county on the principle of Home Rule. I had the honour of the friendship of Mr. Gladstone, and he encouraged me very much to stand, but I told him frankly that I would never consent to eliminate the Irish Members from Westminster. I thought that that was the badge and importance of the whole system, that we were to keep the Irish Parliament as a subordinate Parliament; and I cannot for the life of me understand any Unionist, taking any other course. You may say that that was a relic of original sin left in me—the sin of Unionism was left in me to that extent; that I never would have consented to put' the Irish Parliament in a position coordinate with that of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
I heard Lord Salisbury speak last night on what he considered the inequality of Irishmen coming and voting on our domestic affairs when we could not vote upon their domestic affairs. We can. We reserve control of the whole of the Irish system

975
by the last clause, and we can if necessary, after the Act passes, settle whether there shall be one or two postmen in Ballynahinch. One hears about the Irish taking no interest in British matters, and therefore of their being disposed to sell their votes. Are there no purely Scottish matters in which Englishmen have no interest, except that of being inhabitants of one Kingdom? Are there no purely English matters in which Scotsmen have no interest? Were the English people prevented from voting OH the last Scottish Patronage Bill or the Scottish Assembly Bill, or were the Scottish people prevented from voting on the Bill for the disestablishment of the Church in Wales? The common bond of being people of the United Kingdom entitles us to take our share in the affairs of each district. The United Parliament rules Yorkshire as it rules the County of Cork. It rules in Dublin as it rules in London, and I trust it may always continue so to do.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will imitate the conciseness of the noble Marquess who moved the Amendment, because most of us have spoken on this subject before. I do not really think that those who are inclined to support this Amendment can have explored all the consequences. Lord Selborne modestly announced that this proposal was the best.
THE EARL OF' SELBORNEThe least hideous.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl said this is the least hideous. Let us work out what would happen if this proposal were adopted. Let us examine it in relation to two or three matters, such as finance, the Army and Navy, and Imperial affairs. What would be our position face to face with our enemies all the world over if we continued to tax Ireland for every purpose, if we determined all policy Naval and Military and compelled them to pay their share of that policy, and yet denied them, when they ask for it, their right to conic and make themselves heard in the British House of Commons? What Lord Midleton said is profoundly true. It is quite true that they almost make it a grievance at present when elected, and that under existing and I trust fugitive circumstances many of them do not come at all, but the moment excluded them we should put ourselves in a hopeless position. Imagine the plat-
976
forms in the United States of America. What did America quarrel with us about? What was the beginning of the bitter quarrel which lost us the American Colonies? "No representation, no taxation." That cry would be raised everywhere in the whole of our self-governing dominions, and we should have no answer because it would be right, it would be founded upon actual facts.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I need not say that a real Unionist, in which I distinguish myself from several members of His Majesty's Government—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: You did not vote against it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Lord is very apt to interrupt, and I do not always follow his interruption.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I explain?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to speak.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was saying that a true Unionist has witnessed this debate with nothing but feelings of satisfaction. We have observed as each alternative has been moved dealing with this particular problem what hopeless difficulties beset each one of them, and I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord when representing the Unionist Party in another place destroyed them all. I venture to say to Lord Phillimore that if he relies upon the technical power of the Imperial Parliament which is secured by a late clause in the Bill to protect the British elector from the unfair arrangement which the Government proposal will produce, I really think he is relying upon a technicality and nothing more.
Once Home Rule is established the practice of Parliament will become that e should not interfere with purely Irish affairs. No doubt there might be extreme cases in which we should, but broadly speaking it will be understood that British representatives in the House of Commons would not consider it their duty to interfere,

977
and public opinion would be very much against their interfering, in purely Irish affairs. Indeed, unless that practice obtained the whole benefit of Home Rule would disappear so far as Ireland is concerned. The noble and learned Lord must lay that aside. As a matter of fact what is going to happen when this clause becomes part of the law is that there will be an inequality of treatment as between British electors and British Members of Parliament, and. Irish electors and Irish Members of Parliament. That is an intolerable injustice and I am quite certain that the British people will never submit to it. They may do so for the moment, of course, for I do not mean there is going to be any strong feeling developed immediately, but in the long run they will never submit to it.
It is an impossible suggestion that we should allow our affairs to be decided upon considerations which—I am not speaking of the personal character of the Irish Ale Abers—may not be disinterested from a political point of view. It is not possible to think that our people will submit to that while they themselves are debarred from taking any part in Irish domestic affairs. It would be a grave and gross injustice. As to which is the better plan, that; of the Government or of my noble friend Lord Crewe, I do not feel that I am called upon to pronounce an opinion. I think that both of them are extremely bad, and I hope your Lordships will not accept either.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I hope the House will not accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess opposite. It must be obvious to any one who thinks over the past history of Home Rule measures that this is a wrecking Amendment. I would ask the House to remember that when Mr. Gladstone brought forward the first Home Rule Bill in 1886 he shut out the Irish Members, and the Bill was wrecked on that. It was recognised that we ought to have Irish Members here. I forget whether the noble Marquess was a member of that Government, but he was a supporter of it. That proposal has been dropped from 1886 until now—thirty four years—and it has been taken up again by certain Liberals in England who do not support the Coalition Government and of whom the noble Marquess is one.
Mr. Asquith has brought forward Dominion Home Rule, which means the exclusion
978
of the Irish Members. The noble Marquess is going back thirty-four years to a plan that broke down then, and your Lordships are asked to engraft on this Bill an Amendment which would wreck it. The noble Viscount just now supported another Amendment which would wreck the Bill—the in-and-out clause would wreck any Bill. I wish the House to realise that both these Amendments—we have got rid of one of them—are wrecking Amendments, and for that reason I hope the House will not support this Amendment. The noble Marquess who spoke just now said that all these proposals are very unpleasant, and that all have their obvious disadvantages. That is quite true, and there is only one way out of it. If we adopt this Bill and the Irish Members come and we object to their voting on our affairs, we must do something else. I was in the House of Commons for many years, and I cannot say that I regarded it as any privilege to vote on Irish affairs. I dc not want the Irish to vote on my affairs, any more than I wish to vote upon their parish pump matters.
There is but one remedy when this grievance becomes intolerable. If after passing this Bill the Irish meddle with our affairs we must, have an Imperial Parliament. That we shall have to establish sooner or later to deal with Imperial affairs only That is the real remedy. This particular Amendment would wreck the Bill. It has originated in a quarter where the Bill is opposed, and I hope your Lordships will defeat it.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I am not in love with this Bill, but I confess that I should look with consternation at the carrying of this Amendment. I cannot follow my noble friends behind me. However much the Bill differs in its scope from what some of us might desire, we have to keep up the appearance of scrupulous fairness in regard to the representation. I very much regret that the Amendment which was moved by my noble friend a moment ago was rejected by a large majority, I do not agree with the noble Viscount that the in-and-out clause would wreck any Bill. On the contrary, I am convinced that we shall ultimately come to it. To substitute for that a provision by which we should impose on Ireland 94 per cent. of her taxation as against 6 per cent. that she can impose on herself, and give her no voice at Westminster in regu-

979
lating that taxation, would cause a feeling of grievance which must wreck the Bill before it becames law.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I should like to say that I think there is great force in the argument put forward that to exclude the Irish Members altogether would give a handle to those who are endeavouring to make fresh ill-blood between the two countries. I think, in the result, that it would be very dangerous to try and exclude the Irish Members altogether. That would give them the grievance of saying that they were being dealt with as if they were out of the world. The whole matter may be summed up in the saying of the Irishman, "Whichever road you take, you will wish you had taken the other."
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock, and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
Clause 19 agreed to. Clause 20:
Powers of taxation.
20.—(1) The power of the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland to make laws shall include power to make laws with respect to the imposing, charging, levying, and collection of taxes within their respective jurisdictions, other than customs duties, excise duties on articles manufactured and produced, and excess profits duty, corporation profits tax, and any other tax on profits, and (except to the extent hereinafter mentioned) income tax (including super-tax), or any tax substantially the same in character as any of those duties or taxes, and the Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland shall have full control over the charging, levying, and collection of such taxes as their respective Parliaments have power to impose, and the proceeds of all such taxes shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be.
Provided that it shall not be competent for the Parliament of Southern Ireland or the Parliament of Northern Ireland to impose any tax, whether recurrent or non-recurrent, of the nature of a general tax upon capital, not being a tax substantially the same in character as an existing tax.
(2) Provision shall be made by the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland for the cost within their respective jurisdictions of Irish services, and, except as provided by this Act, any charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom for those services, including any charge for the benefit of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, or any grant or contribution out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom so far as made for those services shall cease, and money for loans in Ireland shall
980
cease to be advanced out of the Local Loans Fund.
(3) For the purposes of this Act the excise duty on a licence granted to a manufacturer or producer of an article, the amount of which varies either directly or indirectly according to the amount of the article manufactured or produced; shall he treated as an excise duty on an article manufactured produced; but, save as aforesaid, nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland from making laws with respect to excise licence duties, or duties of excise other than excise duties on articles manufactured or produced.
(4) Any articles which are brought into Great Britain or the Isle of Man from Ireland, or into Ireland from Great Britain or the Isle of Nan, shall be deemed to be articles exported or imported for the purposes of the forms to be used, and the information to be furnished under the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, or any Act amending that Act, but not for any other purpose.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the Parliament or Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland to impose, charge, levy, or collect any duties of postage so long as the postal service remains a reserved service.
LORD MAC DONNELL LORD MAC DONNELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "other than" ["other than customs duties"], and insert "including." The noble Lord said: I placed this Amendment on the paper with the object of raising a debate upon the financial aspects of the Bill. We have discussed the question of a Council of Ireland and of a Senate, and I am glad I that certain changes have been introduced into the measure which I think afford some chance of its acceptance, if not by the whole population of moderate men in Ireland, at all events by a considerable number of them. But unless the financial clauses of the Bill are improved its rejection by Ireland is certain.
It may be said that the financial clauses of the Bill are to a certain extent of a sentimental character, but sentiment has a large part in the character of nations and in their fate. I know of no nation which is more influenced by sentiment than my own, and I believe that if people do not regard the sentiment of Ireland any provisions of law imposed upon her people will be nugatory and of no effect. I think the present state of Ireland is largely the result of the disregard by the Government of the sentiment of Ireland. For the last twenty years I have been engaged in Irish life, and, so long as I remember, the Irish have been animated by the feeling that if they were charged with the responsibility for their own administration and with the funds necessary to carry it out they would

981
be a credit to the Empire and an independent unit in the great commonwealth of English-speaking people. No regard has been paid during those twenty years to their aspirations. On the contrary, everybody connected with Irish administration knows that a difficulty it was to get from the British Treasury sums which were absolutely essential for the well-being of Ireland. So long as you do not impose upon Irishmen the responsibility for their own administration, so long as you do not enable them to mould their own economic life by giving them the sources of revenue, so long will discontent with the British Government prevail among Irishmen.
After all, if you fail to respond to the wishes of Irishmen in regard to finance you deprive them of the means by which they can mould their own lives, you deprive them of the means by which they can endeavour to emulate their neighbours in Great Britain. I consider that the claim of Ireland to financial independence—that is the claim to the administration of all her revenues, including the revenue from Customs, Excise, and Income-tax—is a necessary preliminary to the building up of an Irish nation. There is no part of the Irish administration which is not deserving of your attention, and which does not claim from you the means for improvement. Take the question of education. You cannot expect to have good education if you have not good teachers, you cannot expect to have good teachers if you do not give them a living pay. In my own experience some few years ago the pay of a teacher was not the pay which you give to your footman. To my own knowledge the hospitals of Dublin are in a state of destitution. With the exception of a few thousand pounds they have to rely upon voluntary contributions, and the result of it is that the medical school, although it has been, and is still, a famous school in Europe, is still stinted in the necessaries which every school in England would regard as absolute essentials.
The reservation by Great Britain of the revenues of Customs, Excise, and income-tax results in this, that the whole revenue, or 95 per cent. of the revenue, of Ireland, which I believe at present is estimated to be about £48,000,000 is collected by England and credited to the Consolidated Fund. No doubt a considerable proportion of that revenue is paid to Ireland for the administration of the Irish services, but the utmost
982
amount which is so paid at present is not more than £20,000,000 or £22,000,000. If you remember that when the Act of 1911 was introduced it was introduced on the basis that the true revenue was £10,500,000 and the expenditure £12,000,000 A provisional arrangement was then made for the administration of Ireland, and it was considered at that time that Ireland was in a deficit of £1,500,000. So long as that deficit remained so long was the arrangement with Ireland to be merely provisional. From that time, within six years, such has been the effect of the enormous taxation and the rise of prices (from which Great Britain has benefitted) that the revenue from Ireland is about £48,000,000, or nearly five times the true revenue from Ireland in 1914.
This Bill proceeds on the basis that this revenue of £48,000,000 can be counted upon as the basis on which to act. It is said that the expenditure in Ireland and the maintenance of the Services which are to be transferred will cost about £25,000,000. The result will be that about £18,000,000 of pure surplus remains for England. That calculation is made on the basis of the prices which now prevail, but everyone knows that they cannot prevail for many years and that in ten years time there will be a great slump. It is very wrong to base a provision for the future upon tile prices prevailing now. I think the financial arrangements of the Bill are entirely unfair to Ireland and such as she cannot prosper under.
I have been informed that your Lordships cannot touch the financial provisions of the Bill. That may be so; but still I fear the reception of the Bill in Ireland. Unless your Lordships, whose opinions on Ireland I myself have had reason to admire in regard to their liberality, give some mandate, if I may use the word, that better provisions and more liberal provisions should be made to Ireland it will not receive the reception which I believe in other circumstances it would have received. Finance is the basis of the Bill. Whether you like or dislike the idea that Irishmen shall take a part in Parliament here in England, whether you include them or not, has not the least effect on Irish sentiment unless you show that you trust them, that you will give them the revenue that is shown to be the true revenue, and give them complete authority to spend their money, and impose

983
on them the responsibility for maintaining law and order. If you do that I believe that in a very few years you will hear no more of disturbance and unrest in Ireland. But so long as you fail to trust them, so long as you impose restrictions and regulations upon them which show that you hold them in suspicion, so long I believe you will not receive that trustfulness and that confidence from Ireland which the British Empire certainly, having regard to its tradition and having regard to the principles which it has declared in this war, would be entitled to expect.
Amendment moved—
Clause 20, page 20, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("other than") and insert ("including").—(Lord. MacDonnell.)
THE EARL OF MAYO: I would be quite willing to support the noble Lord as far as regards the question of Customs and Excise Duty being levied by the Irish Parliament, but beyond that, with regard to taxation, I would not go. There is a point that the noble Lord has not mentioned, and I should like to ask the Government this. The future Government of Ireland, I suppose, will want to borrow money for the improvement of the country and there is especially one improvement that there is plenty of room to spend money on—that is, drainage. I do not see what on earth they have to hypothecate as a security for any loans whatsoever. You fix this Bill with most stringent financial relations, and the fact is that no matter with what good will these Parliaments are set up it will be a very tight fit to keep them running at all. When we have no means of borrowing money I do not see how we are to carry on without coming for more money from the Imperial Parliament. I wish to make that point before the Amendment is put.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It is, of course, technically true that your Lordships have no power to enforce this Amendment if it should be adopted, but none the less it does seem to me it is of the utmost importance that you should express your opinion upon it, because in truth this Amendment is one of the most critical that is upon the Paper with regard to the Bill. It must, I think, be assumed that the Government in introducing the Bill has intended to introduce something that is a real measure of self-government, something that is capable of being worked, something that
984
is capable of being developed, something that may enlist in its support all opinion in the South and West of Ireland, both the opinion that is represented in this House and the more extreme opinion which finds no representation in either House of Parliament. I would ask your Lordships to consider how it is possible that that can be done with the present financial restrictions imposed by this Bill.
If this Parliament is really to be beneficial it is essential that it should have power, as the noble Earl has just pointed out, to raise money and to spend money. It cannot continue on its present system of expenditure. I do not think any one who has the least familiarity with Ireland will doubt that in a large number of its public services Ireland is to-day starved. The noble Earl has referred to drainage, which is only one of the many matters. There are education, reclamation works, and I should have thought above all things the work that is necessary there, no less than here, of building the houses which are required for the better and proper housing of the people. Now how can a Parliament in Dublin ever attempt to accomplish any one of these great schemes with the present restrictions on its financial powers? The one thing that I think it is important to remember is that in substance there is only one power of taxation which is given to this Parliament, and that is a power to levy upon the exhausted and attenuated incomes of the Income Tax payers a tax which is to be levied out of the residue of income after they have paid the Income Tax and Super-tax imposed by this country.
It is perfectly true that this is an echo of a provision which has been found in earlier Bills, but more than once in the course of debates here it has been pointed out that in the last few years circumstances have changed. They certainly have changed in a more startling and dramatic manner with regard to the incidence and extent of taxation than in any other respect. Income Tax now stands at a flat rate of 6s. in the £ and it does not require a very large income to raise it with Super-tax up to 9s. 6d. At the time when the former Bill was introduced the Income Tax, I think, was 1s. in the £ and the Super-tax might rise to 5s. It is plain that circumstances are wholly different now from the circumstances which existed then, and if the Irish Parliament is com-

985
pelled to use this engine—engine of oppression I should call it—for the purpose of raising revenue, either the people who are to-day well-to-do in Ireland will be ruined or they will leave the country and accept domicile elsewhere. That is not all. It is not only that the effect of this Bill will be slowly to squeeze out from Ireland the people whom I submit to you above all others you ought to retain, the people whose roots are as deep in the soil as those of the most extreme Nationalists, whose families may have lived there for over three hundred years, and who are at least as devoted to Ireland, though they may have different views as to the best means of securing its welfare, as even the most passionate Nationalists. These men cannot, as it seems to me, in the present scheme maintain their positions over in Ireland unless, indeed, the whole operations of this Parliament are to be atrophied at its birth.
What is the remedy'? I believe there is only one remedy, and that is to place in the hands of the Irish Parliament all the powers of taxation which are now reserved. I know exactly what will be said as regards to this—that if that is done it will be impossible to levy upon Ireland the £18,000,000 a year which this Bill provides should be paid to this country. Here I have no doubt I express an individual view, but I believe there is no graver mistake in this Bill than to insist on the annual levying upon Ireland of a sum of money which the people will regard as the tribute of a subject race. It is quite easy to point out that in fairness they ought to bear a share of the burden of the war, and that they ought to bear their share of the other burdens that have been created while the Empire was united, but we cannot shut our eyes to the consideration that it is the very fact that they were part of the United Kingdom which is at the back of all the agitation by which that country has been wrecked and ruined during the last few years.
If this Bill is intended to carry a message of peace to a troubled and unhappy people, I say to your Lordships that the worst service you can do is to introduce into it something that will be constantly represented as definite evidence that the independence which is granted is nothing but a sham. Of course, I know it is easy to say that this means that we have an extra burden cast upon us, but I very much doubt whether, if the
986
balance sheet were struck as between this country and Ireland, in truth we have any right to demand that sum at all. It is not so very long ago that a Committee established for the purpose of considering the mutual financial relationships between England and Ireland came to the conclusion that a sum, which I think amounted to £230,000,000, was the sum by which Ireland had been overtaxed. That remains still unpaid; and I do not think that there would be much loss, and there would be a great gain, if we were to make a generous offer to Ireland to-day, giving them full control over their own finance and full control over their own destinies, which is what control over finance means, and at the same time, by an act which we might be entitled to say was an act of generosity, wipe out this obligation, the perpetual insistence upon which will, I am quite certain, be a constant source of disaffection and discontent throughout the whole country. I believe it is an act of wisdom, prudence, statesmanship and generosity to make this change, and I sincerely hope your Lordships will support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If you will allow me I will make one or two observations on the Amendment which has been moved, because having paid sonic attention to the financial arrangements of this Bill I confess I was fairly staggered at the amazing travesty that has been presented of the proposals of the Bill. I say quite honestly that if anybody had listened to those three speeches and had gone away, it is impossible that he would have carried with him any sort of idea of what are the real provisions applying to Ireland in this Bill. First of all I was gratified, as a British taxpayer, to find that the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Buckmaster) did seem to have heard of the British taxpayer. The other two noble Lords did not even mention him, or pay any attention to him whatever.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I carefully said that I only supported Customs and Excise.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I only said you paid no attention to the British taxpayer, and I am going to prove why that is so. The noble Lord dealt at some length with the past position of Ireland, but although I listened to him very respectfully and carefully I did not hear any

987
argument on his part, in support of the actual Amendment that he moved, except that a general power should be given to Ireland to manage her own financial affairs in her own way. I should like to deal with the exact financial position, because the criticism has been made—it was made by the noble and learned Lord opposite—that Ireland had control over only six pet cent. of her taxation. That statement has been repeated several times during the debate.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I did not use that figure.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Well, it has been used in the course of the debate, and it is wholly inaccurate. Noble Lords who have used that argument have entirely forgotten that over the Income Tax the Irish Government will have great powers. They will have powers both to raise that Income Tax and to lower it, and they have calculated their six or seven per cent. solely on some of those special charges such as Death Duties, Stamps, Excise, and miscellaneous, which are outside the purview of the action of the British Government.
The point that was raised both by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment and by the noble and learned Lord opposite is that far greater liberty ought to be given to the Irish Government in the raising of taxation than is given by the Bill. I should like to examine that proposition rather carefully. I think it will be seen that the Government intended to give the widest possible liberty of taxation to the Irish Government. First of all there is the question of Customs and Excise. I suppose everybody admits that these two taxes go together, and that you cannot deal with Customs without Excise. Customs and Excise together amount to something like £29,000,000, which is a very large proportion of the £46,000,000 proposed to be raised. It follows that this question of financial freedom for Ireland turns very largely on the question of whether Customs and Excise are or are not handed over to the Irish Government, because they represent something like 60 per cent. of the whole taxable capacity of the country. They are really the great fruitful source from which taxation is drawn in Ireland. That is the point, therefore, to which one has to address oneself.
The noble Lord is aware, and your Lord-
988
ships are I am sure very well aware, that in no federal system—in Australia, in Canada, in America—are the component parts of that system allowed to deal with their own Customs and Excise. In all those cases Customs and Excise are looked upon as the mark of the unity of the countries, and they are reserved in all those cases to the Central Government In the case of Australia, indeed, when unity came, some of those component States had absolutely to give up the rights which they possessed over Customs and Excise in order that the financial and national unity of the country might be formed by giving those powers to the Central Government.
THE EARL OF MAYO: We are not discussing the federal system, surely.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think I may be allowed to carry out my argument. I was stating what was the federal system I say that the retention in the Central Government of those particular taxes is the mark of the powers of the Central Government But it is far more complicated than that. I am not dealing at the particular moment with whether it would be wise or unwise, difficult or easy, between the two countries so closely allied as Great Britain and Ireland, to have two sets of Customs Duties. It is quite true that under certain circumstances that is contemplated, but your Lordships know the great difficulties that would arise if that took place. The difficulties would be very great even if you had the same Customs and Excise levied in the two countries, but the difficulties would be immensely enhanced if you had different systems in Ireland and in England.
But we are not even discussing that question, because you have not one central Parliament. You have two. What is really proposed is that you shall give the liberty and have the possibility of having in these Islands three separate systems of Customs and Excise duty—one in Great Britain one in the North of Ireland, and one in the South of Ireland; and, I suppose, a separate system of Customs posts between Northern and Southern Ireland.
LORD BUCKMASTER: if this Amendment were accepted I should certainly move another Amendment providing that there should be complete freedom of trade between Northern and Southern Ireland.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think I must be allowed to deal with this Amendment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That is not inconsistent with this Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it is one of fie necessary results of this Amendment. If you have these two separate Parliaments and gave each of them, as you must—I am proceeding on the basis of two Parliaments—their powers over Customs and Excise, you must have the difficulties which I am setting up. I think the prospect of these three Parliaments with different sets Customs and Excise is really an intolerable one. It is not difficult to the noble and learned Lord perhaps, but it is difficult to those who are accustomed to deal with all these financial matters, and that is one very strong reason against granting this autonomy with regard to Customs and Excise.
But there is another very powerful reason against, it. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment did not tell us anything about the contribution of Ireland to the Imperial expenses of this country, or rather I gather that he seemed to think there should be no contribution because in the year 1914 the financial situation was different and the taxation that came from Ireland was barely sufficient to pay for the internal business of that country. Things have changed very much since then not only in Ireland but ill this country as the result of the war, and we have to deal with the financial situation as it exists now and not as it existed six or seven years ago. If you were to give up the power of control over Customs and Excise (which, as I have said, yield 60 per cent. of the whole taxation) what security are you going to have for the payment by Ireland of the contribution of £18,000,000 as it is called—I shall show your Lordships presently that it is not £18,000,000—towards the Imperial Exchequer. You would have no security at all.
No proposal has been made by any noble Lord to meet that difficulty, and I do not quite know, therefore, as the result of handing over the Customs and Excise, if you handed them over freely to Ireland, on what body you would rely for the payment of these sums or how you could justify yourselves to the British taxpayer for not asking Ireland to contribute not
990
its just mathematical proportion, not the right proportion but a far less sum than it ought for general financial reasons to contribute towards the Imperial Exchequer. Those, I submit, are two very strong reasons why you should not at the present stage grant this entire financial autonomy to Ireland.
I must deal also with the question of Income Tax because that is the other great tax, and it yields something like £10,000,000. Rather different considerations apply to this tax than to the Customs and Excise duties. There is no such Imperial question here as applies to Customs and Excise. The difficulties there are really very much more administrative and I am advised by those who deal with Inland Revenue matters that the administrative difficulties are enormous. Your Lordships know very well that difficulties of double Income Tax occur between ourselves and the Dominions. Those difficulties have not been solved but proposals have been accepted which attempt to deal with the question in a rough and ready way, as to the rebate that may be given to those persons whose incomes are taxed both in the great Dominions and in this country: Of course, it is a very large question whether that rather rough-and-ready system that is applied to ourselves and the Great Dominions would be applicable as between ourselves and Ireland, because the ramifications of business are so great, the two islands are so closely bound together by every kind of business relation that I am told it would be absolutely impossible adequately to divide the proceeds of Income Tax between the two countries if they were separate. The great difficulty, of course, is to appreciate and understand where exactly the income arises that is going to be taxed. In the case of banks and shipping companies and a great many businesses which have branches in the two countries it is not, of course, absolutely impossible, but it would raise the very greatest difficulty in trying to apportion fairly between the two countries the amount of income which arose in each.
Many persons are very familiar with the complexities of the Income Tax paper and know how hard it is to get these claims admitted and to get back rebates of Income Tax. But that difficulty would be enormously enhanced if you had not one Government, but three Governments to deal with. So great, in fact, are the diffi-

991
culties that there is a very grave risk that the irritation of the shareholders would be such that the whole system on which our financial arrangements in this country are based—the system of collection at the source—would be broken to pieces. If that happened and we had to go back to the system of declarations and to do away with the whole system of taxation at the source there would be a vast loss to the British Exchequer. One could give a great many instances of this, but I forbear to do so. I ought to point out that while the Income Tax is collected at the source at the British rate there exists under the Bill a system of abatements or additions by surtaxes or diminution by which the two Irish Governments have very full control over the Income Tax, and can increase or diminish it as the case may be. Such, then, are some of the arguments on which the Government base their objections to handing over to the Irish Governments these two taxes which are really the solid part of the whole of Irish taxation. There is really only left the Post Office, because Income Tax, Super-tax and Corporation Tax are levied in the same way, and must be dealt with together.
Two points have been raised on which I should like to say something. Lord Buck-master dealt with the niggardly income, as he represented it to be, which the Government of Ireland will possess. He said it would be starved in expenditure, that it would be atrophied at its birth, and he used a number of rigorous expletives of that kind to paint the miserable condition in which the Irish Government would be when it started. On the basis of these financial arrangements, what is the surplus that the Government of Ireland is likely to start with, assuming that the expenditure is to be the same as it is this year? It amounts to something like £7,250,000. Now, what is the total expenditure on the Irish Services for which the Irish Government are going to be responsible? It amounts to something like to £14,000,000. Therefore the Irish Government is actually going to get a surplus of 50 per cent. on their expenditure; yet in face of that the noble and learned Lord said they are going to be atrophied because they have no margin, no opportunity of increasing that expenditure. They can increase that expenditure by 50 per cent. The mere statement of these figures absolutely destroys any argument of Lord Buckmaster.
992
I will say one word only about contribution. I do not understand that Lord Buck-master definitely challenged the contribution, although it was said it might be too high. In the first place, it is not £18,000,000, because in addition to that the Government hand over to the two Irish Governments the payments made for the purchase of land, which amounts to £3,250,000. In order to get the net amount which is really contributed by Ireland to the British Exchequer, you have to deduct that £3,250,000 from the £18,000,000, leaving £14,750,000 as the net amount. But again, this particular amount goes on for two years, and at the end of that time the Exchequer Board is to go into the whole matter and settle the contribution of Ireland on the basis of its taxable capacity. That again is not the end of the story. After that time, if it is found that this contribution of £18,000,000 less £3,250,000 is less than the proper contribution Ireland ought to make on its taxable capacity, the Exchequer Board can go into the matter and can repay to the two Irish Governments any amount which has been charged in excess of that which she ought to have paid. Your Lordships will therefore see that every effort is being made in this Bill to see that Ireland is not unfairly taxed.
Moreover, the £18,000,000 compares favourably with the £22,000,000 which is the amount which, apart from this Bill, Ireland would contribute to the Imperial expenditure this year. I believe I am right in saying that towards the repayment of debt, which is a matter for which we in this country are most heavily charged, Ireland does not pay one sixpence though she does pay towards the interest on the debt that has been incurred. Let me give one figure as to the injustice which is wrought on Ireland by this arrangement. I do not wish to go back to the Childers Commission which has been referred to in connection with the amount that this country has plundered from Ireland in the past. My recollection is not very clear, but I think there were five or six Reports, none of them agreeing with the other, and none were put into execution. But what are the figures showing the comparative contribution to Imperial expenditure under this scheme which is denounced as so unfair by Lord MacDonnell. Ireland will pay £4 2s. per head and Great Britain will pay something like £14 13 s. 9d. per head. Ireland may be a poor country,

993
but there is a considerable margin when you find that per head of the population the charge for Imperial expenditure under this niggardly Bill is £14 for every person in this country and £4 for every person in Ireland.
Your Lordships will see that this is subsidiary to the point I have been making that Ireland is not dealt with unfairly under this contribution. Really the English people have shown a great generosity to Ireland in taxing themselves at a most tremendous rate and asking as a contribution from Ireland towards Imperial expenditure a far less sum than, under any calculation of figures, they might be entitled to ask. But I answer the general point as I have already done. Customs and Excise, without Income Tax, are the two great dominant taxes. One you cannot grant because you do not want to have three separate systems of Customs set up in these Islands, the other because administrative difficulties would make it impossible and would shatter the whole basis on which income Tax is levied. For those reasons I do not think it is possible to accept the suggested Amendment.
THE EARL OF DESARTit is a singular thing that whether it be Second Chamber, or Customs, or anything else, we are always confronted not only with a single difficulty but a double difficulty because you have created two Parliaments in Ireland. You always unite back to that. That always adds to the difficulty of doing anything. I am only going to say a very few words because I am not at all an expert in finance, and I speak with great diffidence on any point connected with it; but what struck me about the speech of the noble Viscount was that it demonstrated that England, as a very kind stepfather or father-in-law, was prepared to behave with the utmost generosity to Ireland, but was not going to allow Ireland to have any control of its own finances.
Assuming you are generous, assuming you are kind, that is perfectly logical and perfectly sound. But it misconceives the whole mental attitude of Ireland. It shows, if I may be allowed respectfully to say so, rather a want of imagination as to what are the feelings of the country with which you desire to effect a settlement by means of this Bill. If you do not do that, then I go so far as to say you do nothing at all. I have a right to speak with a little experi-
994
ence about this matter because at the Convention we took very much the same view, subject to certain qualifications expressed by the noble Viscount, and we urged very much the same arguments as those urged by the noble Viscount., and we know that the reason they failed was the desire of those who represented Nationalist Ireland that they should be financially and otherwise masters in their own house. That was really the gist of it. We contested Customs to the last. I think there were other reasons, but to a certain extent that was what really broke up the Convention. At any rate, it was so on the surface.
I want to put this question to the noble Viscount. Unless they have the Customs or something that can be put in place of it, on what security could they borrow a halfpenny for works? I think that is the practical view. The other is the view that if you have to strike the imagination of the people you want to enable them to run their own affairs and not to assume the attitude of a grateful child to a generous parent, because that is not what they are going to do, and if you press that upon them you will not get it.
As regards contribution, the noble Viscount says you have no security for your contribution otherwise than by this Bill. That may be true, and of course on this point I can speak with no certainty, but I believe profoundly that if you left the contribution, giving the Irish Parliament power of control, you would be much more likely to get a large contribution than you will by the scheme you have proposed in this Bill. For that reason I shall certainly support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell. Looking at what has happened since the Convention, and what I have learned since the Convention, and what I believe to be the feeling of the whole of the South of Ireland, I think, if you are going to have any settlement of any kind, or if this Bill is going to do any scrap of good, that you must have regard to the sentiments of the people and not to what your cold logic decides they ought to approve.
LORD SHANDON: I should like to make a few observations with reference to the attitude which the Government have taken up through the noble Viscount. The summary which I should be disposed to make in rather popular language in regard to the financial clauses of the Bill is that

995
it looks as if we were deliberately out to make mischief for ourselves in our future relations with Ireland. It is not a question of making concessions to extremists at all. This financial question was no raised originally by the extremists. It is raised by those to whom, if you do not alienate their sentiments altogether, you will have to look for some harmonious working between the two countries. Those people are not the gang who are committing murders, or who want to set up an Irish Republic or to do anything of that extreme character. They are the business men of Ireland, in the South at any rate.
They have expressed their views at meetings of public hoards and chambers of commerce, and also, for the last time, at one of the largest meetings ever held at Dublin—the Peace meeting. Those who were present at that meeting were not extremists. They represented very many, indeed, who were most bitterly opposed to any form of Home Rule at one time. They have always looked at the Bill entirely from the point of view of the possible property of Ireland in future and the possible effect of this Bill, if it becomes an Act, upon it. It may be, of course, that their views are perfectly absurd, and so absurd that they ought not to be considered for one second, but they are the views of the people upon whom we must rely for the working of the Act in future, and I say without the slightest hesitation that there is only one opinion among them all, no matter what their previous political views may have been on the question—namely, that the financial clauses of the Bill, however generous they may be regarded here, are doomed to failure, and may, unhappily, lead to the excerbation of the feelings of those who are absolutely loyal and faithful subjects of the King and Empire.
The way they look at the matter is simplicity itself. In the first place they say that this large sum of money, calculated in the way which has been fully explained, which must always remain, having regard to the condition of our national indebtedness, for many years to come and during the period when we shall have the greatest stress and difficulty in making ends meet—this annual tribute of £18,000,000 will have to be paid. With regard to the security for that £18,000,000—
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not want to interrupt the noble and learned Lord,
996
but I have already explained that that is not the case with regard to the permanence of the £18,000,000.
LORD SHANDON: I intend to deal with the question, because I presume the reference is to the operations of the Board which will deal with future contributions. One of the matters in which also there has been singular unanimity of opinion in Ireland is that this Joint Exchequer Board cannot be looked to for very much help in regard to the question of future contribution. Therefore he will pardon me if I do not deal with it for a few minutes.
We begin at any rate with this large contribution of £18,000,000, which is supposed to be based, after every reasonable calculation has been made, on the taxable capacity of Ireland and the amount she ought to contribute. Let us suppose that it be reduced by one or two millions. Really sums of that kind won't affect this question. If you alter the financial system which has existed between the two countries, we have to provide annually for the upkeep of all Irish services, and then if there is a surplus that goes to the Exchequer, but that is practically a totally different thing to the question of the annual contribution, which, although it may vary somewhat, is very unlikely to vary to any very great extent; and I have not at all omitted the view presented by the noble Viscount in that respect. Having done that, we have got to fall back upon the seven and a half millions. That appears something extremely generous, but between us, out of that money, we have got to keep up a duplicate system of administration—double Parliaments, apparently double officers, with regard to the judiciary, although the judiciary will be charged in a different way. In point of fact, if you take into account the increased salaries this doubling does not represent the annual figure which is necessary to keep up the Irish services which have to be defrayed out of the seven and a half millions. Something more than that is necessary.
Financially, if the Bill is to be of any use at all it must be such that it will help Irishmen in the South and North to develop such resources as they have got, and the point made by the noble Earl and by the noble Viscount is an absolutely vital point, and will be found to be a very serious point before very long in

997
trying to work the finances of this measure. Security there is none, if we want to borrow. There cannot be any except the powers given under Section 24 to tax a particular class. Of course it is said "Oh, rebates may be made," but I am sure that you cannot put more than a pint into a pint measure or take more than a pint out of it. Unquestionably the South of Ireland has no manufactures to speak of, and if it is to prosper at all, if it is to assume a financially better position, then it must take up the question of the development of the land, which is the only asset it has got for the purpose of producing money. As long as my memory goes back, and further still, the great source of trouble in dealing with the South of Ireland has been the absence of that central authority and State assistance which was necessary for the development of arterial drainage and such powers and resources as the South of Ireland possessed. That development cannot be effected without money, especially in these days of high prices, and what security have we got to offer? If we proceeded to put upon the market Stock to carry out absolutely essential work the financiers would simply laugh at it.
We may be mistaken in our views and ideas of these figures in Ireland. We may be very stupid about it, but unquestionably there is a perfect and absolute conviction on the subject in every business man to whom I have spoken, and I have spoken to a great many upon the subject. It is said that, if to an extent you admit all that, how is this financial change to be made which has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell? It is said that it is impossible. But, my Lords, we have heard this over and over again. We have heard it with regard to the question of granting Home Rule itself. But now we find that those who actually said it was impossible have devised a scheme for doing it; and I must say that, although I have been a severe critic of that scheme, in a great many ways I regard it as an extremely able and clever contribution to the solution of a problem which we were always told was absolutely insoluble. There is nothing insoluble if you put your heads together determined to solve it, and this question of the security for the £18,000,000 is just one of them.
Am I to be told that there is no system that can be devised which would enable,
998
by the appointment of smite common Board or set of Commissioners, one system of collection to be instituted and which would enable the proceeds of Income Tax and of other taxes to be put to the credit of a particular fund, and out of that fund the £18,000,000 be paid? I absolutely decline to believe it. A similar difficulty arose in Germany at one time and it was solved very readily by something which they call the Zolverein. They solved it because they put their minds to it resolved to do so. Are we going to start with the idea that payment of the £18,000,000 will be a thing which, not the Sinn Fein Party but those who are now regarded as moderate Irish men and who it is said are a majority of the country, will resist. That is an admission that the operation of this Bill in its financial clauses will turn the moderate party in Ireland into a Party that will attempt to resist payment of the taxes because they object to payment of the £18,000,000. If that is the view of the situation then you had better let this thing alone altogether. I should have thought that the object was to conciliate moderate opinion and that the provision was so scientifically and beautifully drafted that it would at once convert moderate opinion into an easy frame of mind so that it would have no objection to this.
The propositions are really self-destructive. If it be that there would be such opposition to the payment of the taxes that you would not have security for your £18,0000,000 the whole thing is unworkable. But Irish people are not altogether insane. Though many foolish things have been done I take it that a majority of the Irish people to whom we are supposed to be making these concessions will see that there is no fun in cutting off their noses to vex their faces.
The view that I would present to your Lordships and the Government on this question of the supposed security is this. With regard to the difficulty of the ascertainment of what is the true proportion to be contributed to Income Tax, I know that it is difficult to arrive at it. I know that it is a matter which will cause trouble—and considerable trouble—but if it be a fact, as I positively assert that it is, that there is no hope for this Bill in dealing with the South of Ireland and I believe also in the long run in dealing with the North, unless you do grant this measure of fiscal autonomy, safeguarding it as you will,

999
there is nothing except to face the difficulty. The British Treasury officials and the able men who are in control of our Departments are certainly not incapable of framing some system which will enable the difficulty to be got over. I think we are pretty well sick in Ireland of the argument that a thing is impossible because it is difficult. The difficulty is there no doubt, but the necessity for overcoming the difficulty is there also. These views are certainly the current views in Ireland. As I say they may be hopelessly absurd but you have to get over them. If you do not get over them and conciliate them in some way this Bill will become a complete failure by reason of the failure of its financial clauses.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In this matter although I should like very much to vote with my noble friends for Ireland I do not see my way to support the Amendment. I have been in Parliament a long time and have heard a great number of Irish debates, a good many of them on financial matters, and there is one feature that is common to them all—that those who represent Ireland most honestly and sincerely always think that they do not get quite enough money out of the common fund belonging to the United Kingdom. It is a very natural thing, of course, and I do not complain of that. If the matter had ended there I should have been very glad to have made concessions to Ireland in order to give them a feeling of satisfaction with the provisions of this Bill, because I am convinced that unless this Bill is welcomed in Ireland and accepted by Ireland it cannot work properly.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is out of question; I feel that and know it. Therefore, speaking as an Englishman I should have desired to make every concession I could. After all, we have a responsibility to the British taxpayer as well. We are not representatives in the sense of having been elected, but we are here because we are Englishmen and we are bound, of course, to have regard to the English point of view as well as the Irish point of view.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But that is not the main matter that we have
1000
to think about on the passage of this Bill into law. It has been said over and over again in your Lordships' House, and I only desire to repeat it in a sentence, that when once your have established a system of self-government in Ireland it must follow that there must be a system of self-government in Scotland and probably in Wales. Therefore, if you grant the control of the Customs to Ireland you will have to grant it to Scotland and to Wales, otherwise you will have a condition of financial inequality of treatment which would be intolerable as between the different countries. It is an impossibility as every one will admit to have a Customs barrier between Scotland and England and, in the cant phrase of the day, is unthinkable.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That puts it out of court. We cannot grant Customs autonomy to Ireland because it would absolutely control the development of federation hereafter and the result would be an impossible state of things.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I want to say one word with regard to the possibility of the acceptance of this Bill. We are all agreed that there is no use in having this Bill unless there is a fair chance that it will be accepted by the people of Ireland, especially by the people of the South and West. Nothing has more stirred the people of Ireland for many, many years in the desire to have control of their own affairs than the belief that if they had the opportunity given them and a reasonable sum of money they could do a great deal for the prosperity of Ireland. That is a sentiment which as was said by the noble Lord who spoke last pervades all classes in Ireland, the business people as well as the others, the men who look at things in a practical way as well as those who are inspired by self. I think it is not unconnected with this subject to remark that the grievances which have been felt in past times in regard to England have very largely turned upon the commercial policy. People in Ireland believe that she was at one time on the high road to becoming a prosperous manufacturing country but England stepped in and destroyed the woollen trade. I believe there is some foundation for that idea—
A NOBLE LORD: It is true.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: And it is powerful still in the minds of the Irish people. It will remain there until you give them a chance of doing something for themselves—until you give them a chance, for instance, of attempting such development as might be made by draining the great central regions of Ireland, such as might be made by the development of light railways, and things of that kind. They believe that they can do a great deal. I believe myself that they believe that they can accomplish a great deal more than they will accomplish, and it would not be at all surprising if they were found to make considerable mistakes and waste a good deal of money. I think it is very likely. But you are confronted with the fact that; they so believe, and they will continue to believe it until you give them a chance of trying to do something for themselves. And if there were no other reason than that and of trying to avoid the odious alternative of Crown Colony government with which we are faced, those grounds alone make it worth while to be a little courageous in this matter.
In regard to a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Salisbury, let me say that the very last thing that Scotland desires is separate Customs. If you were to offer it to her she would not take it. And therefore I cannot believe that setting a precedent in Ireland bears in the least on the case of a country which does not want the control of Customs and would not take it. I hope, therefore, that that argument will not be allowed to stand in the way of allowing Irishmen to see what they can do for themselves.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: We in Ireland have really done so many months of fighting on this subject that, as Lord Desart explained, we have to some extent very slightly altered our position, and I should like to be allowed to explain what was the reason for doing so. I am far from saying that the Government are not logically perfectly consistent and perfectly accurate in the position which they take up. But unfortunately logic never has governed Irish affairs, and you will not get any settlement by a logical statement of facts, on which this House has a right, if it desires, to rely.
Let us look at, the question from a view of the history of it as briefly as possible. Mr. Redmond gave up the question of
1002
Customs in 1914. He was pursued by that act, or that error, of his from that day, and to the day of his death he was persecuted by a large section of Irish opinion which felt that he had betrayed the country. I only mention that as showing the passionate earnestness with which large sections of people in Ireland regard the question of Customs. And it is not based entirely on sentiment. The bankers of Dublin and the commercial men, as my noble friend Lord Mayo pointed out, are exactly as vehement on this subject— because without the power of the Customs or the Income Tax they cannot borrow a farthing on the security of the Government—as are the peasantry of Donegal, with regard to whom and the other peasantry in the West, days of argument were exhausted to prove that they never could and never would if they could avoid it, pay the Income Tax which can easily be paid by the artisans of Leeds and Birmingham. Those are points which no argument in this House will sweep away.
Well that is the first position with which we find ourselves in contact. Then each of the points which have been made against us to-night we fought, and I think I might resolve one or two of them, if I might give an answer to them. In the first place, the noble Viscount asked what is going to be the security to this country for a payment of what is due from Ireland in the past. I quite agree—you must have security. But by far the best security would be that you should fix what is Ireland's proper contribution to the war and past debts—say £150,000,000, if that be the proper amount—one-thirtieth of the existing net debt, or whatever approximately may be considered Ireland's share. I venture to say it would be a far better financial operation for Ireland, yet a far better security to this country, if Ireland were to raise £150,000,000 on her own revenues, pay off this country and settle the whole of the past. I believe that Ireland is perfectly willing to do so; I do not agree that she should be absolved from any payment. She should pay that which is fair.
The noble Marquess Lord Salisbury has said that it would be absurd to set up a Customs barrier between this country and Scotland. During the Convention I spent some days in the Customs House and Treasury and did my best to find out what the ease was against a Customs barrier.

1003
I was prepared to see in it a tremendous increase in that bureaucracy which we all wish to prevent. I absolutely failed. The Customs officials declared that there was no difficulty whatever in Ireland having a different Customs from England. The noble marquess will, of course, remember the case of Belgium and France, and a great many other countries, where these barriers have presented no difficulties such as he supposes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble Earl think it would be tolerable to have a Customs barrier between England and Scotland?
THE EARL OF MIDLETONI should object because my luggage would be examined and I object still more in the case of Ireland—I do not live in Ireland—because I should be horribly delayed. But to get it put down, as I tried, in pounds, shillings and pence as a really serious drawback is a difficult and almost impossible task. I quite agree that Ireland is mistaken in wishing to have a different Customs from Great Britain; but after all who are the best judges of the case? Why the Government themselves. Why have they put in Clause 35, which says that if at any time after the date of Irish union an address for the purpose is presented by both Houses the Joint Exchequer Board shall set to work to make arrangements for this very Customs power to be given to Ireland, which we are told now is impossible?
Really and truly there are not these difficulties in the matter. We take, reluctantly, the view that no settlement with Ireland will ever be possible unless you give that which she urgently desires and which we believe she would endeavour to work to the best of her ability. Your Lordships have taken a different view, and I do not complain. I think in the face of recent events it is a matter of supreme astonishment, and one which could not be found in any other Assembly in the world, that this House has approached the whole of this discussion in so generous a spirit and without the slightest feeling that we should withhold that which a few months ago we might have been readily inclined to give. I know nothing which could be urged as a reproach, but undoubtedly there are these two schools of thought—the school of the Government who feel they are
1004
giving all they should desire to give at this moment, and our school of thought which is that if you want a settlement you will have to give more. We have fought heavily, but stopped short after giving Excise when we found it is quite impossible to carry the bulk of the Irish people on those lines, and it is for that reason—though I am the last man in this House who would wish to see the power of this Empire either in finance or anything else cut up or curtailed—that I must vote with the noble Lord if it should go to a division.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: After the speeches of Lord Bryce and Lord Midleton I must ask your Lordships' leave to say something more on this question of Customs. Lord Bryce said Scotland does not want the Customs; why should you give it them? That does not settle the question. Everybody in this House admits—it is a matter of common agreement—that if you set up two Parliaments in Ireland you must end in a federal system in the United Kingdom that means two local Parliaments in Ireland, one in England for England, one in Scotland for Scotland, one in Wales for Wales, and an Imperial Parliament to manage the Imperial affairs of the whole of the United Kingdom and the Empire. Now if you give the Customs to the Irish Parliaments what happens? In the Imperial Parliament the Scottish and the English Customs are an Imperial question but not the Irish; and the Irish Members will be there voting on English and Scottish Customs but English and Scottish and Welsh Members will have no voice on the Irish Customs. Why, you will be driven to establish yet another Parliament, one for Great Britain dealing with the Customs of Great Britain alone. Whether you like it or not, if you give Customs to Ireland you are destroying the fabric of that federal system. That is inevitable.
It is very easy to talk lightly on the effect of setting up Customs barriers between Great Britain and Ireland. I am quite sure that all noble Lords from Ireland who speak so eloquently on this question speak with a clear conviction and really think if they were only given that it would go further than anything else to settle the long standing differences between the two islands. My Lords, it might settle these difficulties for the moment, but, believe

1005
me, you are only laying the seed of a far greater future trouble. In the whole of history there is no more potent cause of quarrel between neighbouring nations than Customs. I have seen it at very close quarters. I saw it in South Africa, when I had the honour of succeeding Lord Milner there. There were four colonies in South Africa: Cape Colony, Natal, the Orange River Colony as it was then, awl the Transvaal. During the course of my tenure of office the Union of South Africa became an accomplished fact. What was it that drove those four colonies and the Dutch and the English statesmen all into agreement for Union. It was because they were absolutely convinced the Colonies were ripening up for civil war. It was the certainty in the minds of those statesmen that if South Africa did not join in the Union there would be war between those colonies that brought conviction to all their minds. What was going to be the subject of war? Why, nothing in the world but railway rates and Customs.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I might be allowed to say a single sentence with reference to what has just fallen from the noble Earl. As he knows, I have much the same knowledge of what happened in South Africa at that time as he has. I was then at the Colonial Office, and the South African Union was carried through when he was at the Transvaal. What the noble Earl has said is, of course, in a sense perfectly true. Those four Colonies, or four States, or however you like to describe them, were largely brought together by the necessity of combining on railway matters and control of Customs. I think it will be found, if and when the federation of these islands takes place—a possibility which I confess I do not expect to live to see, but which is conceivable—that sonic similar motives will inspire the different component parts of the United Kingdom, if that is the proper phrase, even assuming the Irish system to be different for a time. But it is a very different thing for communities which have had different Customs systems to be brought together by the force of circumstances and made to realise that union is a good thing, from imposing at a moment like this upon one of the future partners in the Federation a Customs system to which that country objects and which it considers works altogether unfairly in regard to itself.
1006
I therefore cannot see that the analogy which the noble Earl has produced is of any service to us at this moment. What I think is of service is the other argument which has been forcibly pressed by many speakers on this side—namely, that it is no good doing this thing' at all unless you are able to start with a sentiment of general good will in Ireland. The whole thing becomes meaningless and futile if you are, in one point or another, forcing upon Ireland methods of government and administration which she considers intolerable. All the efforts of His Majesty's Government, the excellence of which I fully recognise, will become powerless and to no purpose unless they are able to set themselves a great deal more completely than they have shown in the course of the debate their willingness to do, to meet the expressed and reasonable wishes of Ireland.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: The House, as a whole, I am sure, has shown itself very anxious to deal generously with Ireland in the new state of things, but I am sure nothing could persuade the people of England lightly to agree to the setting up of a Customs House, because, as the noble Marquess opposite has pointed out, Customs Rouses must be set up all round. The noble Earl, Lord Midleton, said he did not want Customs Houses because he would be searched. I do not know whether he goes home by Holyhead or Fishguard, but if we had Customs Houses all round we should search him, because we should have a Welsh barrier. Customs Houses are out of the question.
What I rose to say, however, was a word upon the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, with which I very much agree. He said that to make Ireland contented you must give her sonic power of raising money, something on which she can borrow. I do not profess to know the details of the Bill well enough to know if there is anything on which the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer can give a first-rate security.
THE EARL OF MAYO: No.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Of course, there may be two views about that, but I am certain that an Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have some good security. I am going to give a little illustration from my own experience in Ireland. I know very little of Ireland, but

1007
during the war I was sent over there with a Committee specially to examine in connection with the submarine campaign Irish ports; railways and docks, and I got a very skilled expert committee. We went all round the South and West of Ireland and we were horrified by the lack of development which we saw. We made a great many recommendations, but we all agreed that the lack of harbours and means of communication in Ireland was a disgrace to the Empire. I do not wonder an Irishman thinks he could do better. As regards improvements in the South and West of Ireland I would say this: He could hardly do worse. I saw some things which had been done by the Government of the late Lord Salisbury, when they were really trying to do something for Ireland. I saw a mole or two which they had put up, and which an expert at once saw had been put up in the wrong place. They could not be lengthened or improved and you could only pull them down and begin again. The thing was a disgrace, and I am certain thousands of Irishmen know that just as well as the casual stranger from England. If you are going to content Ireland and make the Bill a reasonable one I am certain that you must give Ireland some power of raising money and some security. Whether they have it under this Bill I do not know, but if they have not then it ought to be put in the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not want to detain your Lordships more than for two minutes. I was surprised to hear the noble Earl speak in the way he did on Irish finance, because he made us another proposition, namely, that instead of this contribution from Ireland Ireland should borrow £200,000,000 and pay off her portion of the National Debt. I do not know with what authority he spoke, or who he has behind him. I only ask him this question, because it is well in these matters not to deal with unrealities but with facts. Does he really think, and at what price, Ireland can now borrow £150,000,000 or £200,000,000? It is all very well to have imagination, but in money matters imagination may lead people into queer positions.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I cannot answer the noble Viscount, but I will undertake to say that there are very few countries in the world which have £48,000,000 of revenue and which have
1008
not got to carry a very much larger debt than £200,000,000. He has added £50,000,000 to my figure, but six per cent. on £150,000,000 means £9,000,000 a year.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will not discuss this further, because if anybody suggests that at this moment Ireland can borrow £150,000,000 at six per cent., I leave him to live in that land of dreams.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I am speaking of an Ireland having control of her own revenues. If you keep them in your own hands she cannot borrow a farthing.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was speaking with full knowledge and making full allowance; and I say that if you go to the City of London to-day and ask half-a-dozen experienced financiers whether it is possible to borrow £150,000,000 at six per cent. I am afraid they would treat with derision the suggestion of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I have done so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I want to get away from these rather fantastic suggestions. There are one or two points of fact to which I should like to reply. Great complaint was made about the lack of control over their expenditure in Ireland. There is complete control. This money is collected, it is true, by the Imperial Parliament but, once collected, less the Imperial contribution the whole of it is handed over to these two Parliaments to spend exactly as they like. And generally when people have money handed over to them to spend as they like they consider that they have control over that money.
I will with some modesty put forward a merely business proposition. Supposing there was not so much sentiment and imagination in these matters, supposing representatives of this country and of the two Irish Parliaments were to meet round a board and to say, "We are going to set up these separate Parliaments," I think the obvious and businesslike thing to do would be to say that the Imperial Parliament, which has had great experience in dealing with these taxes, should at any rate for the present take over the business of levying and collecting the taxes and

1009
paying them over. The new Parliaments setting out on their new and difficult business, not knowing the difficult circumstances, would probably feel that they had quite enough to do in tackling the many difficult problems of administration and legislation without having also the complicated and technical duty of levying and collecting these particular taxes.
The third point I wish to make is this: I have been asked a specific question regarding tin powers of borrowing. I thought at first that it was a rhetorical question, and that the noble Lord meant to suggest that there were no powers of borrowing. Of course there are. First of all there are the proceeds of the purchase of land, which amount to something like £3,250,000. They can borrow on that. They can borrow also on their Consolidated Fund. On the basis of the present taxation the amount that they would receive would be something like 50 per cent. above the current expenditure, which leaves a large margin for borrowing. That does not exhaust the matter. If your Lordships will examine Clause 20 you will see that full liberty is given to the Irish Parliament to levy any additional taxes they like, except the particular taxes excepted or taxes of the same character, therefore the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, if they wanted to borrow money and were not satisfied with the proceeds of the sales of land, would be able to raise any other taxes.
LORD BUCKMASTER: What taxes do you suggest?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I could suggest a good many, but I might give hints to the Chancellor of the Exchequer here, who already has taxed us almost enough. I do not know whether it is wise that I should suggest taxes, but I can think of two at, the moment. One is a tax on turnover, another is a tax on sales. I present those taxes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If I took another half hour I could think of a good many other taxes that could be levied. I merely want to emphasise the fact that there is an ample margin on which the Irish Parliaments can levy, of course, for reasonable sums, or at least sums sufficient to deal with many matters to which the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, referred.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I should like to ask One question. Noble Lords opposite
1010
suggested that it might be a benefit if, instead of Ireland paying this large fixed sum, they might get quit of it by paying a lump sum, The question I put is, Would it be possible to embody that alternative in this Bill? I do not know whether that has been discussed in another place. Suppose if, instead of paying to Great Britain £14,000.000 or so a year they were to pay a lump sum down of £50,000,000 or £200,000,000—could that be done? If they think they could raise the sum it seems to me there would be no disadvantage in putting into this Bill the alternative that instead of paying a yearly fixed sum they should get quit by paying a lump sum down.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know whether the noble Viscount has considered the question of Customs and Excise.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Why could you not put the alternative and embody it in the Bill?
LORD MAC DONNELL: In bringing this Amendment to your Lordships' notice I always had it fixed in my mind that there was to be a free trade arrangement between Great Britain and Ireland. I also considered that it would be possible that there should be no Customs barrier whatever between Great Britain and Ireland; that the Customs should be controlled, conducted and levied, to a large extent, as they are at present, but that there should be in the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland a power of inspection and control, and when they found that the circumstances of administration were not in accordance with their views there should by a process of communication between the Imperial Government, the Imperial officers, and the Irish officers, be an arrangement by which matters might be brought to their notice to their own satisfaction.
My object in putting this Amendment on the paper was the extreme, desirability of throwing on the Irish people responsibility for Irish government. I place far more importance upon that than upon any money consideration. If responsibility is imposed upon them there will be no longer those disturbances—I might almost say that internecine feud—between the two countries. We should be able to live in peace, the Irish people would also be able to consider their own economic development. They would not have regard to the Amount of money so lung as they had

1011
the knowledge that the money was their own, and that they would be able to cut their coat according to their cloth. To get £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 from the British Treasury is not the same thing. It is a far more inspiring thought to get £6,000,000 from their own Customs. Might I, in conclusion, refer to certain figures mentioned by the noble Viscount. I understood him to say that taxation in Ireland is at present £4 per head, while taxation in Great Britain is £14 per head.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Not taxation, but the comparative contribution towards the Imperial Exchequer.
LORD MAC DONNELL: Will not that contribution towards the Imperial Exchequer depend upon the taxable capacity of the two countries?
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amend Clause 20 agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: When the Exchequer Board collies to deal with that, it probably will be so.
LORD MAC DONNELL: Does the noble Viscount remember that at the time of the Union, 120 years ago, the taxable proportion between Ireland and Great Britain was as I is to 7 ½? Does he remember also that at the time the Financial Commission sat in 1896 the proportion was I in 20? If that is so, should not the proportion at present be not £4 to £16, but £4 to £16 multiplied by 20?
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Selborne, E.

Clwyd, L.

Strafford, E.

Colebrook, L.

Wellington, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Deramore, L.

Salisbury, M.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Dynevor, L.

Bangor, V.

Fairlie, L.(E. Glasgow.)

Ancaster, E.

Cave, V.

Farnham, L.

Bradford, E.

Falmouth, V.

Hylton, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Finlay, V.

Lamington, L.

Devon, E.

Hood, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

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

Milner, V.

Moulton, L.

Peel, V.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Fortescue, E.

St. Davids, V.

Phillimore, L.

Howe, E.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Lovelace, E.

Addington, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Lucan, E.

Atkinson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Lytton, E.

Avebury, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Balfour, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Morton, E.

Bellew, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Onslow, E.

Belper, L.

Sudley, L. [E. Arran.)

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Boston, L.

Sumner, L.

Roden, E.

Clanwilliam, L. [E. Clanwilliam.)

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Sandwich, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Askwith, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Crewe, M.

Barrymore, L.

MacDonnell, L. [Teller.]

Buckmaster, L.

Meston, L.

Drogheda, E.

Crofton, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Iveagh, E.

Decies, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Kingston, E.

Denman, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Mayo, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Midleton, E.

Fingall, L. [E. Fingall.)

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Wicklow, E.

Holm Patrick, L.

Pentland, L.

Islington, L.

Rathdonnell. L.

Bryce, V.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Saltersford, L. [E. Courlown.)

De Vesci, V.

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

Save and Sele, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Shandon, L. [Teller.]

Killanin, L.

Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24:
Power of levying surtax in addition to or granting relief, from income tax and super-tax.
24.—(l) The Parliament of Southern Ireland or of Northern Ireland shall have power either to impose an additional income tax or super-tax (hereinafter referred to as a surtax) on individuals resident and domiciled in Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland respectively in respect of the total income of those individuals from all sources, or to grant relief from those taxes or either of them to such individuals, and the surtax may be imposed or the relief given either generally to all such individuals or to individuals whose total income exceeds, or is less than, such amount as may be determined by the Act imposing the tax or granting the relief, and in the ease of the imposition of a surtax, whether or not the individuals are liable to income tax or super-tax.
(2) The Act imposing the surtax may provide for its being levied and collected in like manner as super-tax, and in such case for applying the provisions of the Income Tax Acts as to the le eying and collection of super-tax.
(3) Such relief as aforesaid shall be granted, by way of repayment of any part or the whole of the income tax or super-tax paid by the individuals to whom the relief is granted, and the Act granting the relief may provide for the amounts so repayable being repaid in like manner as other repayments under the Income Tax Acts.
(4) The levying and collection of any such surtax and the making of such repayments shall rest with the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, and the proceeds of the surtax shall be paid into, and the repayments shall be made out of, the Consolidated Fund of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be:
Provided that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and other authorities and officers by whom income tax and super-tax are levied and collected may at the request and at the expense of the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, levy and collect such surtax or make such payments on behalf of the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland.
(5) Sums collected or paid under this section, whether or not collected or paid by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, shall not be taken into account in determining for the purposes of this Act the amount of the Irish share of reserved taxes.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved the first of a series of amendments to this clause, namely, at the beginning of subsection (1), to leave out "either to impose an additional Income Tax or Super-Tax (hereinafter referred to as a surtax) on" and insert "to grant relief from Income Tax and Super-Tax or either of those taxes to."
The noble Lord said: My Amendments to Clause 24 are proposed in order to make substantive alterations to the clause. No
1014
question of privilege arises, because whether these words are deleted or not no extra charge can he placed on the Imperial Exchequer. I think I can put the point very briefly. The whole of this clause, as I understand it, is intended to give the Trish Parliaments power to impose a second Income Tax or Super-Tax upon their unfortunate constituents. I should have thought that at this time of day it was recognised as absolutely certain that a double Income Tax upon an individual is one of the most unfair imposts that could possibly be placed on his shoulders. There has been a. great deal of discussion between the Imperial Exchequer and the Dominions as to double Income Tax in the case of people who have Dominion residence or domicile, and on the part, correspondingly, of those who live in this country but have property in the Dominions. Though in the short time at my disposal I have not been able to find out what has been done, I understand that the Exchequer has admitted that in the next Budget or in the near future that grievance must be redressed. And yet we find a direct provision in this Bill Taking it absolutely certain that the subordinate Irish Parliaments will put this great burden upon their constituent members. If I wanted to appeal to a high authority I should quote the authority of the Primrose Commission. The Primrose Commission sat some five live or six years ago; they were a. body of strong financial experts, and in their Report they unanimously condemned this system.
In this ease it is not only an Income Tax which is to be put on but a Super-Tax. Just look at what that may mean. We know only too well in the case of what we are at present suffering under, taking Income Tax and Super-Tax together, if you are paying on an income of £3,000 or £4,000 you are paying something like 11 s. 6d. in the £. The Income Tax is 6s. and the Super-Tax has been largely increased; and I may say from my own personal experience that more than half of the income is being taken. I will put it at not more than about 10 s. 6d. Suppose the individual is paying 10 s. 6d. in the £ now, how is he to pay an unlimited further tax upon his income to the Irish Parliament? And there is no limit in this clause as to what the subordinate Government may put on. It is not, only a question of residence; that will be bad enough, but it is residence or domicile. The tax will be paid to the Irish Parliament not, as I

1015
understand it, only upon the Irish property, but upon the property of the unfortunate Irishman wherever it may be situated. Say, for example, a man was domiciled or generally resident in Ireland and he had a large property in this country, the Irish Parliament might tax him to the extreme limit of what they could take, and as I understand the provisions of the Bill—I am not skilled in reading these things, but I am told it is the case—the Irish Parliament could demand of the British officers of the Exchequer that they should sell up the man on this side if he did not pay.
My Lords, this seems to me a very grave injustice. I, of course, have no personal interest in the matter, but I think there is a danger. We know something of the circumstances of Ireland, and I do not think I am wrong in saying that so far as the South and West of Ireland is concerned the majority of the people who pay Income Tax are the minority of the inhabitants who do not go with the majority in these matters, and there is only too much risk that the constituent bodies in Ireland might unduly penalise those who are in a minority in their own place and would have no power to get out of it or to retaliate. I will forbear from lengthening the discussion at this hour of the evening; I put the main facts before the House, and if they can be answered or do not weigh I will see what reply I can make. I believe I have made a perfectly straight and simple statement of the actual facts, and I will leave it to the House to say whether it is a just or an unjust proposal.
Amendment moved—
Clause 24, page 24, line 43, leave out from ("power") to ("individuals") on page 25, line 1, and insert ("to grant relief from income tax and super-tax or either of those taxes to")—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD FARNHAM.: I think that noble Lords from Ireland must he extremely grateful to Lord Balfour of Burleigh for putting this question before the House. It is a question which will vitally affect all owners of land and property in Ireland. Already we feel very gravely the stress of taxation put upon us, and many of us find it extremely hard to hold on to our demesnes and live, with taxation as it is now in Ireland. If extra taxation is put upon us it will have the effect of forcing many land and property owners to leave the country. It should also be home in mind that the class likely to be taxed is
1016
the class which will probably have no representation whatever in the Parliament of Southern Ireland. I think we are extremely likely to be taxed to such an extent that we shall be forced to leave the country.
VISCOUNT PEEL: During the last two hours we have been listening to, and been much moved by, the most impassioned appeals from members in all quarters of the House, largely from Irishmen, to leave full and unfettered control of taxation to Ireland, and after great efforts we have beaten them. I suppose they have been entirely persuaded by our arguments. We now get an Amendment of a totally different tenor. The object of the clause is to give, as regards Income Tax, as much freedom as possible to the Irish Governments, and now we have an Amendment of an entirely opposite purport and noble Lords rising in indignation and saying, "Are you going to trust Irish Parliaments? They will tax us out of existence."
What is one to think of this kind of argument against the Bill? On the one side it is said, "Give them all power over taxation," and on the other, "Why, if you give them this small power you will wipe us off the face of the earth." The contradictions of the Irish question are difficult for simple-minded Englishmen to fathom. I notice, and I think it is interesting, that it was not an Irishman who moved this Amendment. It was a Scotsman who is so depressed by the unfortunate position in which these people may be placed by the Surtax. Of course, the noble Lord is right in his diagnosis of the reasons of the clause. While it is impossible, for administrative reasons, to hand over to these two Parliaments the collection and assessment of Income Tax, which must be collected in the first place at the source at the rate in this country, the Irish Governments are to have perfect freedom to impose what Tax they like, either to increase it or lower it. I notice that objection is not taken to lowering the Tax but to increasing it. I am bound to say that when you know how high the rate of Income Tax and Super-Tax is, and see that there is a possibility of a still higher rate of Super-Tax being imposed, it is enough to make people anxious.
Before I deal with the policy of it I should like to sweep aside two or three subsidiary points raised by the noble Lord. First of all, he said it could be placed upon individuals. Of course that

1017
is not the effect of clause 24. It is only placed on individuals as opposed to persons which means businesses am I firms. It does ID mean it can he placed upon specific individuals but classes of individuals whose incomes are more or less than a certain amount. I have taken advice upon it, and I am informed that is so. Of course, if it is not so it ought to be and will be put right.
Another and also a subsidiary point was raised by the noble Lord, and that is "How very hard it is that you are going to raise this tax not only on the income that a man has in Ireland, but income that he has elsewhere." That is one of those inevitable results of the Income Tax itself, and it is necessary, I think for two reasons. In the first place it is so exceedingly difficult to say where the income arises. It is almost impossible to say that income, except perhaps where it is derived from land, arises solely in Ireland, and that it the only income which the Irish Government are to be allowed to take. Let me take two cases. Suppose you have two men living side by side, both equally rich. One has an income arising mainly from investments in America, and the other income arising from land in Inland. Surely it is right that two people who enjoy the same amount of income should pay the same amount of Income Tax. Obviously it would be extremely unfair that a man with £6,000 a year arising entirely in Ireland should have the full charge placed upon him, while the man living next door whose income came from America had no such tax laid upon him. That would be one of the unfairnesses which would result if the noble Lord's suggestion were adopted.
Then the noble Lord referred to double Income Tax and the difficulties and troubles which arose therefrom. He seemed to consider this was a case of double income Tax. It is nothing of the kind. Double Income Tax arises when a man's investments in Australia are taxed at a certain rate there and the money, having had the Colonial tax lopped off, comes to this country and has to bear another charge. Arrangements have now been made with the Colonial authorities to meet that difficulty and give a rebate.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: There is r o security for that in this Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is not double Income Tax, but an additional Income Tax.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI suggest to the noble Viscount that two and two make four.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I assure the noble Lord that the particular difficulties of double Income Tax do not arise. He enjoys the privilege of paying Super-Tax, and he knows how that is calculated. It is not a double Income Tax but only an additional tax. It is a pleasure we all of us have to go through once a year, and therefore we are quite familiar with Super-Tax being an additional income Tax. This surtax is really only an additional Income Tax. The matter, therefore, is perfectly simple. Ought these Irish Parliaments to be given or not given the power of having some freedom of taxation as regards Income Tax? As I understand, the noble Lord's attack was centred only on the South of Ireland. I do not know whether he wishes to leave this power to Ulster and to take it away from the South of Ireland.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think that is rather ludicrous. The Bill applies to both, and my Amendment would take it from both.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I merely noted that the noble Lord's attack was only upon the Southern Parliament and not upon the Northern Parliament. Therefore, I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord wished to apply different treatment to the North of Ireland and to the South. If your Lordships have so little confidence in the new Irish Parliament, if you think they would act with such extraordinary insanity as deliberately to penalise and drive out, of the country those men whose taxable capacity is considerable, then I suppose you will vote against it. But I desire to emphasise that under the powers of taxation in the Bill any Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he choose—if you omit this surtax—could most effectively ruin all that, class of men whom you think will be saved by taking off the surtax. You may say, If you take off the surtax you remove that particular danger. But you will get into a great number of other dangers if you assume that these people will act with absolute insanity and are utterly unfit to be trusted with the powers or rights of taxation. That is the dilemma in which we are placed. I thought we were told that these two Parliaments should be entrusted with the entire taxation and yet

1019
you boggle at the one single power of taxation which is to be left to them. I can only suggest to your Lordships that this freedom should be allowed to the two Parliaments.
The particular class of men of whom you are speaking are few. They are not a political danger. But suppose that they were a political danger to the Parliaments of the South or North. then I can understand why, for political and vindictive reasons, the Parliaments might like to penalise them; but if they are not, bat are really a reservoir of taxable capacity which in times of difficulty and trouble might be appealed to, surely it is almost attributing madness to these Parliaments to think that they would select these particular men, ruin them and drive them out of the country.
THE EARL OF MIDLETONThis matter is so serious that I protest against the rather jaunty tone in which the noble Viscount has discussed it. The whole of his argument was vitiated by his again and again returning to the want of confidence shown on this side in taxation by the Irish Parliament. The noble Viscount does not seem to realise that by the last decision he struck out the whole power of the Irish Parliament to settle its own finance. Look at the position in which the Government is putting the Parliaments. They say, "You have got to pay us £18,000,000 a year"—I am not now saying whether the British Government are right or wrong in asking for that—"you then have a surplus of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000." I would point out that the Irish railways are not working, and that being so no one will dispute that there will be a large fall in the Irish revenue in the next few weeks and months, and it is possible there would be no margin at all for the Irish Parliament to work upon. You have refused to give them the means of borrowing a single farthing, and if they desire to undergo any of the expenditure which every one believes to be necessary in Ireland they must have the power of finding money in some way.
Take the case of any landowner or business man who has £20,000 a year. If you mortgage his £20,000 by charges to the extent of £18,000, he may be reduced to shifts either by putting down wages on the one side or raising rent on the other which he would not think of stooping to if he had command of his whole income. You
1020
are really saying to the Irish Parliament: "You have charges to make; you have improvements to carry out, and you have the money. How are you going to make them?" They will look round and say, "By using this surtax." This surtax does not exist in any Colonial Government which has a countervailing return. You are going to put Ireland, therefore, in a different position from any Colonial Government without any power of arrest by any authority.
I look upon this matter as so serious that, having regard to the conditions of the House, the lateness of the hour, and the fact that earlier in the evening it was thought by many Peers that it would be as well to adjourn until Monday, I shall move that the debate be adjourned, that we report progress, and resume the discussion of this Bill on Monday. I can assure the noble Viscount that there is a great depth of feeling about this particular question, and that it involves principles which go far beyond the speech he has delivered.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is not disposed to take objection to that proposal, but I hope the House will agree that on resumption the Committee stage of this Bill shall be put in the first order for next Monday.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDThere are four or five Government Bills on the Paper for Monday, including another Irish Bill, which would otherwise take precedence of the Government of Ireland Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are there any Private Peers' Orders
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, not Orders, but Questions. There is a Question in the name of my noble friend, Lord Newton, who is not present, and a Motion in the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Lord Newton's Question can be answered, I imagine, in two words. Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Motion is in relation to the Board of Agriculture and the Scottish Office. I do not know whether he would be disposed

1021
to agree to my suggestion that he should give way to—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It is no more than a Motion for the purpose of getting an answer, and I shall not trouble to make a speech.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Government have power to change their own Orders, have they not? We should agree to any re-arrangement, of course.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In that case and in order to maintain the power of the Government to change its own Orders, perhaps my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh will waive his objection to this Motion being passed.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: As the noble Earl makes that appeal to me I will do so as a matter of course.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee on Monday next.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that, on the resumption of the Committee stage of the Government of Ireland Bill on Monday, the Committee stage of that Bill should have precedence over other business.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before twelve o'clock midnight.