Sitting of 6 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,
Read the Third time, and passed.

NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Rhondda (West Division), in the room of the right hon. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Manor of North-stead).—[Mr. Tyson Wilson.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    DYE-STUFFS.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state for 11 months of this year the value of the dyes imported into this country and the value of the exports of textile goods which require dyes in their manufacture?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): The particulars for November are not yet available, but I will have a statement covering the trade of the first 10 months of the year printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I may add that, in a number of cases, goods in the making of which dyes have been used and others which may involve no use of dyes are included under a single heading, so that the statement necessarily covers some goods which do not fall within the description set forth in the question.
    Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: Will the hon Gentleman in making the return distinguish between German dyes sent to
    1696
    this country by way of reparation and those imported in the ordinary way of business?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not think I can do that in the return I am getting out for the convenience of the House for to-morrow's Debate. But if my hon. Friend wants any particular information and will put down a question I will see if I can get it.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the information be out to-morrow morning?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes; it will be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. STEVENS: May we have the amount received by the Government by way of reparation imported into this country and in stock here now?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As a matter of fact, if my hon. Friend will read the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see I have given that figure before. If he wants the figure for any particular day, perhaps he will put down a question.
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Have we yet received any goods from Germany by way of reparation, and, if so, what quantity?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: We have received a large number of dye-stuffs from Germany under the Reparation Clause The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to carry in my head the precise amount,
    Mr. A. SHORT: Will the hon. Gentleman see that this information is at the disposal of the House before we begin to debate the new Bill to-morrow?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If my hon. Friend will consult the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that I have already given the, total amount received from Germany, and he knows that if he wants any particular figure he has only to put down a question to get it.
    The following is the statement referred to:
    Value of dyes, dye-stuffs and extracts for dyeing registered as having been imported into the United Kingdom from all sources during the first 10 months of 1920:

    Import List Description.

    Value.

    £

    Intermediate coal tar products used in the manufacture of dyes (including aniline oil and salt, and phenylglycine)

    636,068

    Finished dye-stuffs obtained from coal tar

    5,267,076

    Extracts for dyeing

    1,484,786

    Natural indigo

    93,522

    Total

    £7,481,452

    Exports from the United Kingdom of textile goods, in the manufacture of which dyes have been or may have been used, for first 10 months, 1920.

    Export List Description.

    Value.

    £

    Cotton:

    Yarn, bleached and dyed Piece goods, printed:

    6,613,514

    Flags, handkerchiefs and shawls in the piece

    695,605

    Other sorts

    52,705,291

    Piece goods dyed in the piece

    77,939,926

    Piece goods manufactured wholly or in part of dyed yarn and commonly known as coloured cottons

    15.977,559

    Flags, handkerchiefs and shawls

    Not in the piece, printed

    1,434,773

    Other sorts

    2,491,578

    Small wares, including ribbons and trimmings

    869,697

    Other manufactures of cotton

    7,332,080

    Woollen and worsted yarns

    15,028,639

    Woollen tissues

    64,820,921

    Worsted tissues

    22,935,940

    Damasks, tapestry and other furniture stuffs

    75,234

    Wool and mohair plushes

    955,573

    Flannels and delaines

    1,053,926

    Blankets

    1,231,744

    Travelling rugs, coverlets and wrappers

    392,808

    Small wares and other manufactures of wool or worsted

    1,219,957

    Carpets, carpeting and rugs of wool (with wool or jute backs)

    3,617,726

    Spun silk yarn

    585,153

    Silk manufactures: Wholly of silk

    £

    Broadstuffs, dyed or not dyed

    1,242,201

    Lace and articles thereof (except embroidery)

    204,445

    Ribbons

    116,561

    Of silk mixed with other materials if known as silks:

    Broadstuffs

    1,408,191

    Lace and articles thereof(except embroidery)

    55,754

    Ribbons

    35,680

    Other manufactures of silk or of silk mixed with other materials if known as "silks" (except apparel)

    871,125

    Linen piece goods: Checked, printed or dyed and damask or diaper

    1,406,363

    Jute yarn

    2,217,003

    Jute manufactures (other than cordage, cables, ropes and twine):

    Piece goods

    6,057,233

    Carpets and rugs

    190,424

    Other sorts (except bags)

    775,977

    Apparel, not of fur:

    Outer garments, men's and boy's (excluding overcoats) of wool, or of wool mixed with other materials

    5,169,233

    All other kinds of garments (not proofed)

    10,402,028

    Haberdashery (soft) and millinery (except hats, bonnets, caps and other headgear, embroidery and needlework

    415,894

    Gloves of woven fabric

    106,814

    Hats, bonnets, caps and other headgear other than of straw and felt

    780,197

    Hosiery (knitted, netted or crocheted goods), stockings and hose:

    Of cotton, or of which the chief value is cotton

    1,656,255

    Of wool, or of which the chief value is wool

    4,000,595

    Underwear and fancy hosiery: Of cotton, or of which the chief value is cotton

    798,413

    Of wool, or of which the chief value is wool

    1,702,621

    Embroidery and needlework (except linen embroidery)

    180,245

    Total of the above

    317,770,896

    Mr. GALBRAITHasked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the increase in the cost of production of dyestuffs since 1913 in respect of labour, materials, and overhead charges, respectively?
    Mr. GLANVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can say, in respect of the principal dyestuffs, what has been the increase in price since 1913?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The dye-making industry is one of great complexity and its products embrace a wide range of classes of dyes and many different individual dyes within each class. The conditions of manufacture and the nature of the intermediates and other materials required are very diverse and the costs of production and prices vary accordingly. An all-over percentage figure showing the movement of prices and costs would have little significance, but I will communicate to both hon. Members a statement showing the movement of the prices of some representative
    The following are the statistics mentioned:

    A STATEMENT showing the Imports into the United Kingdom of the undermentioned Intermediates and Finished Dyestuffs, distinguishing the countries whence consigned, registered during the period 1st January to 30th September, 1920.

    —

    Intermediate coal tar products used in the manufacture of dyes(including aniline oil and salt and phenylglycine).

    Finished Dyestuffs obtained from Coal Tar.

    Alizarine.

    Indigo-synthetic.

    Other Sorts.

    Cwts.

    £

    Cwts.

    £

    Cwts.

    £

    Cwts.

    £

    Sweden

    …

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    402

    5,562

    Norway

    …

    3

    45

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Denmark

    …

    6

    222

    —

    —

    —

    —

    8

    276

    Germany

    …

    950

    23,805

    3,146

    126,469

    2,940

    55,573

    24,451

    1,1193,180

    Netherlands

    …

    410

    7,628

    1,373

    97,102

    320

    19,385

    18,262

    897,517

    Belgium

    …

    325

    549

    95

    1,143

    —

    —

    8,463

    269,173

    France

    …

    1,222

    5,533

    23

    2,810

    103

    5,500

    128

    2,859

    Switzerland

    …

    355

    14,995

    —

    —

    33

    949

    45,410

    1,521,639

    Spain

    …

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    2

    574

    Austria-Hungary

    …

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    30

    1,729

    Egypt

    …

    —

    —

    5

    290

    —

    —

    5

    435

    British India

    …

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    80

    190

    Japan

    …

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    9

    106

    Canada

    …

    3

    125

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    76

    United States

    …

    30,189

    455,489

    177

    4,668

    6

    239

    11,827

    433,730

    Argentine Republic

    …

    4

    90

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    33,467

    508,481

    4,819

    232,482

    3,402

    81,646

    109,078

    4,327,046

    Intermediates and Dyestuffs consigned from the Netherlands and Belgium are no doubt mainly of German origin.

    dyestuffs. The cost of production, even if available, would have little significance.
    Mr. GALBRAITHasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state for the 11 months of this year from what countries dyes were imported into this country and the value of the dyes so imported from each country, respectively?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am having printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT statistics relating to the importation of dyestuffs during the first nine months of this year. Information beyond the end of September is not yet available.
    Sir W. PEARCE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us if the imports -for September amounted to nearly. 1,000 tons of the value of nearly a million pounds?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I had rather the hon. Member waited to see the table I am publishing. There is not the least doubt that the importation has been progressive, and increasing very rapidly
    Mr. GALBRAITHasked the President of the Board of Trade why no pro vision is made in the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill for any representation of the Board in the merchant interests which will chiefly be concerned in the obtaining of the necessary import licences?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not prepared to accept the interpretation put by the hon. Member on Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill, but the matter is one which can be more conveniently discussed during the Committee stage. I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that it is impracticable to discuss by question and answer the constitution of the Committee, which will be fully considered when the Bill is under discussion.
    Mr. KENYONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the dye- stuffs imported from Germany on account of reparation are selected dyestuffs; if so, what body makes the selection and who are the individuals composing the body; what body in this country receives and allocates the dyestuffs; and what principles govern the distribution?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The dyestuffs received from Germany on account of reparation have been selected by the Board of Trade in consultation with representatives of dye users and dye makers. The dyestuffs are received by the Central Importing Agency on behalf of the Board of Trade, and that agency allocates the supplies in accordance with instructions given by the Board of Trade from time to time, such allocation being made, so far as practicable, in accordance with the requirements of the individual consumers as notified by them to the Board.
    Mr. KENYONasked the President of the Board of Trade who are the Government directors of the British Dyestuffs Corporation; and what are their duties, who appoints them, and to whom are they responsible?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The present Government directors of the British Dye-stuffs Corporation, Limited, are the Right Hon. Lord Ashfield and Sir Henry Birchenough, Bart., K.C.M.G. They are appointed by the President of the Board of Trade, and have certain special powers in addition to the ordinary powers of
    1702
    directors. I will have printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT the relevant extracts from the Articles of Association.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are these directors paid by the Government or by the corporation?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: By the corporation, and not by the Government.
    The following are the extracts referred to:—

    MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH DYESTOFFS CORPORATION, LTD.
    Article No. 94.
    94. Unless and until the Board of Trade shall otherwise determine the following provisions shall apply: —

    (a) Government Directors.—Two of the directors shall be persons appointed by the Board of Trade, and each of them and his successor for the time being in office appointed under this Sub-clause shall be called a Government director. A Government director shall not require any qualification and shall be entitled to hold office for three years unless previously removed by the Board of Trade, and accordingly shall not be bound to retire by rotation nor be liable to be removed from office by an extraordinary resolution of the company or be liable to the operation of paragraphs (d) or (f) of Article 101. The Board of Trade may from time to time remove a Government director. Upon the death of or vacation of office by a Government director the Board of Trade shall be at liberty to appoint another director in his place, and any such appointment or removal shall be in writing served on the company and signed by the President of the Board of Trade for the time being. A retiring Government director shall be eligible for re-appointment. If there shall be only one Government director in office he shall be entitled to exercise all the powers of the Government directors.

    (b)Power of Government Directors.—The Government directors jointly or if only one be present at a board meeting then that Director shall in addition to their or his ordinary votes or vote as directors or director have absolute power to veto any proposal or resolution of the board the result of which if carried into effect would having due regard to the main object with which the company has been formed in their or his opinion tend to encroach unduly on the trade or business of any British manufacturers of products other than dyes or colours or to give undue preference as regards supply price or otherwise to any customer or consumer of the company's products and to veto the formation or making of any contract or agreement between the company and any foreign

    1703
    competitor of the company provided always that such veto shall not be used in such a manner as to prevent the manufacture or rendering marketable of products incidental to the manufacture of dyes or colours.

    Major ENTWISTLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a Committee has been set up inquiring into supplies, costs, and profits in the dyestuff industry; how many meetings have been held; from whom evidence was taken; and whether he has seen the evidence in question?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: A Sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Trusts has been appointed to ascertain to what extent supplies, prices, and costs of dyes and dyestuffs in this country, and profits thereon, are affected by any trade combination, and, further, to ascertain to what extent the processes of dyeing, finishing, bleaching, and printing are affected by any trade combination, and to investigate the effect of any such trade combination, if found, upon supplies, prices, costs, and profits at all stages of such processes. I am informed that this Committee have held sixteen meetings, and that evidence has been taken from dye makers, consumers, and others. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Major ENTWISTLE: May I ask whether it is not a fact that this Committee inquired into other matters than mere profiteering, whether the ground that they covered is not the same as the ground covered by the Bill, and whether this information should not be available before the Bill is proceeded with in this House?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Until I receive the Report of the Committee, I am not able to say what scope is covered in the inquiry. I have read to the House the Committee's terms of reference, and I imagine that the inquiry will have been in accordance with those terms of reference.
    Major ENTWISTLE: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that it should have been his business to find out about the proceedings of this Committee before bringing a Bill before the House?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir, I do not. I consider that it was the business of the Board of Trade to give effect to
    1704
    the pledges given by His Majesty's Government both before and during the last Election. The findings of this Committee will be, no doubt, as valuable after we have redeemed our pledges as before.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Has the evidence given before this Committee been printed, or will it be printed?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME:It is certainly not published yet.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Is it printed?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not think so. It may have been printed or typed for circulation to the members of the Committee. I think that the House is rather under a misapprehension as to the procedure of this Committee. The Central Committee appoints sub-committees to deal with these questions, and until a sub-committee makes its report to the Central Committee, and that report is forwarded by the Central Committee to the Board of Trade, it really does not come under our jurisdiction at all.
    Major ENTWISTLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the policy of the Government to exclude dyestuffs from America, Switzerland, and France; whether, during the War, these counties assisted materially in maintaining the supply of dyestuffs for this country; and whether this is the best method of establishing cordial trade relations with Allies and friendly neutrals?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The provisions of the Bill are general. I am fully aware of the assistance which was rendered during the War as regards the supply of dyestuffs by Switzerland and, to a much smaller degree, by the United States and France. As regards the last two countries, however, I would point out that the obligation was reciprocal, and that the British industry was able to be of very substantial assistance to consumers in those countries, whilst, as regards Switzerland, the industry was largely maintained by supplies of materials from this country. I would further point out that both France and especially the United States, in particular, are taking active measures to safeguard the development of domestic dyemaking industries either by prohibition or increased tariffs.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any representations have been received from users of dyestuffs adverse to the principles embodied in the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill; if so, from what persons or firms they have been received; and what was their nature?
    Mr. ACLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any representations from the Calico Printers' Association and the dyers of leather goods on the subject of the restriction of imports of dyestuffs; and, if so, what is the nature of the representations?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have received representations from the Calico Printers' Association and Messrs. J. & J. Crombie, Limited, who are opposed to the general policy laid down in the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill, on the ground that, if carried into effect, it might place difficulties in the way of their obtaining any kind of dyestuff required by them at the lowest possible prices. Such representations as I have received from the Federation of Curriers, Light Leather Tanners and Dressers, Incorporated, related, not to the proposals contained in the Bill, but to the present general shortage of certain dyes. I ought, however, to add that the Calico Printers' Federation has passed a resolution endorsing the action taken by the Colour Users' Association.
    Major BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Dewsbury Chamber of Commerce, which represents the heavy woollen dye trade, the largest users of dyestuffs in the country, were consulted as to the provisions of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill, and expressed its approval?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No chambers of commerce have been consulted regarding the Bill to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but a large number of the users in the Dewsbury districts are members of the Colour Users' Association, which has been consulted throughout and which has expressed its approval of the principles of the Bill.

    GERMAN GOODS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state approximately the number
    1706
    of persons at present unemployed for whom work could be found if the glassware, toys, and dyestuffs, now being imported from Germany and sold at prices which undercut the British market owing to lower labour costs and the abnormal exchange, were manufactured in this country instead of being imported?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to answer this question. Manufacture in this country would undoubtedly increase the amount of employment for persons directly engaged in the industries mentioned. But I do not think it would be possible to give any certain estimate on the lines suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Sir F. HALL: If it is admitted by the Government there would be employment found for a large number of people in this country, does the hon. Gentleman not think it is time the Government took steps to protect industries which they particularly asked manufacturers in this country to undertake—and particularly the manufacture of toys?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The question refers to glassware, toys, and dyestuffs. With regard to dyestuffs, the House will deal with a Bill on that subject to-morrow. My hon. Friend knows that a Bill dealing with other key industries is to be introduced at the beginning of next Session. I only wish a repetition of questions would increase the Parliamentary time at my disposal.
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that the glass, toy and dye industries are in dire distress owing to German dumping at the present moment?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir. One of the difficulties of the situation is that there is no dumping going on at the present moment, and German goods sold here are not cheaper than they are sold in Germany, but dearer.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not the fact that the rates of exchange are a far worse peril than dumping? Are not these particular industries actually going to close down in the next two or three months unless something is done? Are you going to wait for that?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: My hon. Friend must appreciate that it is impossible to deal with more than one par-

    1707
    liamentary measure at a time. It is no good introducing a Bill which cannot be passed this Session. The Government are committed to introducing a Bill early next Session dealing with dumping and key industries, and I should be misleading the House if I were to promise now to bring in a Bill which I could not hope to pass this Session.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Does that mean that the question of the German exchange—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must really enter a protest against this customary Monday attack of "fiscalitis."
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not within the province of the Member to put supplementary questions on important matters at Question Time?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Some of these supplementary questions are not intended to elicit information at all, but for purposes of Debate. They are put by one section of the House to show how wrong are the views held by the other section

    TUNGSTEN ORES.
    Mr. WIGNALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Government has purchased, or is under any obligation to purchase, tungsten ores from Empire or foreign sources; if so, what tonnage has been acquired from 1st January to 31st October, 1920; what price per unit has been paid for such ores; and what stocks are held by the Government either abroad or in this country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): I have been asked to answer this question. The Government made extensive purchases of tungsten ore during the War, but is no longer under any obligation to purchase such ore either from Empire or foreign sources. As a result of contracts entered into during the War, approximately 1,271 tons of tungsten ores have been received from Australia during the present year, but it is not desirable to give the prices. The unsold stocks held by the Government at present of wolfram and molybdenite do not exceed 200 tons.

    ZINC CONCENTRATES.
    Mr. WIGNALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Gov-
    1708
    ernment is still continuing to purchase Australian zinc concentrates; if so, what tonnage has been acquired and paid for from 1st January to 31st October, 1920; what stocks are held by the Government, either in this country or Australia; and what steps are being taken by the Government to purchase the home production of zinc concentrates on as favourable terms as are being paid to the Australian Commonwealth producers?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The Government are under agreement to purchase Australian zinc concentrates for a period of ten years next following the declaration of peace, but production has been suspended at Broken Hill during the past 12 months owing to a strike, and no concentrates have been acquired since 1st January, 1920. Stocks of concentrates are held in Australia by His Majesty's Government amounting to 503,000 tons. As regards the last part of the question, I am not prepared to recommend any extension of the buying operations of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. WIGNALL: May I ask, in view of the serious condition of the spelter trade, whether the zinc concentrates from Australia are likely to be imported for use in this country, or have all the stocks accumulated on the other side?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: We shall certainly make use of them as we can get them. As I have explained, the production is being suspended owing to the strike there, but we shall certainly make the best possible use of any of these concentrates that we are under contract to buy.
    Mr. WIGNALL: Is it not a fact that there are enormous stocks in Australia at the present time awaiting shipment, and is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the whole of the spelter trade of this country has been closed down for the last three or four months for want of raw material?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I will go into that question, but I think there are a good many other considerations affecting the spelter trade besides this precise contract in Australia.

    DUMPING.
    Captain TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether

    1709
    there have been brought to his notice recently any instances of the underselling of British-manufactured goods by foreign imports; whether such underselling has caused any prejudicial effect on employment in this country; and, if so, in what direction and to what extent?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have received numerous complaints of the underselling of British-manufactured goods by foreign imports, but it is not possible in an answer to review the whole position.

    ELECTRICAL POWER, RIVER RHINE.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the project for canalising the Rhine between Basle and Strassburg for the purpose of producing electrical power, which proposal is reported to be favoured by the French and German Governments; whether he is aware that the construction of such a canal would greatly injure, if not stop, a considerable traffic in merchandise between Switzerland and this country which now comes by the Rhine, and that the project is strongly objected to in Switzerland from this point of view; whether Great Britain has any representation in the control of the Rhine; and whether, having regard to the importance to British trade of the preservation of the free navigation of this important river, he will state if any steps are being taken by the Government in order to safeguard British trade interests in the event of this canal being constructed?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second, I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to Article 358 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, which, while giving France the right to take water from the Rhine, provides that the exercise of this right shall not interfere with navigation and that all proposed hydro-technical schemes shall be laid for approval before the Central Commission of the Rhine. The Central Commission includes representatives of Great Britain, whose attention has been directed to the considerations mentioned by the hon. Member.

    FABRIC GLOVE INDUSTRY.
    Mr. HURDasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the November monthly report to the Board of Trade from Somerset glove manufacturers, showing that, owing to German competition on a basis of prices far below the British cost of production, branches employing home-workers in the villages have been closed, while short time and unemployment in the factories of Frome and other towns are increasing; whether this Frome industry was created at great expense during the War upon Government encouragement as a permanent means of employment; and what action does the Government propose to take to obviate even greater loss and unemployment during the present winter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen the particular report to which my hon. Friend refers (which I understand has not been made to the Board of Trade), but the position of the fabric glove industry has been constantly receiving the attention of the Government. I regret that I can add nothing to the statements already made in this House as to the legislation proposed to be introduced early next Session.
    Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the second part of my question? Does he not think that during the present winter some special obligation does arise to safeguard employment in this industry, seeing that it was created as a War-time industry, at the instigation of the Government, for national purposes?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have only a little over two weeks before Christmas, and we cannot in the course of that time carry legislation of this character.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    FISHERMEN'S WIDOWS.
    Colonel BURNasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that some widows of fishermen whose husbands lost their lives during the War through enemy action are now only receiving 5s. or 6s. a week, owing to the insurance money being exhausted; and will he consider bringing the pensions of fishermen's dependants in line with those of the Mercantile Marine as regards pensions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to replies which I gave to similar questions on the 22nd November last.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:
    May I ask whether these men were not encouraged to pursue their calling, in spite of the danger, during the War, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think it just that the widows of those men who were killed should receive the same treatment as in the case of the Mercantile Marine?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. and gallant Friend would look at the answer given on the previous occasion— of which I will send him a copy—he will see that that point was dealt with.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    MANDATES.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the proposed terms of the mandates to be assumed by the British Empire will be submitted to this House; and, if so, whether the terms will be submitted to this House before being laid before the Council of the League of Nations or afterwards?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to a question on this subject on Thursday last.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If it is intended to lay the mandates before this House after approval by the Council of the League of Nations, will it not mean that we shall be unable in any way to modify those mandates, and will not the whole thing be really a farce, unless the mandates are laid before this House before going to the Council of the League? Otherwise, why waste our time?

    FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Major ENTWISTLEasked the Prime Minister if he intends to carry out the recommendation made by the general conference of the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations concerning the limitation of hours of work in the fishing industry; and, if so, at what date?
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations has proposed limitations of the hours of work in the fishing industry; and whether the Government will abstain from accepting any recommendation dealing with an industry carried on under widely differing conditions in the seven seas and well able to look after itself in all of them?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to answer this question. The recommendation referred to is under the consideration of the Government, and I am not in a position to make any statement at the present moment.

    BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES (INSTRUCTIONS).
    Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Prime Minister whether the representatives of this country at the meetings of the League of Nations are given instructions by the Government as to the way in which they are to vote; and whether the proposal of one of such representatives, made recently at Geneva, to admit Germany into the League was made with the approval of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question on Thursday last.

    WOMEN DELEGATES.
    Mr. HURDasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the dearth of women delegates at the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva; and whether, seeing how many of the questions under discussion at the assembly especially affect women, His Majesty's Government will select a fully representative British woman to be one of the British delegates at the next assembly?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As the date of the next meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations has not yet been considered, it would, I think, be premature to consider the composition of the delegation.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (BRITISH GOODS).
  Lieut.-Colonel CROFTasked the Prime Minister if he will give instructions

  1713
  to all State Departments to order only British goods so long as there is unemployment in this country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: General instructions are already in force to give preference in contracts by British Government Departments to products of the Empire. It would not be possible to lay down a universal rule framed in the terms of the question, as certain foreign products have to be imported; but the Government are in full sympathy with its general tenor.
  Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this practice has not been followed in the Post Office, but that, whereas British pencils were used during the latter part of the War period, they are once more buying from the United States?
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman call for a report from all his Departments, and lay it on the Table of this House, - as to what, if any, foreign goods they are purchasing which could be purchased in this country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the British taxpayer too?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think we should be considering the British taxpayer by seeing that they get employment instead of unemployment benefit.
  Commander Sir E. NICHOLL: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the President of the Board of Trade to see that foreign imports from recent enemy countries are marked so that people shall not be disappointed when they buy something which they think is English, but which is really foreign?

  IRELAND.

    MILITARY OPERATIONS.
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether the operations of the forces in Ireland have received, or are receiving, the attention of the Imperial General Staff?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON(the Financial Secretary, War Office): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. At the present time actual military operations in the true sense of the term are not in progress, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief merely providing such assistance to the police as he is called upon to supply from time to time by the Irish Government. In these circumstances the functions of the Imperial General Staff arc limited to the consideration of the various requirements in personnel and material which the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief may demand.

    SINN FEIN OUTRAGES.
    Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the violent Sinn Fein propaganda in this country, in the United States, and other countries, and of the many false and misleading reports that appear in a section of the Press, gravely reflecting on the action of the military and police in Ireland and on the Irish Government, he will arrange that an official weekly précis of the outrages on soldiers and police during the previous week, and of the general situation in Ireland, be issued and made available for publication in the home and foreign Press?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and learned Friend will be glad to learn that this is already being done.

    SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement with regard to his negotiations with the Sinn Fein leaders?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no statement to make on the subject beyond repeating the willingness of the Government to explore every avenue which might lead to a real and lasting settlement with Ireland.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is there anything hopeful in what is reported in the Press with regard to negotiations with a view to a settlement? Can the right hon. Gentleman say that without committing himself to details?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received and replied to the telegram from Father O'Flanagan, who is at present the only spokesman of Sinn Fein who is not in prison?
    Mr. MOLES: Before replying to that question will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has seen a statement from the Sinn Fein Council this morning, which declares that any person purporting to enter into negotiations with the British Government will be regarded by the Council as a traitor, and dealt with accordingly?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Neither has the hon. Member. He saw it on the tape.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no doubt that if anything of the kind has been issued it would be brought to my notice, but I should regret it very much. With regard to the telegram referred to by my hon. Friend, I received it only about an hour ago, and I should consider the reply which is to be given.
    Major O'NEILL: In order to clear up misapprehensions, may I ask whether the Government have or have not any alternative with regard to Irish policy apart from that already sanctioned by this House in the Government of Ireland Bill?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Docs the right hon. Gentleman consider Father O'Flanagan as a Sinn Feiner on the bridge, able to speak for the Sinn Fein party? Has the right hon. Gentleman not declared that it will be his policy to negotiate with any representative Sinn Feiner?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is what we want to find out. If I may very respectfully suggest it to the House, I do not think it will be very helpful if there be too many conflicting questions on the subject.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is hopeful with regard to negotiations being kept open?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say anything beyond what I have said repeatedly in this House and outside—that the Government are willing to discuss with anybody who is authorised to speak on behalf of Irish opinion any question which will bring peace to Ireland.
    Major O'NEILL: May I press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer to my question, namely, whether the Government have or have not a different policy, with regard to Ireland, from that already sanctioned by this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have repeatedly stated in this House the policy of the Government in reference to the Bill and in reference to negotiations, and I do not think it would be possible for me to say more in the course of an answer to a supplementary question.

  COMMITTEE OF IMPEEIAL DEFENCE.
  Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister how many meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence have been held since the Armistice, and how many meetings of the same body have been held this year; and whether the forthcoming Naval, Military, and Air Force Estimates will be submitted to the Committee for consideration before being laid before Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first and second part of the question is one meeting, though perhaps I should remind the hon. Member that, as the House has been informed on several occasions, by far the greater part of the work of the Committee of Imperial Defence is performed by Sub-committees and conferences of that Committee; as regards the last part of the question, I am not, at the present time, in a position to specify the method by which the Estimates in question will be considered by the Cabinet.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Would it not facilitate the work of defence if the three staffs of the fighting Departments were to get together?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is one of the suggestions which has not merely been considered but agreed to.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    LAND SETTLEMENT, CANADA.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister under what conditions the Canadian Government are placing ex-service men on the land in Canada; and will he communicate with the Canadian Government with a view to ascertaining whether ex-service men of this country may be accorded the same privileges under arrangements made by His Majesty's Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The Canadian Soldier Settlement Acts make provision for settling qualified Canadian ex-service men upon the land in Canada. The settlement is carried out under the supervision and guidance of the Soldier Settlement Board, and loans sufficient for the purpose of settlement are made by the Board. Qualified soldiers are required to pay 10 per cent. of the purchase price of their farm, and the total maximum loans allowed may not exceed $7,500. The privileges conferred by the Act are extended to approved ex-service men from the United Kingdom, but all such men are required to deposit £200 as a guarantee, i.e., approximately the equivalent of 20 per cent, of the purchase price of their land, stock and equipment. Applications by ex-service men from the United Kingdom can in future only be made in Canada at one of the offices of the Soldier Settlement Board. The possibility of making arrangements with the Canadian Government and the Governments of other Dominions for a wider extension to British ex-service men of the privileges given to their own ex-service men, is certainly worthy of consideration, but involves questions of cost which would have to be carefully gone into.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking, if he can, that his Department or some Department of the Government will take this matter up with the various Dominion Governments with a view to seeing how many, if any, and on what terms unemployed ex-service men in this country can be placed on the land in the Empire, and thus provide work for these men instead of paying them unemployment doles here?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The Overseas Settlement Office has already been in continuous communication with the Dominion Governments in order to secure that the fullest advantage of their ex-service settlement schemes should be given to British ex-service men. As the House knows, free passages are given to men who have been accepted, and their ' families. A further extension would involve some of the overseas Governments in considerable expenditure which they may not be able to bear alone, and the question of sharing the expenditure with
    1718
    them is certainly worthy of the most sympathetic consideration by this House, which has already done so much for ex-service men.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Canadian Government with a view to overcoming the £200 limit, which they have put on, not against ex-service men, but to protect themselves against people going to that country and becoming chargeable to their unemployment funds?
    Dr. MURRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to his own Government to provide money in order to settle a great number of ex-service men on the land, especially in Scotland, where they have been waiting so long, without their going overseas?

  RUSSIA.

    TRADE AGREEMENT, SWEDEN.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister what are the results of his inquiries regarding the reported failure of the Russian Soviet Government to fulfil their obligations under their recent Swedish trade agreement, by the terms of which the Russian Soviet Government were to ship certain goods to Sweden within a specified period in exchange for commodities supplied to them from Sweden; and whether, as a result, certain of the Swedish firms in question have refused to supply any further goods until they are repaid either in gold or in kind?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not been able to obtain sufficient information to enable me to state to what extent the agreement made in May last between certain Swedish traders and the Centrosojus is being carried out.
    Mr. RAPER: If I put a question next week, will the right hon. Gentleman reply?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have communicated, and have been quite unable to find out. If I get any further information on the subject, I will communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Soviet Government can be relied upon to carry out any obligation?

    TRADE RELATIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether he can yet make any statement with regard to the prospects of trade with Russia and Siberia during the coming year for the information of British merchants and manufacturers; and whether the French Government has raised no objection in principle to trade between French business houses and subjects of the Russian Soviet Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Pending the conclusion of the negotiations with the Russian Trade Delegation and the receipt of further information respecting the economic condition in Russia and Siberia, it is not possible to me to form an estimate as to the prospects of British trade with those countries during the coming year. With regard to the last part of the question, the French Prime Minister recently announced in the Chamber that French business men may trade with Russia at their own risk.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the article in the "Sunday Express" yesterday by the Secretary of State for War that we should not trade in any circumstances with Soviet Russia? Does that represent the views of the Cabinet?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend never did anything of the sort.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister for War stated that the greatest possible mistake was to bolster up a cancer? Is that the view of the Cabinet?

    ROUBLE NOTE.
    Mr. G. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Russian 1,000 rouble note, which is the chief currency of the Soviet Government, and is of the present value of 9d., contains on the face of the note in nine different languages, including the English language, the words, Workers of the world unite; whether it is proposed that, in the event of establishing trade relations with the Soviet Government, the 1,000 rouble note is to be continued as recognised currency; and whether, if so, His Majesty's Government proposes to lend itself to this form of Bolshevik propaganda?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but in any event I cannot imagine any business being transacted with this country on the basis of payment in rouble notes.

  TURKEY.
  Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister whether the conditions of the Alliance concluded between the Russian Soviet Government and the Khemalists are to guarantee the integrity of Turkey and to re-establish Turkish administration over all the territory inhabited by Turks, giving to Turkey the right of control over the new States set up in Arabia, to facilitate the work of the Soviet delegates for developing communism in Turkey, Russia and Turkey binding themselves to liberate the Mussulman countries, such as India, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, and Tunis from foreign control and to guarantee their independence?
  The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of the conclusion of any Alliance between the Turks and Bolsheviks.
  Mr. RAPER: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that the terms of the Treaty have been published in the French papers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes: but I think if my hon. Friend will watch a little more closely the course of events he will find that it is not quite an alliance, but rather the opposite, at present.

  UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMITTEE.
  Mr. COWANasked the Prime Minister whether the University Grants Committee has yet reported; and, if not, can he give an approximate date at which their Report may be expected?
  informed that the Committee are now considering their Report and hope to submit it to the Treasury early in the new year.

  GOVERNMENT STAFFS.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS AND INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
    Captain BOWYERasked the Prime Minister, in reference to Command Paper 1032, just issued, why the staffs of the Ministry of Pensions and of the Inland Revenue Department have increased, respectively, to 195 and 312 since 1st September; and what were the additional duties that have necessitated these increases?
    Mr. BALDWIN: As regards the Ministry of Pensions, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to reply given on the 1st December to a similar question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Ealing. The increase in staff of the Inland Revenue consists almost entirely of ex-service, men temporarily recruited, and is due to new work arising under the Finance Act, 1920.

    FRESH APPOINTMENTS.
    Mr. HINDSasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to appoint a Select Committee to make full inquiry into the staffing of Government Departments, both in London and the provinces, having regard to the allegations that many of these staffs are unduly swollen, and that many fresh appointments are being made unnecessarily and new officials sent into Departments that do not desire them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Great efforts have been made in this matter by the Government, through the examination of the staffs in each Department, both by committees and in other ways, but I shall consider with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Cabinet Finance Committee the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the advisability of introducing two budgets, one for national expenditure and one for capital account, particularly in view of the fact that the taxpayer is desirous of knowing what part of the taxes with which he is assessed is used for expenditure, and what part is credited to capital account in the reduction of the War debt?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The provision made for the reduction of debt is already clearly shown in the existing financial statements. It is, however, the case that these statements, which are prepared so as to follow the system of finance contemplated by the Exchequer and Audit Act, do not always distinguish between capital and recurring expenditure in ordinary times, and are still less adapted to show clearly in the conditions of the present day what part of the year's expenditure is due to current obligations within the present control of Parliament and the Government, and what part is directly due to charges of the same nature as those represented by the War Debt. The Government are considering whether any other form of statement will assist Parliament to a clearer comprehension of the position. We had this very question before us last week at the Cabinet Committee.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether, following the precedent of 29th October, 1919, the Government propose to put down a resolution on economy for the Debate on Thursday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. The Government do not contemplate putting down any Motion.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not put down a Motion on the lines of the speech he delivered a day or two since?
  Mr. BILLING: On this occasion, as on many previous occasions, will the Government make the Debate a question of a vote of confidence in the Government? Will they take off the Whips, so that we may have a clear issue on the present Government's financial policy?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If the policy of the Government is challenged on a vital matter, it is, of course, a vote of confidence.

  HOUSING LOANS INTEREST.
  Mr. BILLINGhad given notice of the following question:—
  43. To ask the Prime Minister whether he will state why the Treasury are insisting on local authorities taking up the total amount of their housing loan forthwith, seeing that this money bears interest at the rate of 6 per cent., and that, owing to the backward-

  1723
  ness of municipal building schemes, they are unable to make present use of this money and therefore are re-investing it in Treasury Bonds bearing interest at the rate of 6½ per cent.?
  Mr. BILLING: Since raising this question as a matter of urgency, last Thursday, I find that the Treasury have made arrangements to protect the taxpayer by raising the rate of interest to 6j per cent. Therefore I do not propose to ask the question.
  The CHANCELLORof the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I do not
  follow the explanation of the hon. Member, but there is no foundation for his original allegation.
  Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that on the evening of the day on the morning of which I put down the question, the Order was issued informing all municipalities that for the future the interest would be raised from 6 to 6½ per cent., so that they could not make a profit by shuffling with the Treasury?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. That was not the question. The question was
  why the Treasury are insisting on local authorities taking up the total amount of the housing loan forthwith,"
  and, as I have said, the allegation was without foundation.
  Mr. BILLING: The question was
  "seeing that this money bears interest at the rate of 6 per cent. and that, owing to the backwardness of municipal building schemes, they are unable to make present use of this money, and therefore are reinvesting it in Treasury Bonds bearing interest at the rate of 6½ per cent."
  Since that question has been put down, the Treasury have put up the interest at the rate of 6½ per cent., and, therefore, everything is all right.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
  Mr. WIGNALLasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the distress and poverty existing in the families of persons who have been disabled through injuries received while following their employment and who have to meet the present high cost of living out of the amounts provided by the Workmen's Compensation Act; and if it is the inten-
  1724
  tion of the Government to immediately introduce an improved Workmen's Compensation Act on the lines recommended by the Committee appointed to deal with the matter in their Report?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt):
  The Prime Minister has asked me to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on Thursday last to the question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for the Ogmore Division.

  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Prim-Minister whether it is proposed to take early action to carry out the economies in the working of the Employment Exchanges recommended by the Committee of Inquiry who have just reported; and if, in view of his recent declaration in favour of immediate and relentless economy, steps will be taken to secure a reduction in the expenditure on the Exchanges during the current financial year?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARYto the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I have been asked to reply. Immediate action will be taken to deal with the recommendations of this Committee and to effect economies which I hope may prove to be possible and on the lines laid down by the Committee. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend, however, that at the moment a very heavy burden falls upon the Exchanges on account of the great and increasing amount of unemployment, also that the new Unemployment Insurance Act increases the number of insured persons from about 4,000,000 to about 12,000,000; and, for the great part, unemployment insurance benefit is paid by the local Employment Exchanges.
  Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a lot of this unemployment might be done away with if the Government would take the necessary steps to protect many industries in this country, such as toys and baskets?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is resuming a Debate which I have already said is not in order.

  WASHINGTON CONFERENCE (MATERNITY PROPOSALS).
  Mr. CLYNESasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state when it is proposed to give legislative enactment to the maternity proposals of the Washington Conference?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 25th November to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson).
  Mr. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Government does not take action in this matter prior to 22nd January it will be unable to comply with the provisions of the Peace Treaty in respect to this question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that that is wrong.

  PUBLIC BUILDINGS (OCCUPATION BY UNEMPLOYED).
  Captain TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the occupation of public buildings by small bodies of unemployed; and whether, in the interest of order and the conservation to the public of the proper use of these structures, he will instruct the authorities to see that these premises are at once vacated when so invaded?
  Mr. SHORTT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The matter is not one in which the Government has any power to instruct local authorities; but I have no doubt local authorities will be careful to protect public rights while doing their best to deal gently with men who are suffering from the present increase of unemployment.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL.
  Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister when he expects to be in a position to make any statement with reference to the Channel Tunnel?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I am not in a position to name a date.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered this question from the point of view of solving the problem of unemployment?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, we have done that for some time in any event, but there are conditions of a more permanent concern which we have to consider very carefully before we commit ourselves.

  NEAR EAST.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether any decision was come to at his recent conferences with the French Prime Minister and the Italian Foreign Minister regarding a rearrangement in favour of Turkey or Bulgaria of areas in Asia Minor and Thrace allotted by the Peace Conference to the late Greek Government; whether any discussion took place at the same conference regarding the steps to be taken by the Allies to deal with Mustapha Kemal and his army, or about Cilicia, or the Syria-Palestine boundary question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the official communiqués which have already been published on these subjects.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a full statement on this matter and give the House the opportunity of discussing it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that, but I think that it would be unwise to have a discussion just yet, until there are further developments.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Later on?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand from the communiqués referred to that there is no present intention of altering the terms of the Treaty of Versailles?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That certainly has not been decided on.

  ANGLO-FRENCH MILITARY ALLIANCE.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether he will give both Houses of Parliament opportunities of discussing the proposal made by Lord Derby for a special military alliance between this

  1727
  country and France before the Government is committed to such a policy; and whether he will postpone the consideration of such an alliance until the Dominions of the Empire and India have been fully consulted and their commitments under such an alliance clearly defined?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The question of entering into a special military alliance with France is not under discussion.

  EMIR FEISAL.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether the Emir Feisal has recently arrived in this country; what steps are being taken by the Government to secure the continued friendship of an Arab leader to whom this country is deeply indebted for the action he took in the War on our behalf; and whether the French Government refused to allow the Emir Feisal to travel to this country through France?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Emir Feisal arrived in this country on Thursday, and was received in audience by His Majesty the King on Saturday. No better indication could be given of the desire of His Majesty's Government for the Emir's continued friendship. The French Ambassador at Rome appears to have refused to grant a visa, for the Emir's journey through France, for lack of instructions from the French Government.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    AERONAUTICAL MATERIAL (SURRENDER).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Lord Privy Seal whether Article 202 of the Peace Treaty with regard to the surrender by Germany of military and naval aeronautical material has yet been carried out; if not, will he say when it is expected that the delivery of such material will be completed; and whether, in the meantime, the manufacture or importation of aeronautical material by Germany has been entirely stopped?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The terms of the Article referred to have not been completed entirely, but satisfactory progress has been made and every effort is being made by the Inter-
    1728
    Allied Commission to secure its complete fulfilment. The answer to the third part of the qeustion is in the affirmative.

  COPPER MINES.
  Brigadier - General Sir OWEN THOMASasked the Secretary for Mines whether, so far from pumping the Parys mine being an expensive matter, it would actually be profitable, seeing that from the water so pumped and treated in 1912, copper, etc., precipitated to a total value of £9,000?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): The copper precipitate obtained at this mine is understood to be derived from water flowing by' gravitation from the mine augmented by the leaching of the old waste heaps. To pump out the water from below adit level and reopen the mine would be a much more difficult and expensive operation.
  Sir O. THOMASasked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the great importance of the issue, both commercially and from the point of view of employment, he will order an independent expert examination of the mine possibilities, especially in view of the enormous enhancement of the price of copper and the scientific improvements now available for dealing with the difficulties?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to a similar question on the 17th November, to which I have nothing to add.

  SOMERSETSHIRE MINES.
  Mr. HURDasked the Secretary for Mines if he will state what were the figures of output, wages, costs, and balance for the Somerset mines alone in column (f), area 5, of the Statistical Summary [Cmd. 949]?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The quarterly statistical summary is published by virtue of the proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 4 of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Coal Mines Emergency Act. In view of the main provisions of that Subsection I do not think it is open to me to supplement the summary with more detailed information.
  Mr. HURD: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether these figures exist or not, and whether, in their absence, it is possible to form any conclusion concerning this district area of Somerset mining?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not sure whether the figures exist or not, but I do not think it would be permissible for me to give detailed information.

  TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAY ACCOUNTS.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport whether he can see his way to instruct the several railway companies to prepare the financial statement of accounts and statistical returns in accordance with the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911, as far as it is practicable, to enable their proprietors to see for themselves the present cost of working the several departments as shown in Abstracts A, B, C, D, E, and Statistical Returns X., XL?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): The division of expenditure in detail between railway companies ceased to be necessary when the Government guaranteed to the companies their aggregate net receipts of the year 1913, and it was accordingly suspended to save labour and expense. It is therefore not practicable for individual companies to publish detailed particulars of the present cost of working of their several departments.

    RAILWAY GROUPING
    Mr. SUGDENasked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to group railway companies on lines of economy by natural selection, subject to proper safeguards to traders and the public, or what system he intends to apply for grouping purposes?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The grouping proposed is shown in the White Paper Cmd. 787, and was built up on consideration of operating economic administrative efficiency. I have now received alternative proposals supported by a large majority of the railway companies which I am considering.
    Dr. MURRAY: Will not grouping by natural selection mean that there will be no interference whatever from headquarters? How can there be natural selection with proper safeguards?

    RAILWAY CAPITAL.
    Mr. SUGDENasked the Minister of Transport what steps will be taken to permit railway companies opportunity to raise any further necessary capital which is urgently needed for extension of their usefulness to traders and the public generally?
    Sir E. GEDDES: No obstacle has ever been placed in the way of railway companies as regards raising capital. Further, in order that the controlled railway companies may be encouraged to spend the capital necessary to provide the facilities required by traders and the public, the Government allows during the period of possession interest at 5 per cent, on approved capital expenditure or new works and additional rolling stock, and such interest begins to accrue from the date on which the expenditure is incurred. A sum of about £14,000,000 has been so approved by the Ministry after most careful scrutiny and examination.

    FARES (FOOTBALL CLUBS).
    Lieut.-Colonel D. WHITEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to grant railway fares at a reduced rate to teams of amateur football clubs who may have to play matches away from home, in the same manner as was the custom before the War?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply to a similar question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Fulham East on the 22nd of November. I am able to add that a Report from the Rates Advisory Committee has quite recently been received and is under consideration.

    TRANSPORT SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS.
    Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Minister of Transport whether he will give any specific instances of improvement in the transport services of the country as a result of the operations of his Ministry?
    Sir E. GEDDES: It is not possible within the limits of question and answer to cover satisfactorily the wide scope of the hon. and gallant Member's question, but the following instances may be mentioned. In spite of depleted resources and serious dislocation due to the War vastly greater goods and passenger traffic has been carried than ever before in the history of the railways of this country, and the increase in charge to the public is far below the ratio of increase of commodities and labour in the country and also below the increase of rail charges in other European countries generally. Great and progressive improvement in the roads of the country has been and is being accomplished to the advantage of road transport. As regards the ports of the country and the storage accommodation available throughout, very marked improvement has been effected. In these and many other directions the Ministry of Transport, in co-operation with other agencies, has played a valuable part.
    Colonel MILDMAY: Is not some credit due to the railway companies in the matter?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I have said that in many directions the Ministry has cooperated with other agencies, and that statement includes the railway companies.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great congestion there is still in the streets of London? What steps, if any, are being taken to deal with slow-moving traffic, as recommended by the Select Committee on Transport?
    Sir E. GEDDES: As soon as the position is made clear regarding the new legislation which it is proposed to introduce, for the creation of a London Traffic Authority, it will help matters. In the meantime, temporary measures have been taken, and, I am told, have made a material improvement.
    Sir F. HALL: Will that Bill be brought in early next Session?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I cannot answer that question.

    RAILWAYS (CONTROL).
    Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Minister of Transport what is the exact connection between his Ministry and the
    1732
    railway companies; and whether any control is exercised by him over the railways?
    Sir E. GEDDES: My powers of control over the railways are contained in the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, to which I would refer the hon. and gallant Member.
    Mr. BILLING: If the right hon. Gentleman has no control over the railways, why should he take credit for all the improvements?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I said that my powers were all in the Act of 1919.

    EXCURSION TRAINS (CHRISTMAS).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received any reply from the various railway companies as to providing excursion trains for the forthcoming Christmas holidays: what is the decision of the companies, and whether it will be possible for the public to obtain cheap excursion tickets available for three or four days or longer; whether such tickets will be obtainable in advance; and whether any limit will be put upon the number of tickets to be issued to the public?
    Sir E. GEDDES: As the hon. Member is probably aware, it has been announced that special excursion trains for third-class passengers will be provided during the Christmas holidays between large centres of population at reduced fares of a single fare and a third for the double journey, with a minimum of 20s. The tickets will be available on these special trains for the outward journey before the holiday and for the return journey after the holiday. They will be procurable in advance. I have requested the railway companies to run within their resources the special trains whenever full loads can be obtained. Subject to these conditions, the issue of tickets will not be limited.
    Mr. GILBERT: Is it the fact that the cheap tickets which it is proposed to issue only apply to journeys of over 100 miles, and will the right hon. Gentleman ask the companies to consider whether they cannot give some facilities to many towns which are under 100 miles distant from London and other large cities?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The limitation of the minimum of 20s. which has been mentioned approximately gives 100 miles' journey. The basis on which these new fares were given was, as the House knows, to increase the net revenue, and the companies advise me, and I have every reason to believe it is true, that short-distance travel will go on whether there are cheap fares or not.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Are we to understand that these excursion facilities are on economic lines, and will not involve any charge on the public funds?
    Sir E. GEDDES: Neither I nor anyone else can guarantee that it will not involve a charge on the public funds. It is given on the advice that it will increase the net receipts of the railways.
    Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what justification there is for giving this advantage to one section of the population and withholding it from another on the ground of distance?
    Sir E. GEDDES: Economic justification.
    Mr. COWANasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that in Scotland the New Year holidays will run from 30th December, 1920, to 10th January, 1921, inclusive; and whether he will secure for Scotland during that period cheap travelling facilities corresponding to those granted to England for the Christmas holiday period?
    Sir E. GEDDES: It has been specially pointed out to the railway companies that the provision of special trains at reduced fares should cover the New Year holiday period in Scotland.

    ARTERIAL ROADS.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Minister of Transport if an agreement has yet been arrived at with the Middlesex County Council to secure the construction of certain sections of new arterial roads situate in the urban districts of Willesden, Tottenham, and Edmonton; if so, the terms and conditions of such agreement; and when it is expected that work will be commenced in the several districts, in all of which there is considerable unemployment?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The Middlesex County Council have agreed to carry out the con-
    1734
    struction of the following arterial roads in the districts named, i.e., North Circular Road, in Edmonton and Willesden; New Cambridge Road in Tottenham, Edmonton, and Enfield. In accordance with the terms of the Government's offer, 50 per cent. of the cost will be contributed by the Government and the other 50 per cent. by the Middlesex County Council. It is expected that work will begin in Edmonton and Willesden to-day and that in the other districts there will be an almost equally rapid start. As the work is being undertaken by the County Council with the help of the local authorities, the rate of progress rests with them. I know of no obstacles to prevent a rapid absorption of unemployed men.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is making similar arrangements with Essex County Council in order to provide employment for the unemployed in Leyton and other districts?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I am not quite sure, but I know that negotiations are progressing and there is a great deal of detail involved. Progress has been made with the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council, and other county councils around London are included in those negotiations.
    Mr. FOREMANasked the Minister of Transport if an agreement has yet been arrived at with the London County Council to secure the construction of certain sections of new arterial roads situate at Dagenham and in Greenwich, Hackney, Woolwich, and other Metropolitan boroughs; if so, what are the terms and conditions of such agreement; and when it is expected that work will be commenced in the several districts, in all of which, as he is aware, there is considerable unemployment?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The London County Council have agreed to carry out the construction of portions of the Eastern Avenue, Bromley Byepass, Shooters Hill Byepass, Eltham Byepass and the Kid-brook Park Extension. In accordance with the terms of the Government's offer, 50 per cent, of the cost will be contributed by the Government and the other 50 per cent, by the county council. In addition to these schemes, agreement has also been reached with the county councils of London and Essex regarding the con-

    1735
    struction of the Tilbury Road diversion through the London County Council housing estate at Dagenham. It is expected that work will be proceeding on some sections of these roads in the course of this week.

  MONTENEGRO.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Montenegro has applied for admission to the League of Nations; whether a request has also been made to the League of Nations at Geneva that an international commission be appointed to investigate the crimes committed in Montenegro by the Serbs, the Report of such commission to be published in full; and whether any instructions have been, or will be, given to the British representatives in the League as to their attitude to these two requests of Montenegro, respectively?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and those to the second and third parts in the negative. Until the future status of Montenegro is settled, the question of her becoming a member of the League cannot arise.
  Mr. McNEILL: Can the hon. Gentleman say how the status is going to be determined?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. Friend has other questions on the subject.
  Mr. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information concerning the assassination of Dr. Sekulé Drlievitch by the Serbs on the eve of the elections for a Constituent Assembly in Jugo-Slavia; whether this ex-Minister of Montenegro was the most prominent of the Montenegrin candidates for election and was murdered during his canvass, in which he made it plain that he did not acknowledge the legality of the elections so far as Montenegro was concerned, but sought election in order to expose the crimes of Serbia against his country; whether his murder under such circum stances intimidated other candidates and the Montenegrin electors; and whether,
  1736
  notwithstanding this assassination, it is still maintained that the elections express the uncoerced will of the Montenegrin people?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is unfortunately true that Dr. Drlievic was killed during the election at Kolashin. Our information is that brigands attacked the polling station and some soldiers lost their lives in defending it, which shows that the authorities were trying to preserve order and freedom of elections there. In regard to the remaining parts of the question, I must await the report of the British official who was sent to Montenegro as a witness of these elections.
  Mr. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the elections for a Constituent Assembly which have been held out as offering the means for ascertaining the wishes of the Montenegrin people regarding their future political status are for a Constituent Assembly of all Jugo-Slavia, to which Montenegro is invited to send half-a-dozen delegates to sit with delegates representing the territories emancipated from the rule of Austria-Hungary; whether there is any precedent for putting the people of an independent allied State on the same footing as former enemies whose status has been changed by the Treaty of Peace; if he will say what Article of the Treaty with Austria-Hungary, or any other treaty, provides for, or sanctions, this treatment of an Ally; and whether it is held by His Majesty's Government that the invitation to Montenegro to elect some delegates to an assembly in a foreign country is a fulfilment of the repeated pledges that the Montenegrin people should freely decide their own future?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, except in so far as the number of deputies assigned to Montenegro is ten and not six. The last three parts of my hon. and learned Friend's question appear to proceed from a misconception of the object and basis of the Jugo-Slav Constituent Assembly. It is a question not of any differentiation between enemies and allies, but of obtaining an authoritative expression of opinion whether the dispersed elements of the Jugo-Slav race desire union, and, if so, on what terms

  1737
  they wish this union to be secured. For the purposes of this popular consultation the Montenegrin people have been placed on exactly the same footing as the Croats, Slovenes, and the Serbians.
  Mr. McNEILL: Does my hon. Friend not realise that the Montenegrin people are an independent nation, and if they are to be asked to decide their own status, why should they be put with anybody else?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: The same as Ireland.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the differences of opinion among the Montenegrin people themselves as to their future.
  Captain REDMOND: Is there an Ulster there?
  Mr. McNEILL: If there are differences of opinion among the Montenegrin people why is their opinion not taken?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: A Daniel come to judgment.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The intention of the election for a Constituent Assembly is proposed in order to ascertain what the Montenegrin people want.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will the hon. Gentleman give Ireland what it wants, as it knows its own mind and has declared it?
  Mr. LYNN: For whom do you speak?

  POST OFFICE EMPLOYES (STRIKE-POLICY).
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON(by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General whether a ballot has just been taken among 107,049 employés of the Post Office who are members of the Union of Post Office Workers on the question of whether a strike policy should be adopted by the union and a strike fund created; whether 48,157 employés voted in favour of a strike policy and for the creation of a strike fund, and 35,411 against, being a majority in favour of the above proposal of 12,746, no ballot papers being returned by 23,481; whether he is aware that the above result is to be considered by the executive of the union on 8th December, in order to decide upon further action; and whether he will see
  1738
  that an intimation is communicated to the executive of the union before that date indicating that persons in the Government service cannot be permitted to hold up the community by means of a strike against a decision of the Government who represent the elected representatives of the people of the country?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I believe the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend. It is not considered necessary to make any communication in the sense suggested.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that a very serious position has now arisen, in that the majority of the union have expressed their desire to form a striking union with a strike fund, and, having regard to the fact that the Government forbade the Police Force to form a striking union, does he not think it is high time for the Government to take some action.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Send for the Black and Tans.
  Mr. PEASE: I regret that this resolution of the Post Office employés should have been passed. The answer I have given represents the considered policy of the Government.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is it the considered policy of the Government to allow Government servants to go on strike?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Leader of the House what items of business the Government intend to try to complete before the House rises to-night?
Mr. BONAR LAW: We hope to take the first eight Orders and, if there be any time, to proceed with Supplementary Estimates.
Mr. MILLS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if we are likely to have Christmas Day off?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope so. It will depend more on the House than on the Government.
Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of the action of

1739
the House of Lords in regard to the so-called Home Rule Bill, whether the Bill will now be dropped?
Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not called a "so-called" Home Rule Bill, but the Government of Ireland Bill. It will not be dropped?
Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that the House is not likely to adjourn before Christmas?
Mr. BONAR LAW: No, it would be a mistake to assume that.

BILL PRESENTED.
  POLICE PENSIONS BILL,
  "to consolidate and amend the Law respecting the retirement, pensions, allowances, and gratuities of members of police forces in Great Britain and their widows and children," presented by Mr. SHORTT; supported by Mr. Munro; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 257.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a short and comparatively simple measure dealing with housing in Scotland. It applies to Scotland with the necessary adaptations Part I of the Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I have taken the responsibility of entirely excising the corresponding provisions of Part II of that Bill. Accordingly, this Bill deals with housing and with housing alone. The provisions which the Bill contains have been so recently and so exhaustively discussed, both upon the Second Reading of my right hon. Friend's Bill and in Committee upstairs, that I hope that a brief explanation of the effect of those provisions will suffice. Clause 1 of the Bill confers powers on local authorities to hire compulsorily houses for a limited period, that period being from the date of the hiring to the date when the Rent Restriction Act expires, namely, 28th May, 1923. The rent which is to be paid for these houses which are compulsorily hired will be fixed by the official arbiter under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act of 1919, and it is provided that no allowance will be made in respect of the fact that hiring is compulsory. Of course, if the parties agree, good and well, but if there is a difference of opinion, then the official arbiter will settle the amount of the rent. The Bill as drawn does not insert any rateable value of the houses that may be taken. That is a question, no doubt, for discussion in Committee, but the Bill as drawn is perfectly general in regard to that matter. Moreover, the Bill excludes from the operation of the compulsory hiring powers, as the first proviso lays it down that
  "any house erected after or in the course of erection on the second day of April, 1919, or to any house acquired for the public service or for the purpose of the statutory duties or powers of a statutory undertaking and reasonably required for those purposes."
  That was a proviso inserted in Committee on the English Bill, and I hope it will commend itself to the House as a
  1776
  reasonable provision. The need of Clause 1 in Scotland, I am assured, is very great, and I hope that after reasonable discussion the House will confer on the Scottish Board of Health the powers asked for.
  Mr. HOGGE: Have you any details?
  Mr. MUNRO: I have a certain number of facts and figures, but they deal with furnished houses, and the question will arise, no doubt, whether this Bill should or should not take in those houses. In regard to furnished houses, I can give my hon. Friend one example. I am told that in Largs, out of 2,000 houses in the burgh, there are 700 which are tenanted by non-residents. Of these 700, about 100 are sub-let, and therefore about 600 houses are standing empty for the greater part of the year in that burgh, while there arc many persons there who are at the same time, so I am informed, houseless. That is an illustration of the kind which my hon. Friend has invited me to give.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Is there anything said about the rent?
  Mr. MUNRO: I said very distinctly that the Bill as drawn imposes no such limit. I am well aware that a limit was imposed in the English Bill upstairs, and I think it is a matter for discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee on this Bill whether or not that limit should be repeated here, but the Bill as drawn does not contain it, and I am prepared to justify the terms of the Bill, if necessary, so far as that matter is concerned. It is a difficult question, but it arises, I think, rather in Committee than on the Second Reading. Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the time during which the subsidy is payable to private builders. As the House is aware, the time at which the subsidy payable was originally timed to expire was 23rd December of this year. It is proposed to extend the time by twelve months, as is done in the English measure, and considering the scarcity of materials and labour and the other causes which have held back houses from being erected under the subsidy and otherwise, I hope the House will regard that as a reasonable provision. May I just add this, that the effect of that extension will not be to involve any increase at all upon the sum of £15,000,000 which was set aside

  1777
  under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, for the purpose of the payment of the subsidy. The sum of £15,000,000 will cover the increased period, and not a single penny more will be required. There is a provision which the House will note attached to the Clause which requires Regulations made by the Board to be laid before both Houses so far as they relate to houses which are commenced after the 31st March, 1921. That provision, I think, was inserted in the English Bill upstairs, and I shall be surprised if the House of Commons, which is so jealous of its control over these matters, should object to a provision which is designed to ensure that control of Regulations shall be secured.
  With regard to the facts relating to houses which have been erected under the subsidy in Scotland, preliminary certificates—that is certificates approving the plans of these houses—have been granted showing that 1,425 houses in Scotland may participate in the subsidy up to the 15th November. I have not got particulars up to the present moment. Of those houses, 49 have been completed and the subsidy has already been paid. With regard to the size of the houses, I am informed that 350 of these houses are three-roomed houses, 530 are four-roomed houses, and 545 include five or six rooms. Accordingly, the House will see that one has got rid of the very small building which is so often deprecated, and that, according to my information, the minimum size of these houses, which have been erected under strict Regulations of the Board of Health, is three rooms. Clause 3 amends Section 5 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, which deals with the prohibition of what we have come to call luxury buildings, and the main object of this Clause is to improve the machinery for carrying that Section into effect. In the first place, power is given in the interests of expedition to local authorities to delegate their powers and their duties to committees, but that provision is safeguarded by this important proviso:
  "Provided that any Order made under the aforesaid Section five of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, by such a Committee shall be forthwith submitted to the local authority and taken into consideration by the authority at their next meeting,
  1778
  and shall not continue in force unless confirmed by the authority."
  4.0 P.M.
  The reason for that provision is that it has been found that considerable delay has ensued because you have had to wait for a meeting of the local authority in order to deal with the matter. It has been considered safe and justifiable that these powers shall be delegated by the local authority to a committee upon which its members will predominate, always subject- to this, that the Order shall be brought under review by the local authority itself at its next meeting, and shall cease to operate unless it be then confirmed. Power is also conferred by this Clause upon two local authorities to appoint a joint committee for the purposes of the Section. I am assured that is a desirable and proper power to confer, and, subject to the safeguards contained in the Bill, I hope that the House will agree with that view. Then, on the suggestion of the Joint Industrial Council, which, as the House knows, contains employers and employés, it is provided that buildings may be prohibited where bribes are being held out to workmen by offering them wages at a higher rate than the recognised rate in the district. We have had at least one such case in Scotland— I believe that there have been several in England—where men were bribed by being offered a higher rate of wages than could be paid under the housing scheme in the district, with the result that not only one but several housing schemes were held back. This Clause has been suggested by the Joint Industrial Council, and it is in the English Bill. The Clause goes on to pro vide for the reconstitution of the Appeal Tribunal which decides questions of luxury building. At the present moment it is a standing tribunal consisting of five members. I do not want to criticise it, but I feel bound to tell the House that I have had repeated and strong remonstrances from the Corporation of Glasgow with regard to the decisions of the existing tribunal. I am entitled to tell the House that in Scotland 16 out of 18 appeals which have been taken to that tribunal for the purpose of enabling luxury building, cinemas, or something of that sort, to proceed, have been sustained. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the precise circumstances—
  Sir H. CRAIK: Thank Heaven, we have somebody with sense in Scotland.
  Mr. MUNRO: I said that I was not criticising the tribunal.
  Sir H. CRAIK: You are abolishing it.
  Mr. MUNRO: The existing tribunal, certainly, will be abolished, but there is nothing to prevent the members of it, if the Board of Health think fit, being re-appointed under the provisions of this Bill. I think it right and fair to put the House in possession of these two facts: First, that remonstrances have been directed to me by the Corporation of Glasgow, and second that sixteen out of eighteen appeals have succeeded. The proposal now is that, instead of that tribunal of five, the chairman shall be appointed from a panel of chairmen to be set up by the Board of Health, and that the Board of Health shall also constitute a panel from which the ordinary members shall be selected.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: How many?
  Mr. MUNRO: Three in all. It is provided that they may sit in such divisions as may seem proper to the Board. The only other provision of that Clause to which I need refer is Sub-section (4), which provides for the intervention of the Board of Health, as distinguished from the local authority, in two sets of circumstances: First, where, by reason of the construction in the district of some other authority of buildings of less public importance than the provision of dwelling accommodation, the Board are satisfied that the provision of dwelling accommodation is likely to be hindered or is hindered. Where a building is going on in an adjacent local authority of a character which interferes with the housing scheme of the first authority, the Board of Health may intervene. Secondly, the Board may interfere and make an Order where the local authority in question is failing to do its duty under the section, or, in other words, failing to take appropriate steps to prevent luxury building. That is all I need say about Clause 3.
  We now come to Clause 4, which gives power to a local authority to execute works which are necessary or which are incidental to the carrying out of a hous
  1780
  ing scheme which is beyond the confines of its own district. Several burgh authorities in Scotland are carrying out such schemes and buildings outside their own boundaries. Wishall, Motherwell, Airdrie, Glasgow, Queensferry, Lasswade and Prestonpans, I am informed, are all building outside the confines of their own particular districts. Difficulties have arisen in such cases with regard to the provision both of sewage and of water. At present, under the existing law, these cannot be provided by a local authority outside its own area, and yet the House will see that, assuming that these buildings are going on in the area of a small local authority outside the area of an adjoining large local authority, the small local authority may find great difficulty in financing the water and sewage arrangements which are necessary during the period when the houses are going up and are not subject to assessment. Accordingly, this Clause provides that the first authority which is really responsible for these buildings may enter into arrangements with the second local authority for the purpose of constructing sewage and water schemes under appropriate conditions, and power is taken, as the House will observe in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the first Sub-section, to borrow and to lend money in connection with that enterprise.
  Clause 5 is really for the purpose of rectifying an omission in the Additional Powers Act, 1919, Section 7. It is not, however, a very important question so far as Scotland is concerned. Section 7 of that Act authorises the county council to lend money to a local authority within its own area for the purposes of housing, and it authorises the Board of Health to prescribe conditions with regard to the raising of the money by the county council for that purpose. It omitted, however, to authorise the Board to prescribe the conditions upon which the county council should lend the money to the local authority. The House will at once see that if a county council raised money, subject to certain conditions prescribed by the Board of Health, it might be very desirable that those same conditions should be imposed in the deed in virtue of which the money was lent by the county council to the local authority. At present, through inadvertence or otherwise, that power does not exist, and that casus improvidus is being remedied in

  1781
  Clause 5 of this Bill. It has little application to Scotland, because, so far as I know, there is no county council in Scotland which is at present lending money to a local authority within its area. Some such cases, however, might arise, and it is thought proper to take the same power as already exists in England with regard to this matter.
  Clause 6 has for its object the enabling of a local authority, where it is selling houses, to accept payment for the houses by instalments or to leave a certain proportion of the price, as we say in Scotland, on bond, or, as would be said in England, on mortgage. That is the design of Clause 6. England has this power already, but there is no corresponding power in the Scottish statute. I think it is very likely that a local authority may desire to sell houses, let us say, to working people, and it might be a great convenience hat the local authority should be empowered, not to demand cash down in respect of the transaction, but to accept payment by instalments, or, if necessary, by a bond over the house which has been sold.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: What will be the rate of interest?
  Mr. MUNRO: The rate of interest is not prescribed. That will be a matter for the local authority, having regard to the current rate of interest at the time. Lastly, Clause 7—Clause 8 is formal— provides that the rate of interest on advances under the Small Dwellinigs Act, 1899, and on expenses, which are recoverable in respect of repairs which have been executed by the local authority under the Act of 1909 in default of such repairs being executed by the person responsible for them, should more closely approximate to the rate of interest which is prevailing at the time. The rate of interest prescribed by the Act of 1899, and even by the Act of 1909, is really not appropriate to present-day conditions, and, accordingly, by this Clause the central authority may, with the approval of the Treasury—that is important—fix a rate of interest which corresponds with the rate generally obtaining in the country at the time.
  Such is the measure which I have the honour to ask the House to read a Second time. I would remind my Scottish col-
  1782
  leagues and such English Members as are interested in this matter that the Bill is urgent, if only for the reason that the most important Clause is the Clause dealing with the subsidy, the right to which expires on 23rd December this year. Accordingly, the House will appreciate that it is of the first importance that the Bill should pass through all its stages before that date; otherwise, a hiatus of a very unfortunate character will occur, with consequences that I do not like to contemplate. I hope that it may be possible, although I regret that the Bill was not brought in earlier, for the Bill to reach the Statute Book before that date, and, inasmuch as the Clauses have been subjected to very full discussion both downstairs and upstairs on the other measure, that it may not be necessary to spend quite so much time over them as the House might otherwise spend.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I cannot congratulate my colleagues upon the fruit of the pure and absolute independence of Scotland which is represented by this Bill. We are told that Bills for Scotland ought to be drafted according to the characteristic needs of Scotland. There are peculiarities in Scotland that cannot be overlooked, and which make this House utterly unfitted to legislate for Scotland. What has my right hon. Friend done in order to realise the expression of this absolute independence? He has adopted, ipsissima verba, a Bill which is drafted by the Minister of Health in England. He has found that Bill so excellent that, even although in some respects he finds no cases to which, as he tells us, Clauses 5 and 6 are applicable in Scotland, though he thinks they may perhaps occur, he puts the Scottish Bill on exactly the same footing as the English Bill, and introduces two exactly identical Clauses. I am not going to confine myself only to finding fault. There is a certain merit in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to emulate the all-omnivorous Act of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, whose Bill embraces almost every conceivable form of human life. In spite of the arguments my right hon. Friend has used, I would point out that objections which, to my mind, arose in the Bill of the Minister of Health, unfortunatley extend in a precisely similar manner to this Bill. It does not make a proposal to seize arbitrarily houses that you may find three months out of occupa-

  1783
  tion less objectionable because you now use it for Scotland. The absurd Error against all political economy is committed, the primary rights of property, upon which the benefit of all classes of the community depends, are interfered with just as much as they were when the English Bill was introduced. But I observe that my right hon. Friend, although he has adopted the Bill exactly in the words introduced by the Minister of Health, has carefully avoided introducing a certain precautionary proviso which was introduced in Committee upstairs. He has refused to put in certain Clauses which we were able to press upon the attention of the Minister in Committee upstairs, and which we were able to commend to his consideration and find him ready to adopt. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland is anxious to adopt, not the example of his right hon. colleague of amending the Bill on advice upstairs, but nothing will please him but the original proposals of his right hon. Friend. I say that Clause 1 is a serious and a very pernicious interference with those principles of property, the destruction of which would be equally dangerous to the whole of the Community.
  I am not, of course, going through the Bill in detail—not even the detail which the right hon. Gentleman himself has done. I come to Clause 3. I do not care what arguments may be used on the Labour Benches. I am convinced that these restrictions of labour, this telling labour it must follow a certain course, and must withhold its hand from another course, whatever advocacy it may have, is fundamentally wrong, and can never be made right. It is going back to the curbing legislation of the Middles Ages, which told in the long run against the labouring classes themselves. You are going back now, in the twentieth century, to a trend of legislation that is absolutely and entirely wrong. I have learned to expect from the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) careful arguments and consideration, and I really shall be surprised if the hon. Member, who is Versed in political economy, and who has studied these questions, is prepared to say that he prefers to have the workers curbed, and to be told that they shall employ labour in one way and not another. Take the cant phrase of "luxury building." Is it to the interest
  1784
  of every class of the community that the building of schools, libraries and picture galleries should all be stopped entirely? What would be the effect on the working men? Are there not immense numbers of working men, who, by this Clause 3, will be deprived of the only sort of employment they can get? What about the skilled carpenter, the skilled stonemason, and the various skilled mechanics employed in this higher class of work? They are all to be told that, unless they take part in the work of the humbler sort of housebuilding, they are not to be employed. I ask the hon. Member whether he thinks that this is expressing a really sound basis of political economy?
  It is all very well to speak of these things as exceptional and temporary. We have a little experience now how these temporary and exceptional powers are apt to be abused, and to grow worse and worse as they continue, how tempting they are for those who have the administration, how easy they seem to be, and how they invest them with a little brief authority which every man likes to exercise and to continue to exercise, and is very loth to give up when he is asked to do so. Not only is this mischievous power permitted, but it is continued in several aggravated forms. Apparently, these orders, telling the workers they are to employ themselves in a particular way, are not to be exercised by the local authority in open meeting, but by a committee of the local authority. I can imagine how the little busybodies of a local authority, those who have any particular jealousies, will manage to be on this committee which is to sit in secret and issue its orders.
  Mr. MUNROMy right hon. Friend will forgive me if I interrupt, but I am sure he does not want to do me or the Bill an injustice. He will bear in mind that an order of the committee is not to be continued unless confirmed in open meeting of the local authority at its next meeting.
  Sir H. CRAIKI have not overlooked that point in the least. I was going to point out how absolutely inefficient and useless is this proviso to which my right hon. Friend has referred. What did my right hon. Friend say? He said that the local authority might not meet for a month. If the order was not to come into operation until confirmed that would

  1785
  be a different thing, but it is not to continue unless confirmed. What is the use of telling me a month after the order has been going on that it will not go on any-longer if the local authority does not confirm the order? The mischief is done within the first day of the order. These workmen are dispersed, the contract is closed, the men take the whole of their tools to another place, or are left idle and useless. It is no use telling me a month hence there will be some power of reconsideration. The evil is done when this little committee, sitting in secret, has issued its order.
  My right hon. Friend spoke of the tribunal. He does not, he says, want to blame it; he only wants to reconstitute it. I do not wonder. He has found that in Glasgow this tribunal exercised a little more common sense than those whose decisions they overturned. But my right hon. Friend desires to destroy any effective appeal against these restrictive provisions. Independence in a tribunal does not suit either the trade union or my right hon. Friend or the Minister of Health, in whose footsteps he follows so faithfully. The tribunal is to be transformed. "I am not finding fault with it," says my right hon. Friend; "I am not blaming it. I am only putting the coup de grâce to it by bringing it to an end. There are additional grievances in this mediaeval, reactionary proposal of Clause 3. The right hon. Gentleman did not acept the reconsidered view of the Committee upstairs with regard to Clause 1, but he has accepted a new Clause not in the Bill as it was first introduced by the Minister of Health but foisted upon us after severe resistance on our part in Committee. He has put in Sub-section (3), which is a most dangerous Subsection. Not only does it take power to close operations of a particular sort, and tells workmen that they may only carry out dull, uninteresting, plodding, ill-paid work, but it says a great deal more. Some employers might attract workpeople by various inducements. Perhaps they might be treated more kindly; certain provision might be made for sickness. Perhaps they might be treated as equals, instead of mere machines for making money. No employer is to employ a man under conditions in these respects better than any other. If he does he is to be reported to this little junta, or secret committee, and he will
  1786
  be told what they think on the matter, and how he is instantly to stop anything of the sort, any advantage, any extra kindness, or any extra remuneration. Really, does the right hon. Gentleman think that this sort of thing is likely to prove efficacious or likely to find a fitting part in our social system?
  I know what happened upstairs in the Committee, and what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the Joint Industrial Committee. Strangely enough, this body, consisting of employers and the Labour party, was precisely the alliance that we had in the Committee upstairs. I was desirous of opposing this Clause in the English Bill, and an hon. Member who is also a large employer of labour for once joined hands with the trade unionists, for he knew that the effect of the proposition would be that he would not be troubled with dangerous and disagreeable rivals. But I am not to be moved, either upstairs or here, by the association of employers and trade unionists, or by either of them alone, or by both in company, for it is an unholy alliance, and you may depend upon it that neither side in a compact of this kind is showing to the other the whole of his hand. The only people who are certain to be injured by such conduct is the ordinary poor working man, more than that, the consumer, and that body of men, the ordinary taxpayers, who are trying to get as good a market as they can, and who in these hard times very reasonably object to having their prices legally enlarged in geometrical progression. It is very convenient perhaps for the joint council of employers and trade unionists to do things for which somebody else has to pay.
  There is another feature that aggravates the absurdity of this Clause. Hitherto the local authority has exercised power, very dangerous, I think, though it may sometimes be a useful power. Now it is to be handed over to a small committee of their number, whose decision they may at some remote and future date revise for any purpose whatever. Not only that. Supposing the local authority does not think that this restrictive power ought to be exercised. Suppose they are erecting small tenements, and that there is some form of what is called luxury building in a small way, and that it is likely to provide an abundance of well-paid employment to be open to the in-habitants of the district. If they come

  1787
  to a decision on this point to allow the luxury building they may be over-ruled. I suppose it will be the Minister of Health in England who has the power of veto. And who is to be this bureaucrat who is to exercise the authority in Scotland? I suppose it means my right hon. Friend below me (Mr. Munro). If he, then, or his subordinates, find that things are being a little more liberally treated, that labour is getting a little better conditions in the particular locality of an obstinate local authority, he may exercise these arbitrary powers; he may stop the thing, and force the local authority to do what they do not wish. I am not in the least more reconciled to the absurd, tyrannical, reactionary principles that are embodied in this Bill, or think they are one whit better because they are introduced by my right hon. Friend who is humbly following in the footsteps of the Minister of Health for England. I do not think he will find that these things are much appreciated in Scotland. My fellow-countrymen have, fortunately, a lingering love for commonsense and for political economy. I do not think they are going to say good-bye to it altogether, and allow the perpetual reign of D.O.R.A. and her prolific spawn. I protested against the principles of this Bill before. I protest against it again, and still more when it is slavishly following an example south of the Tweed. The only good thing that I see about the Bill is that instead of having twenty-five or thirty Clauses it has less than a dozen.
  Mr. HOGGE: Hon. Members of the House always expect from the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down a speech of the kind he has just delivered —and a repetition of his iconoclastic views on subjects of this kind. I am sure he has our sympathy this afternoon in so far as the English language does not contain a sufficient variety of adjectives for him to express himself as freely as he would have desired. My right hon. Friend, in a speech of this kind, always leaves his colleagues from Scotland cold. We remember his old days at the Scottish Board of Education. We remember how his word was law. We remember how he appointed himself to deal with everything, and how he administered matters in a much more iconoclastic fashion than I am sure my right hon. Friend will
  1788
  administer this Bill. There are four good points in the Bill on which I wish to offer a few comments. First, we pro pose to take powers for the compulsory hiring of houses so as to provide more accommodation; secondly, we extend the period of the housing subsidy from twelve months to two years; thirdly, we take power to prohibit luxury buildings; and fourthly, we take power to provide facilities for one local authority to do the work of another. This is so far as I have been able to read the Bill. So far as these four things are concerned, I am perfectly certain that within certain limits, such powers which are to be taken can be taken to the advantage of housing in Scotland. All I propose to do is to offer a little criticism of the kind that I think can be elaborated in Committee upstairs.
  Take the first point—the compulsory hiring of houses. I hope whatever my right hon. Friend does he will not take up the position that has been taken up in the English Bill, and that he will not limit the amount of rent at which a house can be taken compulsorily. So far as I can gather, the power of compulsory hiring of houses in England has been absolutely destroyed by the very low limit of rent which has been placed upon the type of houses that can be compulsorily taken over. I am not arguing the point whether it is right or wrong compulsorily to hire, but if you are going to do it, then if you limit the datum line similar to that in the English Bill, you simply cut off the supply of empty houses that would be or might be made available; and I would urge my right hon. Friend to resist any limit, and for this reason: he and I and other Scottish Members who are in sympathy with this matter know, for instance, of houses in the large —or some of the large—towns in Scotland where there are not tenement houses, and which houses could easily be converted into tenement houses.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: No!
  Mr. HOGGE: My hon. and learned Friend will probably speak for his own town, but, taking the part of Edinburgh that I represent, and which I may be presumed to speak of with some knowledge, if this limit of rent is made applicable, then the Section will not be of that service that it might otherwise be. On

  1789
  the second point, an example has been taken of the town of Largs, where there are 3,000 houses, and where, if this matter was dealt with on the lines suggested, there would be no necessity for building houses. There are people who reside in Glasgow—and this is true not only of the West of Scotland, but of the East of Scotland, and many towns on the coast near to both Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and so on—where the houses are rented or owned by the people who occupy them only at certain seasons, and if you Eire dealing with this question in its relation to that fact of the possibility of dwelling-houses for the people engaged in industry, it is no use suggesting to a man in Glasgow who has not a house that there is one in Largs. The same point has been raised in respect to Rosyth. During the War the railway company had to run special trains from Edinburgh to Queensferry day after day, month after month, and year after year, until the appropriate houses were completed at Rosyth. I am wondering how far my right hon Friend the Secretary for Scotland has taken these facts into his consideration when thinking of the number of houses statistically available for places like Largs, Dunoon, or on the East Coast, and in Fifeshire, houses which are not really available so far as industrial people are concerned?
  Mr. MUNRO: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to correct him. I am not suggesting that the houses in Largs will be any use in connection with industrial works in Glasgow, but what I said was there was a demand for new houses in Largs to-day, and that if these houses were made available they would meet the local demand.
  Mr. HOGGEI: think that is a perfectly justifiable criticism and correction. There may be cases of that kind. There is always in Scottish towns of that kind a number of people who during the summer months reside in very curious surroundings in order to make a profit out of their own houses. But the point I was making against the right hon. Gentleman when he used the illustration of Largs was that it may be true that in towns like Largs there is a certain unsatisfied demand for houses, but there is nothing like the demand that would be represented by the number of houses which are unoccupied in the summer. I think all
  1790
  Scottish Members will be with the right hon. Gentleman in the proposal to enlarge the period during which the subsidy should be paid from twelve months to two years.
  I want to say a few words with regard to the prohibition of luxury buildings. I think a great deal more is being said about what are called luxury buildings than is actually necessary for the case. It is stated that houses are not being built because luxury buildings are going up. So far as I am able to use my powers of observation I do not see anything in Scottish towns that has been done recently to give evidence that dwelling-houses were being postponed owing to the putting up of any luxury buildings. Frequently as a matter of fact the men who put up dwelling-houses are the men who put up the luxury buildings in many parts of Glasgow, say, and of the large industrial towns, and it is often very much easier for the contractor to build a certain number of dwelling-houses at the same time as he is building a luxury building, so-called. Take one point in this connection. One of the great difficulties in house construction at present is getting plasterers. One of the great requisites in a luxury building, say, a cinema, is the plasterer. While some of the men are putting up dwelling-houses, other workmen can be kept employed on the other part of the job, and, as in the case of the plasterer, may be kept busy on what is called the luxury building. If my right hon. Friend is going to take up this power specified I maintain he should make his case out against luxury building. He should inform the House the number of luxury buildings that are being put up to the detriment of the erection of dwelling-houses.
  It is easy to ascertain these figures, because the plans of both luxury building and dwelling-houses have to have local approval. Building cannot be started without that local approval. My hon. Friend has just mentioned 16 cases at Glasgow. If there are only 16 so-called luxury buildings being put up in a population of 1,750,000, equal to half the population of the whole of Scotland— then there would not appear to me to be much of which to complain. A great deal of the money put into these concerns is put in by the working classes, who will naturally reap the benefit, and be enabled to buy ther own houses, to rent

  1791
  better houses, or engage in other forms of increasing their own capital. While everyone will be willing to see my right hon. Friend be given drastic powers to prevent luxury building if he can prove his case, there would appear to be no need for this power if the building of dwelling-houses is not interfered with. I do not think the House would object to giving the local authority power to stop any luxury building if there was an absolutely unanswerable case in favour of dwelling-houses being put up in the immediate locality or in that district. But the case wants to be stronger than any facts have shown it to be up to the present.
  The last criticism I want to make is on Clause 4. I suppose Clause 4 is rather comparable to that which we heard last week from the First Commissioner of Works, who has power in the building of houses to do the work for local authorities. Clause 4 seeks to give to one local authority power to do work for another local authority.
  Mr. MUNRO: Local authority A may carry out work within the area of local authority B.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will local authority A or B be responsible to the Government?
  Mr. MUNRO: Local authority A will finance the enterprise and in the end of the day transfer the houses to local authority B.
  Mr. HOGGE: If you introduce this practice of one local authority doing work for another, and not only that but borrowing money for the work done for the second local authority, you are going to get a complication of accounts. I do not want the practice commenced in Scotland with one local authority acting as a contractor for another local authority. There was a case in this country in which the First Commissioner of Works was actually acting as contractor for local authorities, and he asked this House for a loan of £?00,000 for that purpose. I hope Clause 4 does not mean that any local authority will be able to act in the place of a con-tractor for another local authority If, as my right hon. Friend points out, local authority A is doing work in the area of local authority B because it happens
  1792
  to be A, one can see the reason for that, but I hope my right hon. Friend will not allow that to develop to such an extent that local authorities may enter into the same relations as existed in the English case.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: In common with all my Scottish colleagues, I listened with very great interest to the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik). Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I should be prepared to make this statement, rash as it may appear, that even if we read this Bill very strictly in the light of so-called laws of political economy, we could justify practically every point in it at the present time. The main criticism which I desire to direct against this Bill is confined to one or two plain and elementary points. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that it would be singularly unfortunate if in the final Clause of this Bill we introduced in Scotland a limit of rateable value. The introduction of a very low limit of ratable value appears to me to rob the provision in the English Bill of all value as far as this particular Clause is concerned. The houses which are proposed to be taken for this purpose in a great emergency are in the main not houses of small rental at all. Houses of low, or comparatively low, rental are not available, but there are in many parts of England, and certainly in many parts of Scotland, houses of a larger size whose proprietors may have fallen on difficult times during the War which are now standing empty, and which on this proposal would be compulsorily acquired for the purpose of providing housing accommodation.
  5.0. P.M.
  If we impose a low rateable value in Scotland, where our system is different to that in this country, we should simply exclude a considerable number of properties which would be of the highest value in giving the temporary accommodation so much required by those who desire houses at the present time. But even if that were not true the introduction of a limit of rateable value seems to me to ignore the central point that is at stake. After all, the consideration is not the annual value of the house, but the suitability of the house for the purpose

  1793
  to which we intend to devote it and the general circumstances regarding the house which make it ready and accessible for the purpose. I trust, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will stand firm against the mischievous English precedent, from which we continually suffer in Scotland, and refuse the introduction of any limit in the rateable value. The second point of criticism deals with a proposal, if I understand it correctly, to extend the power of the local authority to interfere with any exceptional rates of remuneration which are being offered in any district for the purpose of attracting labour away from the erection of house property and forming what was described in the introductory speech as a bribe. That is simply another variety of one of the great industrial evils experienced in Great Britain during the War, namely, the so-called jumping of the district rates, sometimes by the operatives and sometimes by the employers, for the purpose of obtaining an unfair advantage in some cases, or of overtaking certain work regarded as urgent in character. I am not opposed to any section of the people getting any advantage to which they are entitled, but if, in the building trade of Scotland, we allow the evil of bribes to any class, there cannot be the slightest doubt that we are introducing into the industrial structure something which will be disadvantageous to many trade unions, will penalise a good many employers, and will certainly react with very great force upon the consumers, whose interests it is primarily my right hon. Friend's intention to protect.
  I have come to the conclusion that we have a great deal to gain by a standard rate, where it is generous and fair and liberally interpreted, and if once we embark on this principle in Scotland we are put into the sphere, approximately, of time and line contracts, and we all know what they cost this country during the War. Personally, I should very strongly support the proposal in the Bill, but the criticism I propose to offer is that if the bribe is to be dealt with in the case of workmen, why should you not look at the bribes which in some cases are offered to employers as well? There is not the slightest doubt that bribes, or fancy payments, or considerations of an exceptional kind,
  1794
  are regularly, or, at all events, frequently offered to employers in order to get them to undertake certain work. I have had statements on these lines made to me by Scottish builders of the very highest repute.
  The third part, and, to my mind, perhaps the most important, deals with problems of so called luxury buildings. My right hon. Friend (Sir Henry Craik) suggested that if we interfered in any way with the erection of almost any building in Scotland at the present time we should penalise certain classes of operatives, and he gave by way of illustration the case of the carved stone workers, and the men who face stones, and there are other people of exceptional skill engaged upon what we should call the fancy or decorative parts of housebuilding. In reply to that criticism, with which, from the point of view of Scottish craftsmanship I have the greatest personal sympathy, I only wish that it had a real foundation in the facts of the Scottish building trade. It is a lamentable tragedy that over the whole of Scotland we are training hardly any apprentice masons at all. I question whether there are six or a dozen in the whole land. What is more important on the particular point we are discussing is that the hand-dressing of stone in Scotland, and the so-called hewing and facing, which engaged large numbers of men in the past in a fairly remunerative calling, has practically disappeared, in the main because of the introduction of machine-faced stones, and my right hon. Friend would be the last to suggest that we should turn aside or divert what is a pronounced economic tendency of a beneficial character in Scottish housing. [Interruption.] My right Hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Craik) suggests that it may be bad for the stone, but the fact we have to face is that this element has been introduced. I believe permanently, into Scottish housing, and there is not the slightest doubt that it has reduced very considerably, or it did reduce in pre-War times, the amount of time necessary to overtake numerous public and other contracts in which builders were engaged.
  On the narrow question of luxury building, the criticism I desire to offer is mainly this: Are the proposals of the Bill adequate in existing conditions in Scotland? On this side of the House we have no desire to stop the erection of

  1795
  any kind of building for amusement, or anything else, if that building is required, and if, in our opinion, it is not going to interfere with the provision of property which is entitled to prior place because, of economic tendencies and the needs of the present time. To my mind the whole question is one of priority. There cannot be the slightest doubt from the point of view of material output, from the point of view of the employment of labour, and certainly from the point of view of the most urgent public needs, that dwelling-houses are entitled to priority. The mobility of labour has practically passed away in many of the industrial and mining parts of Scotland. You cannot move people because there are no houses. That has inflicted a very great injustice and a very large measure of loss upon Scotland at the present time, when we are struggling to reconstruct the industries we had before the War, and to build up new industries for the markets that undeniably are open to us in different parts of the world.
  I would be prepared to put dwelling houses in the first category, and I should be prepared also to take strong steps, by perfectly fair means, to compel both builders and operatives to concentrate on that part of our business. Places of amusement can wait, and many other buildings of a character not urgently required can easily be postponed where it is shown that the material and the labour devoted to them could be used for dwelling houses in the locality. I should therefore establish a kind of priority, putting dwelling houses first, and then, in the second place, giving a preference to certain types of industrial property. Certain factory accommodation is being provided because of the influence of Excess Profits Duty and other taxation. It is not suggested by the owners of these buildings that they intend to use all that accommodation at an early date. For some time the accommodation will be more in the nature of a store. They have put it up partly because of that taxation, partly because of other conditions, and partly because they are satisfied that in the long run they will be able to find economic use for it. I know one case where thousands of bricks have been used in a building of that kind, and side by side with the very position on what that so-called fac-
  1796
  tory has been erected you have housing accommodation of the worst description and a housing scheme of the local authority being delayed because of difficulties affecting labour and materials which, so far, they have not been able to supply.
  It is plain to every Scottish Member who looks at this impartially that dwelling houses must, for the most part, precede the factories. It is idle to erect factories if we have not accommodation for the workers who will be engaged in them, and my difficulty on this particular Clause is that I am not sure that it is going to give us the precise scheme of priority that we certainly require. I am very much afraid that what will happen will be that the tenders or the preparations for the erection of certain classes of property will be proceeded with, and then the cases will go to the tribunal. Even if we speed up the procedure, some time must necessarily be lost, and probably money unnecessarily expended, in getting these tenders or provisional contracts, only to find that they may be turned down because of the views of the tribunal. If we first of all set up a declared scheme of priority, issued either by the Board of Health or by any other authority responsible, and said that that would substantially show the lines on which we were proceeding, we might probably do something to divert both capital and labour to house property, and in the long run avoid some of the delay which is one of the dangers of the Clause as now framed. That is really all the criticism, and very largely it is Committee criticism, which I desire to offer, but reverting in a sentence or two to the argument which my right hon. Friend advanced, I should say the kind of interference on which the Secretary of Scotland is embarking at the present time can be justified economically, and I am quite convinced that it will be advantageous in the present industrial conditions of Scotland.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: This Bill is well meant, but I do not know that it is a very powerful contribution to a very vexed question. The last speaker said that the houses should precede the factories. I do not think he is right there. That is just what our British civilisation is largely suffering from. We have concentrated the industries,

  1797
  especially in Scotland, in our great towns, and we have there a density of population that is not at all to the public good. It does not do to have great masses of people on a small acreage, living in huge tenements one on top of the other. What we want to see is a spreading of the population; we want to see the population more like what it would have been had it not been for the short-sightedness of the railways in 1837, when they forbade road traction. I should have liked, therefore, to have seen some indication in this Bill of means of drawing the population from large centres and the spreading of factories and industries into the smaller places in Scotland to which might be drawn some of the population now in the larger places. It would be much better, both for the health of the people and for industry itself. It is an immense pity that some -provision of that kind could not be made. I am inclined to agree with the last speaker in his suggestion there should not be any limitation in the rental of the houses which may be acquired. I should like to know from the Secretary for Scotland, in regard to many houses of four or five stories, now almost uninhabitable under the present conditions of industry and domestic service, if the powers given in this Bill will cause the disappearance of the restrictive covenants in the title deeds of those houses. It is provided that regard should be had to the cost of putting the houses into a condition reasonably fit for human habitation, and that cost is to be taken into account in fixing the rent. I am afraid very little rent will be paid for any of these houses by the time they are fit for habitation if the local authority is to charge against the tenant the cost of making them reasonably fit.
  There is one danger about this class of legislation which has already had a dire effect. There was a shortage of housing accommodation before legislation dealing with house property was brought in, and it will not do to absolutely frighten people from building. It has been the practice in the past to build houses for generations to come. I do not think that either the State or county councils or borough councils are the proper bodies to provide the population with houses, and I believe it will be found very undesirable to live in State-owned tenements in days to come.
  1798
  Provision is made for putting these houses into a condition reasonably fit for human habitation, and I notice that the Bill is only to last until the year 1923. But there is no corresponding provision for restoring the houses to their owners in the condition in which they were when they were taken over. In common fairness that ought to be done. If you are going to take these houses and fit them up as flats, to put in cooking ranges on every floor, and to provide sinks, and washing accommodation, you will be altering probably the whole character of the houses, and surely it is only proper that provision should be made, when the houses are finished with, that the owners should not be put to the cost of getting rid of all these fixtures and of restoring the houses to their former condition. I do not believe the owners of these big houses will be very much averse to the proposals of this Bill. Most of them probably will be glad to get rid of the tall ghastly tenements that their ancestors erected. The whole cause of the housing trouble in Great Britain has been the pernicious habit of one generation building for generations to come, instead of dealing merely with its own generation. No doubt the owners of the houses will be glad to have the buildings back, but they will not want the internal alterations and fittings which have altered practically the whole nature of the house, and therefore I suggest that when the buildings are returned to them they should be restored as far as possible to their former condition.
  It is noteworthy that of all these new Acts of Parliament it is said at the beginning that they are to do very little and only to last a short time, yet in nearly all cases they falsify those promises. When Regulations have been made under D.O.R.A. there is always an excuse found for continuing them, and the reason for that is that a considerable number of bureaucrats are brought into being by them. As in the case of the Labour Exchanges, the Liquor Control Board, the Food Control, and other Ministries of that nature, these bureaucrats find innumerable excuses for continuing in being, and the result is that the body of the State is being consumed by officials. The curious thing was that when war stopped and the Armistice was signed the really competent men who, in pre-War days, were able to make a good living

  1799
  in their private businesses, immediately rushed back to those businesses and left the State with the duds. Apparently nothing but death will remove them. The worst of it is they are apt to reproduce their like.
  I come now to Clause 31. Sub-section (3), and I must say I was very interested to hear both from the Labour benches and from the Secretary for Scotland that for a man to be offered a big wage is to offer him a bribe. That is terrible. I thought the chief aim of the whole Trade Union movement was to get higher wages. I consider it a most insulting phrase and a most improper one. After all, is ability never to get its chance, simply because it works with its hands? In the learned professions the man at the top of the tree, as the Secretary for Scotland well knows by personal experience, is always getting a bribe in the shape of bigger fees than other people, and he gets them because of his competence. Is he going to bar the labouring man and the ordinary worker from getting more pay? Is the worker to have no chance of receiving something extra because of his competence? Is the working man always to be tied down to one level? The suggestion of Sub-section (3) is that there is to be power to prohibit the construction of any works or buildings where it appears to the authority that the provision of dwelling accommodation for their district is being-delayed by a deficiency of labour due to the payment of remuneration in any form to persons employed on the construction of those works or buildings in excess of the remuneration commonly recognised by employers and trade societies in the districts. I do not think that is a fair Clause at all.
  Take the case of the city of Glasgow. There is never a day but that I get letters from unfortunate people carrying on small businesses, stating that, owing to the lack of business premises, their own premises are being taken over their heads at a very much increased rent. A result of the payment of these increased rents is that rapidly more private buildings are being converted into business premises. Business premises are generally a costly class of building, and if you are going to make it impracticable to get on with the erection of them, by refusing to allow the class of labour em-
  1800
  ployed on them to get a higher rate of wage, you will be injuriously affecting a very large class of the community. Surely a man in the labour market is worthy of his hire—not of his neighbour's hire. He should be paid on his own merits, and one may depend upon it that if he is getting higher pay for the work he is doing, it is because that particular work in that particular community is the very work which that community most desires to have carried out. That is inevitable. What is the amount of labour employed on picture houses? One could easily make a sentimental grievance on that point. Personally, I hate these places, and should not object if they were all shut up. They are almost as bad for the eyesight as the printing to be found in the average schoolroom. In this connection, of course, you will have pedantic local tribunals, generally composed of people who have never been able to do business successfully on their own account, coming in and stopping business premises being put up. The demand for business premises is one of the most insistent demands to-day. It is just as urgent as the demand for housing, and I demur entirely to any power being given under this Bill which will tend to prevent the erection of business premises.
  Again, in Clause 4 I find there is a tendency to centralise, and to set up a bureaucratic authority with power to interfere with the local authority. We have that in practice in every department of Scottish life. There is always a central authority. You may give the local authority a little power, but the real power is in the central authority, which can overrule and over-ride the local authority. We find, in Sub-section (4), that the Board has the power to spur the local authority on in the exercise of the powers committed to its discretion. The central body, however, is liable to be influenced by ill-informed gossip, or, perhaps, by the pedantic ideals of some official in the head Department. What is the good of giving a local authority discretionary power if you are going to give to other persons, whose discretion cannot be nearly so well informed, the power to interfere with them? It will be noticed, too, that the central authority is only to interfere in one direction. It is not to have any power to stop some local authority which has become unduly zealous, and is exercising its powers without any

  1801
  discretion at all. Why is it not taken both ways? You might have a snap election in some local authority, whereby a few hot-headed extremists might be put in who would take some extraordinary and extravagant action, but there is no provision for the central authority to interfere with them. If people want to be sensible, the central authority may come in and interfere, but if they take rash action the central authority will leave them alone. That Sub-section only adds to the power of the central bureaucracy, and I hope that it will be amended.
  I have a great objection to these tribunals. I do not see why we should not have the tribunal that we have at present. These panels of persons, very shortly after they are appointed, will be wanting salaries. It is simply another of those non-judicial bodies to which people are generally appointed because of the views they hold. I think that the body we have at present has been perfectly satisfactory, and the very fact that it has differed from the head bureaucracy is primâ facie evidence of its capacity to do its work. It was a local, well-informed body that knew the circumstances. What is the use of having a local tribunal if it is always going to agree with the central body? I think that the fewer we have of these little Star Chambers up and down the country the better. No one wishes to interfere with any attempt that shows a likelihood of dealing with a serious evil, and this measure may have the effect, in one or two places, of meeting the housing shortage; but I think that a Bill of a much simpler character, making use of the machinery already in the hands of the local authorities, and simply giving the power to take possession of houses fit for habitation without reconstruction, was really all that was necessary, and that the further Clauses incorporated in this Bill are adding needless expense to what is otherwise a well-meant effort.
  Mr. RODGER: The Bill has not received a very warm reception on this side of the House, but I am content to leave that to the Minister in charge. It certainly does not appeal to the rights of property, but we recognise that we are under special conditions just now, and that some of those things which we regarded as rights might, for the time being, be set on one side. Having regard to the extreme urgency of the
  1802
  question, we do not want to be too careful about all the rights of property. I was told last week of a case in which 13 people were living in one apartment. That is a state of things which should not exist in any part of our land. During the War, men who should have been building houses were fighting to protect the rights of property, and, now that they have come home, we must forego some of our rights in order that they may get theirs.
  It seems to me that Clause I ought almost to be made a little wider. It only deals with houses which can be used without reconstruction or alteration. I do not know where, in a big city like Glasgow, for instance, there are any houses that can be used without some kind of reconstruction to make them suitable for the purpose intended. I do not know exactly to what length it may be possible to go, but something must be done in order to render available any houses that can possibly be made use of. With regard to Clause 2, a year is too little, in my opinion, under present conditions, and I agree the period during which the subsidy is in force should be made a little longer. As to Clause 3, I, am not at all concerned about its operation. I do not think that luxury buildings will be interfered with unless they interfere with housing; but it is a good thing to have the power so that, if necessary, it can be exercised. No one wants to see luxury buildings put up when houses ought to be put up instead. When the urgent demand is satisfied, there will be plenty of time for luxury building.
  The great trouble just now in Scotland is the want of building materials, particularly bricks and cement. In Lanarkshire bricks are being produced which are being sent across the Border. Something ought to be put into the Bill which would give to the locality the first call on locally manufactured bricks, so that they might be kept near at hand for the immediate work of building in the surrounding district. It costs a great deal to send bricks to the South and then to bring bricks back from the South, and a great saving might be effected, and the work would go forward more quickly if we could make use of the bricks produced in our own locality. Something, too, might be done in the way of using stone. A builder told me on Saturday that he was satisfied that very good cottages could be built of stone

  1803
  almost as cheaply as of brick. I hope that the Bill will get a Second Reading, and that it will go through very quickly and help us in the great problems with which we are faced.
  Mr. TAYLOR: I welcome this Bill, more especially as I was a member of the Committee on the Bill of the Ministry of Health. I listened to the discussions on the English Bill, but we Scottish Members thought that we had no right to interfere then, as there were many English members who wished to speak, and we knew that we should have our opportunity when a complementary Bill for Scotland was brought forward. We welcome the fact that in Clause 1 there is no limit as to rental. Everyone who was in the Committee on the English Bill recognised that the rental limit of £35 for houses that were to be acquired made that Clause of the Bill inoperative, because there are no houses of that type standing empty, at any rate in London, at the present time. I hope that in the case of the present Bill there will be no limit, because it is the larger houses that are empty, and those are the houses that we must get if we are to meet the shortage.
  I cannot understand what has been said by some hon. Members as to the large expenditure that will be required before such houses can be put into a fit state for habitation. We have to take into account the fact that there are sometimes 16 or 18 persons living in a house of two rooms and a kitchen. I do not see any reason why these large houses should not be apportioned out so that each family may have one or two rooms, and that could be done without any great reconstruction. I hear an hon. Member ask about cooking, but that question shows a lamentable ignorance of the facts in London to-day. I remember, as a young man, living in lodgings in London 40 years ago, and what was happening then is happening to-day. A house containing, perhaps, 10 rooms is let to one individual from top to bottom, and there is only one kitchen for the whole house. These rooms are let out, one, perhaps, to two young men, another to two young women, another to a family of one or two people, and so on; and the only place that they have for cooking is either the kitchen range on the ground floor or the bedroom fireplace.
  1804
  If that is allowed in London, as it is in thousands of cases, why cannot it be allowed in a large mansion, so as to give accommodation to our soldiers and sailors who have come home? This is only a temporary measure, and I am certain that the people who want houses—and, after all, they are the people to be considered —will be satisfied with that accommodation. Therefore I hope that the limit of £35 will not be introduced into this Scottish measure.
  I welcome, also, the provision extending the time for the receipt of the subsidy. It has been asked why there have not been more houses erected with the subsidy in Scotland. One reason was that the subsidy, to begin with, was not sufficient, and, when the original Bill was before the Scottish Committee, many of us pressed upon the Secretary for Scotland that £150 was not a sufficient sum to induce people to go on with building. It was increased to £250, and the result was that a very much larger number of people took the subsidy and went on building houses. I agree with the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Rodger) that the period of one year should be extended to two or even three years. I welcome also the extension of the power to prevent luxury building. Any Scottish Member who has gone down and addressed his constituents knows, especially if a cinema is being erected in his constituency, the great indignation that is aroused amongst the people, because no difficulty is placed in the way of that kind of building either in regard to materials or labour, while dwelling-houses cannot be got. It may not have been that the cinema prevented the erection of dwelling-houses, but still there was the fact that these buildings were being erected while no houses were being provided for the people. You could not get them to believe that the one had not some effect on the other. Therefore, I welcome the continuation of that Clause.
  I also welcome the alteration in the constitution of the Appeal Tribunal, because, rightly or wrongly, the people of the right hon. Member for Springburn's City thought that the tribunals did not act fairly. In Glasgow they appealed against sixteen decisions, and fifteen were allowed. Perhaps after the change in the constitution the tribunals will do

  1805
  better for all. I welcome the change in the constitution, and I hope that the tribunals will pay more attention to local opinion than the last one did. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), who is recognised as an authority on education, but not on buildings and not on the powers of local authorities, deplored the fact that in this Bill a Committee is to consider and have the power to say whether luxury building should be allowed or not. If he knew as much about the constitution and working of local authorities as some of us do he would know that the Streets and Buildings Committee is the Committee that has to do with the erection of buildings under the Housing and Town Planning Act, and they are the parties most competent to deal with this question and to see that their schemes are not interfered with by luxury building. It is no new principle for a Committee of that kind, whose principal business is to deal with buildings, to be entrusted with this duty. Their minutes and their decisions come up for approval at meetings of the Town Council, and these meetings are not long delayed. There can only be a fortnight at the most between the decision of the Committee and the decision of the Town Council. Therefore there is not much weight to be placed upon the opinion of the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities in objecting to this Clause.
  The Clause which deals with the limitation of wages and with any bribe that may be offered to workmen in the shape of larger pay over and above the trade union rates of wages is also a Clause to be welcomed. Anyone who has had anything to do with building during the War can well remember that over and over again men were taken from one job and one locality and transferred to another job in another locality and paid 1d., 2d., or 3d. an hour more to induce them to go to that work. It was easy to do that at that time, because the builder who was erecting buildings for the Government was not paid by contract prices, but' was paid 10 per cent. on his actual cost. Therefore, if he offered 3d. an hour more to his men, that was added to the cost of the building, and he got an increased profit. That is what is happening to-day. In connection with luxury buildings, cinemas, etc., there is no limit to the price that may be paid in the desire to get
  1806
  the buildings quickly. They are so anxious to get their building that they are willing to pay any prices to the builder, and the builder offers men engaged in the building of houses under the municipality in a city like Glasgow 1d., 2d., or 3d. an hour more to work at the building of cinemas, etc. You cannot blame the men for going. I am not blaming them for going; but it has a serious effect on the housing schemes. The housing schemes are held up. There is a limited number of men in Scotland, as well as in England, for building, and the housing schemes are held up by the transfer of men from house building to luxury building. Therefore I welcome this Clause, which prevents any employer offering more than the trade union rate of wages in his district with the object of taking men away from the building of houses Li order to erect luxury buildings.
  I welcome also Clause 6, which gives the local authorities power to sell the houses that they are erecting, and allows the buyers to pay for those houses by annual instalments. In this way a great number of working men will be able to acquire their own house, and will become their own landlord. It does not matter whether it is a municipality or private individual that is building the house, if the man is to go on paying rent all his life he is no nearer owning his own house than he was under the old system if facilities are not given to enable him to purchase his house by annual instalments. This Clause will give him an opportunity, if he has a little money over and above paying his rent, to acquire his house by annual instalments in ten or twenty years. I welcome the Bill, and I hope it will have a safe and quick passage through the House.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) levelled his criticism against this Bill because the Secretary for Scotland in framing it had taken an English model. I do not object to a Bill for Scotland being based on the model of a Bill for England if it is a good Bill and a good model. Having regard to the very learned criticisms of Ministers in this House from learned Members for Scottish Universities, they ought to be able to bring forward a Bill that can pass as a good model. The hon. Member for the Spring-burn Division (Mr. Macquisten) in discussing this question said that in housing

  1807
  legislation there should be a desire or an attempt to take the people from congested areas and to spread the housing more over the country than it is at the present time. I heartily agree with him, and I do not want to accuse him of inexperience, but he must have forgotten that even in the smallest village the shortage of houses and the overcrowding is as great as it is in the city of Glasgow which he represents.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN indicated dissent.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member shakes his head. I am not going to enter into an argument with him here, but if he cares to spend an afternoon with me any day I will show him houses in villages that are as overcrowded as the worst houses that exist in Glasgow. There is also criticism about the proposed power to take over unoccupied houses. When the English Bill was before Committee, we were told this was an attempt to violate the rights of property and to get possession of houses belonging to people who had probably two or three houses. I object to the broken-down derelict houses of the rich and well-to-do being handed over to the workers, just as I would refuse, or, at any rate, I would only do it after considerable objection, to wear the cast-off clothing of the rich and well-to-do. We want good houses, brand new houses, for the workers, under good conditions. In criticising this measure, hon. Members must not forget that we are dealing with a shortage of houses. Whatever the conditions may be, whatever the circumstances may be, there is a shortage of houses. I do not know whether I could pass an elementary examination in political economy, but I hope I do know a little about ordinary, common humanity. I know that there are empty houses, and that in my visitations to the working classes I find, as I did in one case, 16 sleeping in a two-apartment house, including a father and seven of a family, the father having served in the Great War, and one of the seven having just been discharged from a consumptive sanatorium. I also read in the newspaper to-day that a man who joined up in 1914, who was wounded five times and also gassed, died a week last Saturday and still remains unburied, that he left a widow and two children, and that for two or three days the body lay in the
  1808
  room in which the family were living. It may be said that this is sentiment. It is not sentiment, but hard fact. There are thousands of cases under similar conditions to-day. The hon. Member for Springburn referred to the great difficulty there would be in converting these large houses into proper dwellings for the classes who are not housed at the present time. Again, if he cares to take advantage of my offer, I could take him to hundreds of houses where they have only a single apartment, 12 feet by 10 feet, where there are two beds in the one room, where there is no washhouse, no sanitary arrangements of any kind, and this is within the shadow of a palace, within the shadow of a riding school that could give ample accommodation, and within sight of dog kennels that would be comparative palaces for the workers to live in. Then hon. Members come forward and argue for the rights of property. The rights of humanity come first.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: You and I differ. If I have to make my choice—I may be wrong—between having an empty house and a non-housed child, I will house that child even if it violates all the rules under the canopy of Heaven. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities referred to the unholy alliance between Capital and Labour upstairs on the English Bill. An employer of labour voted with the representatives of labour. I hope that on the Labour Benches we do not act upon the principle that no employer of labour has a heart for the better housing of the working classes. I would advise the learned Member to revise that opinion of his about the unholy alliance with his friends on the same Benches, who are continually telling us that the only thing to take the country out of the difficulty in which it is at present is by an alliance between the workers and the employers, and while, on the one hand, they say that such an alliance is admirable, yet when we act with the employer we are condemned for entering into an unholy alliance. It has been stated that this proposal to limit the work in connection with luxury building and prohibit bribes is preventing the workman from getting the fruits of his labour. I am sorry that in-

  1809
  dividuals who are trained in the examination of arguments should condescend to criticism of this kind.
  It is not intended in any respect to prevent any man getting the advantage of his ability as a worker in the building trade. The purpose is to prevent an individual, who may be an employer of labour, for his own selfish interests and finds that it would be more to his advantage than housing, trying to bribe away men from what is considered essential work in connection with the housing of the people. So far as that is concerned, we should, at least, get the credit of being unselfish. We have always been blamed for the "ca-canny" policy, for being out to rob the State and the employer, by getting the highest wage possible for the least possible work. But here we have hon. Members acting on the very unselfish principle that housing is the first consideration, no matter what wage may be offered to the working man. We who come in contact with the worker who is interested in work of that kind are prepared to say to these individuals that the building of houses is the most essential consideration, and we will use our influence to prevent the building of houses being interfered with. I do not say that this is the last word in housing. It is a very small contribution, but we on the Labour Benches welcome it and hope sincerely that the Secretary for Scotland will have the Scottish tenacity to stick to the English model and not have the Bill to a large extent destroyed, as the other Bill was, upstairs in Committee.
  Captain ELLIOT: The provisions of Clause 2, extending the length of time in which subsidised houses can be constructed, are essential in Scotland. We have suffered far more than England from the fact that advantage has not been taken of the offer of a subsidy to private builders. The Secretary of Scotland gave figures which show that there are 1,400 houses in Scotland qualified for the building subsidy, and I understand that the latest figures show that in England the number is some 25,000 houses. That is almost eighteen times as many houses have been built by private enterprise in England as in Scotland, and if this Clause was necessary in the case of England, it is much more necessary for Scotland. It is a strange thing that practically all the
  1810
  criticism of this afternoon has been given to the question of priority for the construction of houses and the slowing down of the construction of factories, cinemas, etc. I remember only a few days ago the Secretary for Scotland pointed out that he intended to press on, as far as possible, relief works and all sorts of schemes by the local authorities to prevent unemployment, and that within a few days of this promise to do everything possible to employ people we should be discussing how certain enterprises can be kept back seems to me to be very anomalous.
  The essence of it is, as the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire has said, that we want to increase the supply of building materials in every possible way. If you put up a factory so much the better, or if you put up a cinema so much the better, but the important thing is that there should be a surplus of building materials and not a deficiency which makes it necessary to ration these things as if they were fine gold. If the attention of the people of Scotland were drawn to this extraordinary fact, that the Department of Building Materials under which we have to work in Scotland is a purely English Department which is run from Whitehall, and that the Secretary for Scotland himself has no control over this Department, then it might be more apparent why we are suffering so badly from a shortage of building materials in Scotland. My right hon. Friend might consider whether in Scotland, at any rate, the operation and influence of the Department could not be done away with and a free market left for building materials in Scotland; because it has been productive of a great deal of unnecessary transport of building materials to and fro in Scotland, and has not effected its main purpose of inducing a plentiful supply of building material. In my own constituency, far from producing a supply of building materials, the plant for the production of bricks has been enormously diminished. Great brick works with a capacity of 150,000 bricks a day have been torn down and scrapped within the last year or two. If the Department permits that sort of thing to go on it fails in its primary duty of providing more building material for housing in Scotland, and obviously we are not getting any benefit from it, and might as well give way and leave it

  1811
  to private enterprise to provide building schemes for housing in Scotland.
  There is an extraordinary provision in Clause 3 to prohibit a working man receiving a higher wage than the ordinary remuneration of his district. It may be necessary, but I was surprised to hear it advocated from the Benches. It seems the strangest thing if, as we know, skilled labour for house building is short in Scotland, and that, as the hon. Member for Central Elinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) said, the supply of skilled stonemasons has almost disappeared, and we now have stone machinery, which is a very bad thing for stone, and leads to the decay of the stone afterwards when the rain or weather gets at it, so that it is not a good thing, that the small remnant of skilled men who still exist should be crushed out of existence altogether. It is a most fantastic suggestion. However, if Labour people agree to it, I certainly think that they will hear more of it from their own constituents. In this, as in many other things, they are not representing the will of the labouring class in Scotland. The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Robertson) referred to hovels which exist in the shadow of palaces. I take it that he was referring to Hamilton Palace, but the local council have frequently had under consideration the question of converting Hamilton Palace into dwellings for the working classes, and it is certain that this great palace will be torn down, because it would be more expensive to convert it into dwellings for the working classes than to build dwellings alongside of it. Therefore I think that it was disingenuous of the hon. Member to refer to these hovels existing under the shadow of a great palace, with the obvious inference that this palace might be held up as against the use of the working classes by some wealthy person who had not the true interests of the working classes at heart.
  Our main need is building material, and in reference to that Sub-section which says that the local authorities shall have power to execute works which are incidental to the carrying out of schemes, I would like to know if it does include works for the production of materials with which houses may be constructed? I would also suggest that the subsidy houses should be pressed on by all pos-
  1812
  sible means, and that the subsidy might possibly be increased in the case of buildings made of stone, which will last longer than the brick houses which are generally constructed. I would also suggest that if possible the subsidy might be granted for the reconstruction of certain houses. I do not know whether these suggestions are practicable, but I make them with the sincere desire not to oppose, and not even to delay, any scheme which would remedy the desperate congestion and overcrowding which we deplore so deeply in Scotland.
  Dr. MURRAY: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland on exercising the national virtues of caution and prudence in allowing the unsophisticated English Minister of Health to try his hand on this sort of Bill before venturing on it himself, and to find out from his experience that he could not tread in the same direction in certain respects. I also notice that when what is conversationally called housing reform comes before the House nearly all the destructive criticism comes from his own side of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten) in his interesting speech, was loud in his denunciations of bureaucracy. I am not surprised at that from him, but I am surprised that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish University (Sir H. Craik) should share that denunciation of bureaucracy, because one of the most vivid pictures of local government in my mind is seeing the school boards and schoolmasters in Scotland wriggling under the iron hand of the most despotic bureaucracy in the United Kingdom, the Scottish Education Department. Never was it ruled with such a despotic hand as when my right hon. Friend was head of that Department. As I have said before, I am glad to acknowledge that it was a benevolent despotism and produced some excellent results. One result was that, while the influence of the right hon. Gentleman was devoted to Scottish education, there was reared a race which always sent a big Liberal majority to this House.
  One of the fears expressed to-day was that some of the bigger houses would require so much reconstruction that the work would not pay. No local authority would take over such houses for this temporary purpose if it was necessary to spend a large amount of money for reconstruction. If local authorities want these

  1813
  houses they have power to buy them under the Act of last year. I wish to reinforce the argument as to the need for an extension of the time for payment of the subsidy. In some parts of the country it has taken a long time to make people understand that these subsidies exist. In the crofting areas of Scotland the subsidies will be a most valuable help. The people can do a great deal in helping to build houses themselves, but even when they do give substantial help they will want an expert mason and joiner for a while, and such men are scarce in the Highlands. It will, therefore, be a long time before some of these people will be able to start work. As to the Regulations, I would suggest that the conditions laid down for houses in the rural districts, and especially in the Highlands, need not be as exacting as those for the crowded cities. I hope there will be some relaxation of the rules without making them what I might call less hygienic. I will make a further suggestion with regard to the payment of the subsidy. Under the present system the money is not paid until a house is completed. In those cases where men build a house for themselves I think the Scottish Office, through the Board of Agriculture, might make some arrangement, under their loan system, to give a certain amount of money at the beginning of building operations, in order that smallholders, crofters, and fishermen can start building for themselves.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. C. D. Murray): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, I can thank hon. Members, and particularly Scottish Members, for their reception of the Bill and for their frank discussion of it. We have had a fair and full debate, and I hope the House may now be in a position to decide the question of giving the Bill a Second Reading. A reason for saying that is that, with the exception of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), each and all of the points of criticism have been frankly made as Committee points. Knowing, as hon. Members do, the Secretary for Scotland, I think his Scottish colleagues at least need no assurance that any suggestions made in Committee always will receive sympathetic consideration. There are only one
  1814
  or two inquiries with which I have to deal. As to the first Clause, in the Bill as drafted it is not proposed to follow the limitations which have been inserted in the English Bill. It may be that it will be found that the conditions in Scotland vary somewhat, and it may well be that if we find the conditions to be such as should enable local authorities to have access to buildings which are suitable, it would be unfortunate by a mere limit of a few pounds for a local authority to be denied access to such houses. Reference has been made to reconstruction. We must to some extent depend on the discretion of local authorities. It has been asked whether it would not be possible under Clause 2 to extend the time of the subsidy beyond the period proposed. To some that might offer an attraction, but' there is something to be said on the other side. Experience has taught us that there is sometimes a danger in unduly extending the period. While there is time remaining there is a tendency rather to delay putting forward plans, but as the period shortens there is increasing acceleration in the presentation of plans. Although the House may not be impressed with the figures, there are still 1,425 houses at risk, so to speak, in respect of the subsidy. In Committee it may be thought that the extension of the time provided is not ample. In any case it would involve Treasury warrant.
  Something has been said on the difficult question relating to the provision of building material. I think it would have been unwise to have attempted to deal with that in a housing Bill, but I desire to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland is meeting the Scottish Members and the representative of local authorities next week, and the House will be glad to know that at present he is in conference with the Minister of Health on the subject. There is the further point with regard to the delegation of powers to a committee, under Clause 3. It is true that in order to avoid delay in decision it is proposed that a local authority should be entitled to delegate its powers in the first instance, though subject to confirmation, to a committee. The House may have not noticed the composition of that committee. It is a committee appointed upon the lines of committees under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, and it is not merely a local

  1815
  authority committee, but a committee strengthened by co-opted members who are specially qualified to deal with the subject. There has been little criticism upon the terms of Clause 4. The House has already put its imprimatur upon this provision, and it would be most unfortunate if there were not some controlling power in order to urge on work regarding which the House is unanimously of opinion we must take all steps in our power. By Clause 4 it is proposed to strengthen the machinery so that local authorities may get over difficulties with regard to water, and so on. It seems also most desirable that the local authorities should be armed with the necessary power to finance these schemes. Subject to these points, which are each and all Committee points, I hope the House will find itself in a position to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understand from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said that we are to have another Bill, so that we are getting on. First of all we take people's houses away from them without proper compensation, and we limit the right of a workman to sell his labour at the best price, and now we are going to limit the right of the maker of bricks or cement to obtain the best price he can for those articles. It seems to me that we are going from bad to worse. Hardly a day passes without socialistic legislation of a kind which would not have been dreamt of three years ago, and the great supporters of the Government are the hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the Labour Benches. It is all very well to talk about the rights of humanity, and to say that there arc so many people in particular instances living in one room, but you are not going to remedy anything of that sort by this legislation, but you are going to make it worse. I earnestly hope when we have lost a considerable amount of money and stopped all private enterprise in almost everything, that in a few years we shall get a little common sense into the House of Commons, which, as far as I can see, is rapidly departing from it. It is absolutely absurd to suppose that this legislation is going to do any good of any sort or kind. Hon. Members talk about the shortage of houses being due to the fact that the men had gone to the War. It is due to nothing of the kind. It is
  1816
  due to the Prime Minister and his Budget of 1910. From that moment we had the beginning in a small degree of this socialistic legislation which has gone on. The hon. and learned Gentleman says it is not intended to limit the price at which a man may sell his labour for more than a short time. We know when that time is over, if it suits and if it looks as if it will gain a few votes, the Act will be extended. I never did like an autumn Session, and I am sorry we have been brought back after a tedious and prolonged session which did very little good and a great deal of harm to an autumn Session which has done no good but a great deal of harm.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  REGISTRAR-GENERAL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The object of this Bill is to amend the law regarding the appointment of a Registrar-General of births, deaths and marriages in Scotland. The appointment of that official is regulated to-day by the Lord Clerk Register (Scotland) Act, 1879, which provides for the appointment of a Deputy-Clerk Register, who shall be an advocate of ten years' standing and who shall receive a salary of £1,200 per year. That Act further provides that the Deputy-Clerk Register, without special appointment and without additional salary, shall also hold the office of Registrar-General for Scotland. Thus, the Deputy-Clerk Register ex officio becomes Registrar-General for Scotland. Sir James Patten-McDougall, who held the dual offices with great distinction since 1909, died in 1919, and the offices have since been vacant. I do not think I need enlarge on the view that the duties of Registrar-General in Scotland, as well as in England, have enormously increased both in volume and in importance in modern times. They comprise the work of the periodical census which is to take place on the 24th of April, 1921, as well as the work of vital registration. The import-

  1817
  ance of these respective duties to the national interest is so obvious that I do not delay the House in order to stress the point. In my humble judgment it is beyond question, that the time has now arrived when the Registrar-General should be a person appointed expressly to perform the duties of that office, and the purely legal qualification that he should be a barrister of ten years' standing is wholly inappropriate to the duties of that particular office. This Bill proposes to give effect to that view. As to the finance of the Bill, regarding which I imagine some questions may be asked, I desire to meet in advance any such questions, so far as I can. It is proposed that the salary to be attached to the office of Registrar-General should be £850 per year, rising by yearly increases of £25 or £50 to a sum of £1,000. As regards the Deputy-Clerk's Register's office, I hope to be able to arrange for the distribution of his duties, at very little cost, among existing officials. There will thus be no additional charge on the Exchequer involved by this rearrangement, and I hope I am not going too far when I say that I trust a saving may even be effected. Accordingly, from the point of view of finance, I have no hesitation in commending this Bill to the House.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does not Section 5 of the Act of 1879 involve the appointment of a Deputy Clerk Register at £1,200 per year?
  Mr. MUNRO: I will look into the point, which can be met, if necessary, in Committee. Certainly the intention is that the salary attached to the position of Registrar-General shall not exceed £1,000 per year, even when the highest stage is reached, and so far as the Deputy Clerk Register's duties are concerned, those would be discharged by other officials who exist to-day, and with little extra cost. Therefore, with a salary of £1,000 for the Registrar-General, if the other duties can be discharged, say, at a cost of less than £200, a saving will be effected. I want to give an explicit pledge to the House that there will be no extra charge on the Exchequer involved by the passage of this Bill.
  Mr. HOGGE: It is rather unfortunate that my right hon. Friend should ask us to give a Second Reading to this Bill at this time in view of the fact that we are
  1818
  going to discuss on Thursday the question of economy. The only reason I can find is that some people are desirous of having the status of a particular office raised, but even that argument one is not entitled to use at a moment like the present unless we can arrange matters as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, in the way which he has described. I am rather dubious whether he can do what he suggests. Under this Bill, Section 7 is to be abrogated, and Section 5 of the Act of 1879 deals with the position of Deputy Clerk Register. It is provided that he is to perform certain duties, and amongst them he is the Keeper of the Signet, which involves a considerable amount of legal work. Section 5 also provides that the Deputy Clerk Register shall be an advocate of the Scottish Bar of not less than 10 years' standing, and that he shall have a salary of £1,200 per year out of moneys voted by Parliament. It is also provided that he shall, without special appointment or additional salary, hold the office with all the powers and duties of Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland. In the opinion of those who drafted the original Act the Deputy Clerk Register-apparently had so little to do that it is provided he should also perform the work of Registrar-General. My right hon. Friend to-day proposes to appoint a new official and to call him Registrar-General. It is proposed to appoint a man who understands that particular side of the work rather than a lawyer. The appointment of an advocate of the Scottish Bar also lends itself to patronage, and therefore there may be a good case for having another individual to do the work of registration and taking the census rather than an advocate. The money proposal is to give this new official £850, rising to £1,000, but I very much doubt whether you will get a good Civil Servant to accept a salary of £1,000. It means, I suppose, something less than £500 on the pre-War value of money. If we take the sum of £1,000, that leaves £200, and my right hon. Friend proposes to get all the work of the Deputy Clerk Register done by a number of other people for £200 or less. If he can get the whole of that work done for £200, this Deputy Clerk Register has been paid £1,000 too much ever since 1879. The Act then provided that the salary should be £1,200 for the work he was doing, and it contemplated that he was doing so little that in Section 7 it

  1819
  added some other work which he was to do for nothing.
  Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friend, I am sure, desires to be fair. It was provided that he should do the other work without extra remuneration, it is true, but it was also in contemplation that £1,200, in being made the salary, was not paid in respect of the duties of Deputy Clerk Register alone, but also in connection with the duties of Registrar-General.
  Mr. HOGGE: That may have been understood, but that is not what was done. If the Deputy Clerk Register is not required, why have a short Bill of this sort, which only deals with Section 7 of that Act of 1879? Why not do away with this office altogether, and then there will be no question about a re-arrangement of the work?
  Mr. MUNRO: It is impossible to abolish the office of Deputy Clerk Register and to repeal the Section which deals with the salary until we have imposed the duties which he has to discharge on other people, as there are duties laid by Statute on the Deputy Clerk Register. This must be allocated among other officials before we can touch the question of abolishing the office and its salary, but in the meantime the office will not be filled, and the salary will not be paid.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to commit himself to the abolition of this office as soon as he has made the necessary readjustments? If he will do that, we will support this proposal, insomuch as it does not impose a charge. I am perfectly willing that the £1,200 should be divided in the proportions which he now suggests, on condition that he abolishes the other post, because once that is done there will be no question of this Government or any future Government filling it up. This question of patronage does crop up from time to time, and this House and the country have a very short memory in these matters, and these things might easily be forgotten.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: It seems to me that this is a mere matter of method as to whether you should deal with the question of the Deputy Clerk Register as well as the Registrar-General in this Bill, or whether yon should pass separate measures. Personally, I think it would
  1820
  be more desirable to put both into one measure, but I think the assurance of the Secretary for Scotland should be quite sufficient for the House, namely, that there is no intention of making any extra cost. May I ask whether the re-arrangement of these offices is going in any way to expedite the settlement of the question of the Sasines Office? I was rather surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) did not mention that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what effect this Bill will have on that question, and to what extent we shall be able to know when the settlement of this vexed question will be reached.
  Mr. A. SHAW: I should like to know why this important office has been vacant for so long—almost two years. It is an office which must have had a great deal of work to do. My right hon. Friend has told us that the salary which he proposes is £850, rising to £1,000, and I should like to know whether the sums mentioned cover all the emoluments of the office, or whether there are not any fees or other emoluments payable in addition. My third point arises out of the proposal in the first Clause, and the words at the end of that Clause which are put in italics, namely
  "and who shall receive out of moneys provided by Parliament such salary as the Treasury may fix."
  I gather that there will be no additional charge, and in these circumstances neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) can quite understand why these particular words should occur in this Bill. My fourth point is a very simple one. My right hon. Friend by this Bill is dealing with the man who is at the head of the Registrars of Scotland, and I would like to ask him whether in this Bill it would not be possible to insert a Clause—perhaps he will consider it with Mr. Speaker and the authorities—dealing with the grievance that is felt by the local registrars, who do their work with such great efficiency, and whose remuneration has remained unaltered since 1854. I know my right hon. Friend's sympathy with them and the answers which he has given to myself and to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) on the subject show his sympathy; but many local authorities have done nothing whatever to increase the remuneration of these officers. If my

  1821
  right hon. Friend could give any hint that legislation dealing with the salaries of these men would actually be brought forward either this Session or next Session, he would give a great deal of satisfaction to a body of men who have done their work in a most uncomplaining fashion, and who have really no political power and no possibility of bringing political pressure to bear.
  Mr. C. D. MURRAY: As the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) has said, it is entirely a question of method. The questions of the Deputy Clerk Register and of the Registrar-General might have been dealt with, I think, in one Bill, but in order to get on, one position is now ready for solution, and although there has been considerable delay in filling up the office, the reason for that is known to this House, because quite recently the Secretary for Scotland stated—and I think hon. Members will agree that he was wise in so doing—that looking at the advantage of the reconstruction scheme, it was very advisable to proceed with some caution and from the experience of the year, to gain information as to how he could best allocate the office. It is for that reason that the delay has taken place, and it is because we have now that experience and are in a position to deal with the first part of the problem that this difference of method has arisen. We are ready now to deal with the Registrar-General, and we ask the House to do so. We will be immediately in the position of dealing with the office of Deputy Clerk Register, but in the meantime I am certain that Members of this House will accept the assurance of the Secretary for Scotland that it will not involve any additional Treasury charge.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why it" is necessary to have those words in the first Clause in italics?
  Mr. MURRAY: Because, although there is a statutory authority under the Act of 1879 to pay a salary, there is really a transference of the charge. One other matter only has been raised, and that is with regard to the local registrars. My hon. Friend (Mr. A. Shaw) is quite right in saying that that matter has been sympathetically considered by the Secre-
  1822
  tary for Scotland already, and it is now receiving his consideration; but it would hardly be appropriate in a one-Clause Bill of this kind to deal with that which is s. totally alien matter. A question has been put up in regard to certain difficulties which have arisen in regard to the Sasines Office. That, again, is entirely alien to this Bill, but the position of that matter is this, that the head of the Sasines Office in Edinburgh has put forward proposals with regard to the adjustment of certain figures, and it is now before the Treasury.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: It has been before the Treasury for years.
  Mr. MURRAY: It has been before the Treasury for years, but the question of the adjustment of the figures is now before the Treasury again. With these explanations, I hope the House will now give a Second Reading to the Bill.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL. [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  7.0 P.M.
  It may be well to explain to the House that this is a Bill which comes from another place and which has there gone through searching criticism and some amendment. The policy of the Government is to divest themselves of land acquired during the War, which is now, in many cases, unnecessary for their purpose, as rapidly as possible. In the course of divesting themselves of some of this land, certain doubts have arisen as to the interpretation of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1916: that is, the principal Act. It is in order to make clear points of doubt, and to be able to give a good title to purchasers, that several of the Clauses in this Bill are being inserted. Other Clauses have been put in in order to cure certain defects which have become apparent in

  1823
  the principal Act. The Bill itself is very technical, and is perhaps better fitted for discussion as to details in Committee than on the Second Reading. I will, however, endeavour to give an outline of the purpose of the Clauses. The necessity for Clause 1 may be illustrated by the case of land restricted by covenant for the purpose of building houses of a certain size or a certain rental. The Government acquires a portion of this land, and upon it erects a factory, disregarding, as it is entitled to do, the restrictive covenants which were imposed upon the land. Of course, the Government have to pay compensation for taking the land, and that compensation includes the freedom from the restrictive covenants. It is paid to the persons who are injured, but it has been suggested by lawyers that if the Government came to sell this land, with the factory which they had erected upon it, the restrictive covenants would revive. The practical effect of that would be that the sale of the land would be impeded, and possibly the total value of the factory might be less if the revival of the restrictive covenants was maintained There would be no buyers of a factory such as that. The loss to the State would undoubtedly be very great in money, and there would be a loss to the community, because such factories are useful, and indeed are urgently required for industry. In special cases, where the amenity of dwelling-houses or the protection and maintenance of a building scheme are of superlative importance, the removal of the restrictions in the covenant can only be done with the consent of the Railway and Canal Commission, so that there is a protection for an exceptional case. We all recognise that there are certain cases where no money compensation is adequate, and these cases are provided for by the proviso in Clause 1.
  I come to Clause 2. A right of repurchase, or pre-emption, as it is called, was given in the principal Act. This right of pre-emption not only extended to the owner from whom the land, was taken, and to his successors, but if the owner or his successors did not exercise the right of pre-emption, then that right was to be extended to the adjoining owners. That has been found in practice to be a very cumbersome proceeding, and has really placed a barrier upon the possibility cf selling the land, because
  1824
  each of these adjoining owners had six weeks in which to make up his mind. If he did not buy the land, it had then to be offered to another joint owner, and so on, until the whole neighbourhood had had the offer of the land. That caused a great impediment, and makes it very difficult to effect a sale. It is desired in this Clause to restrict the right of preemption to the owner and his successors in title. Clause 3 is the most important Clause in the Bill. Paragraph (a) refers to the purchase of land for the purpose of re-sale. A factory is built upon land which has not been purchased, and if it desired to sell the factory to the best advantage and the site, it is obviously necessary that the Government should purchase the land in order to offer that and the factory together. That becomes a purchase of the land for the purpose of re-sale. Section 3 of the principal Act authorises the purchase of land, and Section 5 authorises its sale. Curious as it may seem, however, some of the lawyers are of opinion that there is doubt whether, in fact, you can purchase for the purpose of re-sale. Consequently, Paragraph (a) of Clause 3 is necessary to clear away the doubt.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: No case has been taken to the Courts?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I do not think that any case has been taken to the Courts. A case has been tried—I forget exactly the name at the moment—I think it that of MacGrill. I will tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman what the case is on the Committee stage, if we get to that point. At any rate, there is great doubt: and so great is the doubt that it makes it a serious impediment in handling the property of the State. It would be too great an advantage to the landowner if buildings, erected at enormous expense to the State, were to revert to him free, gratis, and for nothing. Then there is the cost of reinstatement. That cost, in some cases, is so great that it is better for the State to purchase the land and to sell it in the condition in which it is. There are cases where camps have existed, and where areas of land have been covered with blocks of concrete, and trenches have been dug for training troops. The cost of reinstating such land as that in its original condition would be very heavy indeed. It is desired by paragraph (a) to obtain power to purchase the land instead

  1825
  of reinstating. There is a proviso which says that that power can only be exercised on the authority of the Railway and Canal Commission. Paragraph (b) defines the expressions used in the principal Act, "Government Department in possession," and "occupying Department." Some doubt has arisen as to the exact meaning of these words, and the paragraph makes it clear that it is the Department for the time being in possession of land which is meant. Paragraph (c) makes it clear that the Department has not ceased to be an "occupying Department" by reason of its having temporarily handed over the land to a munitions firm, or for some such purpose during the War. It has been held that that was a break in the possession, and therefore this paragraph is to make the matter clear. Paragraph (d) is intended to remove doubts as to the retention of the land under Section 13, if the purpose is different from the purpose for which it was originally taken. There seems to be a legal point there which also requires clearing up. Paragraph (e) is a corollary to paragraph (d), and it is therefore unnecessary to devote much explanation to it.
  With regard to the second Sub-section of this Clause we propose to give the alternative of removing a building instead of purchasing the land. Sometimes these buildings have been erected on land which has not been purchased, and it is desirable to have the alternative of not buying the land at all, but of removing the buildings. That power is particularly required in the case of land owned by a municipality or a railway. If we had not that power we could not remove the buildings, and they would therefore remain the property of the municipality or the railway company respectively.
  Clause 4 gives power to prescribe certain points with regard to tramways across a roadway and to the keeping of public highways closed. It refers to the giving of a decision within the period of two years or twelve months respectively. Curiously enough, it has been held by lawyers that under the terms of the principal Act a decision cannot be given until two years or twelve months have elapsed. It is a barrier to business and to concluding negotiations in connection with factories which are for sale when people cannot know, one case for two years, whether or not they will have a
  1826
  perpetual use of the siding which serves the works,. It is desirable that there should be power to come to a decision without delay. Sub-section (2) of the Clause gives an appeal. The decision as to whether a siding crossing a roadway shall be left or not is at the present time in the hands of the local authorities. It seems unreasonable that there should be no appeal, because we have experienced the same arbitrary action in other cases, and it would be a very serious matter indeed if a factory were cut off from the use of a siding which would render the building perhaps almost useless and certainly much less valuable for the purpose of sale. There will be no dubiety about that, and it will be possible, not only to get a decision at once, but, if these powers be unreasonable, to appeal to the Minister of Transport to decide any doubt which may arise. Clause 5 amends the conditions of the principal Act in regard to railway companies and dock companies. This Clause has been agreed with those who represent the railway companies, and I do not think I need detain the House very long in explaining it.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Notwithstanding the fact that the Clause may have been agreed between the railway companies and the dock companies, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a quite adequate explanation to the House. The House is entitled to know what is the whole position.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will do that with pleasure. It is a point of a technical nature, and will perhaps more easily be dealt with in Committee and by a lawyer than a layman. At the same time I will endeavour to explain the exact purport of the Clause. The Clause amends the provisions of the Act of 1916 relating to land belonging to railways, docks, etc. Sub-section (1) restricts the Government's power of purchase to land which had never been used for the purpose of the undertaking, providing the Railway and Canal Commission is satisfied it will not be required for the purposes of the undertaking. It also restricts the existing power of purchasing lands which, having been used for the purposes of the undertaking, have ceased to be so used, and to land which the Commission is satisfied will not be required for such purposes. Sub-section (2) makes it clear that the Ministry of Transport shall take

  1827
  into account other considerations than those of transport—for example, finance —in considering whether an extension of temporary occupation should be granted. Clause 6 deals with easements, and it seems there is a doubt as to whether the enjoyment of an easement is the same thing as being in possession of an easement. Not being a lawyer, it is a little difficult to explain where the lawyers exactly find the difficulty; but we are advised that there is a case here requiring elucidation and explanation, and the intention of this Clause is merely to make it clear that enjoyment does mean possession. The case, I understand, is that of drainage and surface water, but particularly drainage, running from land in the possession of the Government into a drain belonging to somebody else, and it is desired to preserve the rights which are now enjoyed by the Government, as the occupier of the land, to the Government after the ratification of peace, or to the buyer of the land if the Government sell the land. That is the purpose of the Clause.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: A very dangerous one, I should think.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: My right hon. Friend says it is a very dangerous proposal. I dare say in Committee it will be possible exactly to explain where the difficulty lies, but I should have thought that this Clause, having passed the scrutiny of another place, where these questions are dealt with with scrupulous care, and with no lack of regard to the rights of property, the right hon. Gentleman might feel that his apprehensions were not well-founded. With regard to Clause 7, which refers to bye-laws for the safe use of military rifle ranges, it appears that at the present time there are a number of ranges which are held by the Government, and it is not known now exactly how many of these ranges will be permanently required. The use of these ranges by the Territorials and others is a matter of some uncertainty at the moment, and it is felt that it would be premature to give up these ranges entirely, or, rather, the bye-laws which govern them. As a matter of fact, there is a provision that the land on which these ranges exist shall be held for two years, I think, after the ratification of peace, but, curiously enough, the bye-
  1828
  laws which interrupt the free use of the land for footpaths, and so forth, do not similarly extend, and it is obvious the ranges would not be of much use if you could not prevent people from traversing the danger zone. Consequently, it is sought to extend the bye-laws for two years, and partly because of the uncertainty of what will be permanently required and what will not, and also because of the slowness of procedure under the Military Lands Acts, under which it is intended, of course, to deal with the acquisition of rights of way across ranges in the ordinary way in time of peace. This is merely, therefore, an extension of the provision for two years. There is no question of taking away permanent rights, and the permanent arrangements will be made under the usual conditions of the Military Lands Acts.
  Those are the main points in connection with this Bill. It is a Bill full of technicalities, as I said when I rose. It is not a Bill which is very easy for a layman to grasp at first sight. I have myself spent some little time in trying to master the details, and I hope I have at least given the House a rough outline of the provisions of the Bill. In Committee, if there are any points which seem to require elucidation or explanations, I shall be very pleased indeed to give those explanations, and to hear what arguments can be advanced against the provisions of the Bill. But, as I have said, the Bill has already received so much attention, that I hope the House will not find it very difficult to give it a Second Reading, and also that they will not find many Amendments, at any rate of any substance, are required in it.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend has very truly said this Bill is an example of a very large number of legal conundrums presented to a lay assembly, and he derives some comfort in connection with that not very alluring prospect, owing to the fact that it has received some attention in another place. I have considerably more respect for another place than I used to have, but it does not absolve me, or any Member of this House, from the discharge of functions in regard to any Bill which comes to this House from another place. I suggest to hon. Members that this Bill requires very careful scrutiny in Committee. Certainly I agree with my right

  1829
  hon. Friend that it is not a very fitting subject—at least, not a very easy subject —for debate on Second Reading. But let me draw the attention of the House to the two last Clauses to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I cannot imagine any lawyer now listening to me not requiring some very careful elucidation of Clause 6, which says:
  "For the purposes of the principal Act and this Act, the exercise or enjoyment of any easement or right over or in relation to land shall be deemed to be possession of that easement or right."
  That is a matter which requires to be very carefully considered, to see that whatever happens the general law with regard to easements and rights is not infringed upon in the least degree by this Bill, and to see that the effect of this Clause is very carefully safeguarded indeed. What about Clause 7? The practice which obtained during the War, that no question of rights of way or matters of that kind should interfere with the rifle ranges, was a very proper arrangement during war time, but one which I certainly would be very loth indeed to carry on into peace without some very strong reasons and arguments being adduced in its favour.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: For two years.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not know what special reason there may be. There must be an immense number of rifle ranges available now for the relatively much smaller number of His Majesty's forces compared with two years ago. We had under arms in this country, practising almost daily at rifle ranges, I should think, some 200,000 men—sometimes more, and never less. I should say that the number of His Majesty's forces who require to practise at rifle ranges to-day is quite negligible compared with then, and there are no immediate prospects, one is thankful to know, of any necessity for augmenting His Majesty's land forces. If that is the case, what reason is there for carrying on this power for another two years? It seems to me such a Clause as that could be very well dropped out of the Bill. There is nothing in the action of the Executive, so far as I can see, in the presentation of this Bill, which gives me much confidence in the extension of the powers which they seek. As I have often said, what this House really must guard against is the
  1830
  constant action of the Executive, very largely owing to the pressure of the Departments behind them, to carry into peace conditions of war. Here is an example. I see no reason at all why this power is sought for another two years. These powers will continue until the technical end of the War, and, therefore, so far as I can see, some months have still to run. The War Office have got these powers for months to come. They can very easily make such arrangements as are necessary in connection with the due facilities of his Majesty's land Force within that time, and, under those circumstances, I hope the Committee will strike out Clause 7 and bring that particular provision, at any rate, to an end. I am not able at present to offer any criticisms of real service to this House, other than to repeat what I have said, that these highly technical matters want very careful watching in the interests of the country, and never so much as now, when, owing to the practice of war—and rightly—things were done and left undone which would never have been tolerated in times of peace. I hope the Committee will give the most careful attention to this very complicated measure, and that when it arrives at the Report stage we shall be able to see that some of the safeguards, which a few, at any rate, of us wish to see inserted, will be found in the Bill as then presented.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir RHYS WILLIAMS: The number of rifle ranges available before the War was extraordinarily small, and a great many of them were not really fit for the purpose for which they were wanted. During the War a number of ranges have been found which are suitable for the purpose, and I do think the authority might be given at least two years to decide which of these rifle ranges might be kept and which might be given up. It is not asking for perpetuity, but only for two years in which to form an opinion as to which of these rifle ranges now in use should be kept for the purpose of training in rifle-shooting in this country.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: May I say my objection is limited to those rifle ranges where public rights of footpaths and otherwise have been interfered with during war-time?
  Mr. HOOD: I merely rise in the hope of eliciting some information from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill with regard to the position of the common lands of the country under this Bill. It is within the recollection of the House that, during the War, a number of the common lands of the country, or parts of those lands, have been taken possession of by the War Office, and they are still in possession of those common lands. I refer more particularly to the position of Wimbledon Camp, which is within my constituency. Under the acquisition of Land Act. 1916, the War Office took possession of part of Wimbledon Common. They have erected huts upon it, and they are still in occupation. So far as I can see, although a good deal of pressure has been brought to bear upon the War Office, there is no undue haste on their part to give up possession of these lands. There is considerable apprehension on the part of my constituents as to when they are going to give up possession so the public may resume possession. If we turn to Clause 3, Sub-section (1) (a) we see the words.
  "the power of acquiring land or interest in land conferred by Section three of the principal Act authorises, and shall be deemed always to have authorised, such acquisition for the purposes of re-sale, in cases when such re-sale is required with a view to the realisation to the best possible advantage of the value of buildings and works erected."
  I want to know whether this present Bill confers upon the Government Department concerned any additional rights for perpetuating the occupation of any land, or even enlarging the scope of their present occupation? This is a matter, which, as I suggest, is of great interest to my constituents, and I shall be glad to receive some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman on the subject.
  Major KELLEY: I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill how far Clause 4, Sub-section (1) (b), applies to a case which I shall state as briefly as I possibly can. In 1915 a national shell factory was erected in the Tinsley part of Sheffield which adjoins Rotherham. The highway adjoining this factory belonged to the Sheffield Corporation, but the tramways laid in this highway belonged to Rotherham. The firm who erected this factory for the Ministry of Munitions desired
  1832
  to lay a railway siding across the Corporation's tramway, which was strongly objected to by the Corporation of Rotherham. Representations, however, were made by the Government on the matter, whereby the crossing was to be made only for the period of the War, while the factory was in the possession and control of the Ministry of Munitions for war purposes. This Agreement was signed by Sir Reginald Brade on behalf of the Minister of War.
  Notwithstanding this, and representations that were made to the Government, they insisted on the terms referred to in Section 6 of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916—and with which I will not trouble the right hon. Gentleman—which entirely overrode their agreement. The Ministry of Munitions have now sold the factory, and approached the corporation for their consent to this level crossing remaining after the period mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. To this the corporation have agreed on payment of £500 compensation which was approved of by the Ministry of Munitions with the sanction of the Treasury. This is over a year ago, and I now find that nothing that can be done by the Corporation of Rotherham will move the Treasury to complete this agreement. It is the opinion of the Corporation of Rotherham that they are holding up the completion of the agreement pending the passing of the Bill now before the House, and it is quite obvious to my mind that if the provision mentioned in Sub-section (2) is passed into law, they will then insist on the matter going to the Ministry of Transport with the hope that that authority will for the second time enable the Government to avoid the honourable arrangement they have made.
  I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman how far the Government will tear up the honourable agreement made between the Corporation of Rotherham and Sir Reginald Brade on behalf of the Minister for War. I should like to hear whether the particular paragraph to which I have referred will put the Corporation of Rotherham into this position or not, because if it does, it will be my business to oppose this Bill to the utmost of my power.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office whether there is any particular

  1833
  reason why this Bill has been introduced? It has been stated to me that—it may possibly be for quite a good reason— the real reason for this Bill is connected with the sale of Richborough, that it will be difficult to come to the arrangements which are about to be come to, or hoped will be come to, in regard to the sale of Richborough if this Bill is not introduced. Whether that is so or not I really do not know. It may be a perfectly legitimate reason, and it may be that the original Act does require certain alterations, but it seems to me there are certain objections to this Bill, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to meet the points I am going to raise when we get into Committee. There is still uncertainty in the original Act as to who may or may not go before the Railway Commission, who may or may not amongst the actual owners in such and such circumstances claim the right of pre-emption. I would therefore suggest that any owner of requisitioned land to be sold by a third party should have the right of appeal to the Railway Commission, which, I think, is a perfectly fair proposal. Where a man has given over his property, or has had it requisitioned during the War for the purposes of the State, the least that can be said or done is to allow him the right of pre-emption when that property is to be sold. We all remember the little discussion which took place some time ago between, I think, the Ministry of Munitions and Lord Rosebery. It is with the idea that some such arrangement as there indicated should be put into the Bill that I have risen this afternoon. I have here an Amendment which, if not an Amendment of my own— because it is such a very technical Bill that it is almost impossible for the layman to put forward an Amendment—I propose to put down, and which more or less deals with the question, and which has been handed to me by legal people. I trust the Financial Secretary will accept it, when we get to the Committee stage, or, if I am not on the Committee, when we get to the Report stage. Under the Act of 1916 compensation is, I think, given to the owners on a basis which is manifestly unfair. Agricultural property has increased very much in value, and I hope the Financial Secretary will consider whether or not some Amendment of that particular part of the Act of 1916 ought not to be introduced. I have nothing
  1834
  further to say upon those matters. Some of them are questions of serious moment to the people concerned, but because they happen to be few in number I hop© the Government will not disregard their just claims.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am surprised to find the Financial Secretary to the War Office in charge of this Bill, and I was rather puzzled when he told us that it would take a great deal of time to understand this Bill, as it was a lawyer's job, and I also wondered why a Law Officer was not in charge of it. I begin to see the reason now. This is a Bill which concerns the War Office. I do not propose to examine more than one particular point in Clause 7. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the War Office still has a number of rifle ranges, that they have not yet decided how many they will want, and that they must have powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations to keep the public away from those ranges? That is a most astounding declaration. Here we are, two years after the Armistice, the territorial and military policy of the Government has been declared, and to say now that the War Office has not made up its mind what rifle ranges are required is to me simply astounding.
  I do not agree with the statement which has been made that we had not enough rifle ranges before the War. That is all the more reason why the Government should have made up their mind instead of coming now asking for these indefinite powers. I think we can save the country a little money by striking out Clause 7. If the Government is keeping on all these ranges "on spec.," then they are wasting a lot of money. I see there are not only rifle and artillery ranges, but also aerial ranges. Everyone must know that the danger around such a range is colossal, and the restrictions on the public in the neighbourhood of any ordinary inland aerial range must be very great indeed. If the Government are going to set up aerial ranges in inland districts they are going to be very dangerous, and the danger zone is going to be greatly increased. On this matter the House ought not to give the Government carte blanche, but force them to set up their aerial ranges on waste spaces, and there are plenty round the coast, such as the vast flats in the estuaries of the Thames and the Wash, where, from the

  1835
  point of view of economy and cheapness and the safety of the public, they are very good indeed. I want to ask if the Government are going to take over ranges at such places as Shoeburyness and Morecèmbe Bay? I am not disposed to give the Government any powers to keep on rifle ranges simply because they have not yet made up their minds how many they will want.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office on the facility with which he has explained what, to an ordinary layman, is an almost unintelligible Bill. I should like to refer to Clause 3, Subsection 1 (a). I am not quite sure whether I followed the right hon. Gentleman correctly in his explanation, but it does seem to me to be giving a very wide power to the Government Department. I understand the War Office has certain lands upon which there are certain derelict buildings, and it finds it difficult to sell that land and the buildings upon it. If the Government require an acre or two acres in the vicinity of such land they would be empowered by this Subsection to acquire compulsorily those additional acres in order to realise to the best advantage. That is a pretty dangerous power, and I suggest that, unless the acre or two acres referred to are in the hands of a willing seller, it would be better to cut your loss and sell for what you can get rather than give the Government Departments power to buy land all round. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point, and I am prepared to move in Committee that that Sub-section be omitted.
  Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Clause 3 not only gives power to acquire additional land to that which has been already bought, but it gives the Government power to acquire and sell land which they have not bought on which they may have built factories, hutments, etc. Although they have been in the habit of offering land for sale without having bought it yet it was found that they could not do that, and now they are taking power to buy for the purpose of at once selling again with the buildings on the land. That power deprives the owner of his rights of pre emption. If the Government buy land under the existing Acquisition of Land Bill the owner has a
  1836
  right of pre-emption, but under this Clause he has not that right, because you are giving power to buy the land in order to sell it to somebody else. That is the ease which my right hon. Friend quoted of Lord Rosebery's estate where they offered his property for sale without having bought it, and now you are legalising that action.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will endeavour to answer the observations which hon. Members have made. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Hood) referred to the occupation of part of Wimbledon Common for the purpose of housing troops. The Bill before the House does not enlarge the powers which now exist under the principal Act, and commons are not purchaseable. Therefore the hon. Member may rest assured that there is no intention to permanently occupy Wimbledon Common. I believe there are other commons in the country where similar apprehensions exist, but they are quite unfounded. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Major Kelley) spoke about a level-crossing in the borough of Rotherham, which I think he said crossed a tramway line, and he said that an arrangement had been come to permitting the level-crossing to continue on payment of £500. The hon. Member suggested that there was some delay in settling this matter owing to the fact that this Bill was coming on. All I can say is that I know nothing of the matter personally, and my advisers know nothing about it, but I think the hon. Member must be mistaken as to the reason for any delay in the payment of the £500.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) spoke about this right of pre-emption, and asked how far it was intended the restrictions should go. The right of preemption extends to the owner and his successors in title, that is to say, his heirs, or the persons to whom he has sold the land. The Bill limits that right of preemption to those persons who own or did own the land, or who may have purchased the right of pre-emption from, the previous owner, but the Bill provides that this right shall not extend to other persons who are only interested in the land as neighbours. Under the Act of 1906, with regard to the compensation being fixed on the basis of the 1914, this Bill does not touch that point at all. The

  1837
  hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) spoke of the Government having a large number of rifle ranges and keeping them up. The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken in that. A very considerable number of rifle ranges have been given up, but there is still some uncertainty as to what the permanent requirements are, and it is intended when the uncertainty is cleared up to acquire the rights over those rifle ranges under the Military Lands Acts, and it is not intended to do anything arbitrary. It is desired to have a little longer time to make decisions as to what ranges it is best to retain.
  One hon. Member spoke of parts where ranges were none too plentiful before the War, and I know the same thing has occurred in my own district in the North. It would be undesirable to give up the making of the bye-laws now, especially as it is definitely provided that we retain the land for two years. Why we should not continue the bye-laws for two years I cannot understand, because otherwise we should be in a very absurd position. With regard to aerial ranges, that is a matter which deserves very serious attention, and it will be considered. I am glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman drew my attention to that point, and it will receive all the attention which it certainly deserves. The hon. Member for Kincardineshire (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) spoke of the buying of land around a factory for the purpose of reselling the factory together with the adjoining land. My hon. and gallant Friend need not have much apprehension on that point, because this Bill does not touch it, and the rights of buying the land are already contained in the principal Act, and no extension of those powers is contemplated in this Bill.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Then I do not follow the reason for the introduction of this Sub-section if it does not extend those powers.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The provision inserted is intended to clear up a doubt as to whether you can buy for the purpose of resale. It does not extend the powers, and it is only to clear u a doubt which exists in the minds of buyers who are unwilling to purchase unless the title is made clear. There is no intention of extending the powers of purchase, because they exist under the original Act. I think
  1838
  I have now dealt with all the points, and I ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  GOLD AND SILVER (EXPORT, CONTROL, &c.) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

  GOLD AND SILVER (EXPORT, CONTROL, &c.) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of 42 and 43 Vict, c. 21 s. 8, to gold and silver coin and bullion.)
    (1) Section eight of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879 (which enables the exportation of certain articles to be prohibited), shall have effect as if, in addition to the articles therein mentioned, there were included the following articles, that is to say, gold or silver coin and gold or silver bullion.
    (2) If any person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any condition attached to a licence authorising the exportation of any goods prohibited to be exported by virtue of this Section, he shall for each offence, without prejudice to any other liability, be liable to a Customs penalty of one hundred pounds.
    (3) In this Act the expression "gold or silver bullion" includes gold or silver partly manufactured and any mixture or alloy containing gold or silver.
    Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "or silver" ["gold or silver coin"].
    This Amendment refers to the silver coin. I am not so strong on this point as I am in regard to leaving out the same words relating to silver bullion. It may be quite necessary to restrict the exportation of silver coin, in view of the enormous advance in the price of the metal, and because the market might be depleted of small coinage. In the first place, if the Government pay the market price they can get as much silver as they require, and secondly, the Government are about to issue a new coinage which will replace the old one. I do not know if I am in Order in arguing my two Amendments together, but there is a very real danger in the Government having power by an Order in Council to pro-

    1839
    hibit the exportation of silver except under licence. As I pointed out on the Second Reading of this Bill, the conditions which exist in the Far East are different. Silver plays a very large part in the trade and commerce of China, and often silver is necessary there to secure contracts.
    8.0 P.M.
    I hope this evening that the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to explain the attitude of the Government in connection with the monopoly that they have granted to a consortium of bankers to operate all Government business in China. I want to point out the enormous disadvantage that this country will be at if the Government persist in the prohibition, except under licence, of silver under this Bill. The British Government have virtually licensed this syndicate as a monopoly for advances in China and for securing the principal contracts for anything that the Governments of China may be interested in, railways, tramways, electrical works, or waterworks—anything the Governments of China are interested in this British syndicate is to have the monopoly of financing, and the Chinese syndicate is to have the monopoly of securing the contracts, and are to get a commission on all the contracts secured. It will be necessary for this syndicate to ship silver, as it always is necessary in getting contracts in China for the people to supply silver, which they have to get from the banks. This syndicate, which has been established by the Government, will have behind it the whole power of diplomacy of the British Empire, you might say. They have made an arrangement with an American financial syndicate, who are to have a share in the finance; they have made an arrangement with a Japanese financial syndicate, who are to have a share in the finance; and with a French finance syndicate; but with none of those Governments, I believe, has His Majesty's Government any agreement that they shall prohibit the export of silver to China excepting through this consortium, and it comes to this, that in the event of contracts being secured, with the assistance of the British Government, such contracts are to be offered, not to British manufacturers, but to the manufacturers of the countries in this consortium. At the same time every British merchant in China is to be prohibited
    1840
    absolutely—boycotted by the British Government—from taking any Government contracts because the Government here—the Treasury—will not allow anybody outside this consortium to issue loans or raise money in this country.
    We had the same thing before the War with the Germans. They were able to secure a large number of contracts from the Chinese Government which were lost to us because the British Government refused to help our merchants. Every American merchant will be able to go out to China and to secure contracts outside of this consortium, while they will get the full benefit of any contracts taken by this consortium. You will have the Japanese going out and getting the support of the Japanese Minister in China to contracts, whilst they are not debarred from their share in the contracts of the consortium. You will drive British merchants who in the past have been working for British industry to associate themselves with American, Japanese and French industrials in order to take the orders of those countries, which are not so imbecile as to say that they are going to support one man, and one man only, in the whole of China. If, therefore, silver is included in this Bill the consequence will be that you will have the silver going from our competitors, and you will debar the British merchant, depriving him of any incentive to secure contracts with the Chinese Governments. During the War we saw a large number of American houses start in China, thinking they were going to do the whole business of China because we were occupied, had prohibitions and could not get licences for the shipment of goods to China. The result of that invasion there has been that the majority of those houses have "gone burst,' while the old solid British houses still remain, and it is not at all surprising that the Americans to-day are joining this British group of financiers with a view to eliminating the British merchant with his energy and perseverance. The Americans are only too pleased to come in under the protection of the British Government to secure all the business they can in China and to prevent those men who have created the business in China reaping any benefit from their long work.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I think perhaps the ruling from the Chair will be that we may discuss together the two Amendments

    1841
    affecting the same line and dealing with silver coin and silver bullion, as they cannot very well be discussed separately.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): Certainly.
    Mr. BIGLAND: With regard to the Government's desire to control the export of silver coin, it appears to me they are unnecessarily nervous about this, for no possible reason. The price of silver is 44d. per ounce, and the value of the silver in our half-crowns and shillings is equal to 64d. per ounce. Nobody is going to ship silver coins out of this country for the value of the silver that is in them, because to that extent they would be losing money. We did see silver go above 64d., and if we see silver go above 64d. again, then the Government have power to issue coin in which the silver constituent shall be worth only 22d., so that the Mint and the Treasury will make a profit whatever happens. If the price remains below 64d., they continue to give us good, sound silver currency, but if the price should advance above 64d. they will have power, given to them under the Act which was passed by this House, to issue silver coin in this country as token coin, and the silver constituents of that shall only be worth 22d. to the ounce. That being so, the Government have no case whatever with regard to silver coin, although it might be a matter of convenience to have it in- the Bill. With regard to silver bullion, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel) has made out a very strong case indeed why control in the matter of bullion would really be detrimental to the trade of the country, and to the ability of merchants to quote for business offered to them in the East with the knowledge before they go for a licence that they will be able to buy silver and ship it from this country. The Government have no claim whatever to interfere with merchants' rights with regard to this export of silver bullion, and I trust the feeling of the House will be such that the Government will be compelled to take cognisance of the position of the merchant and the business man, who says that he will not put himself into the position in which he may be refused a licence to export silver after he has taken a contract. As we have already heard, export is more or less of a monopoly, in the hands of a clique, and I am sure everyone in the House would
    1842
    resent the idea that, knowingly or unknowingly, the Treasury are combining in a matter of this sort with a monopoly who may act to the detriment of the individual merchant. I have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment.
    Mr. STEWART: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if it is necessary to have the word "silver" in it at all. I can quite understand the Government taking the necessary powers to prevent the export of gold, but silver has no status in this country, and it is boycotted by the British Empire in every part of our Dominions. The question of the coinage, which the last speaker has mentioned, opens up an interesting point. We have not seen anything of these new nickel coins. Are the nickel coins included in this Bill? I do not think the Government need have any apprehension about our silver coins being exported. I presume that we shall not have two sorts of silver coins running concurrently, because, if so, I think an awkward position will arise. The old coinage will run the risk of being hoarded, and there will be the risk of having one sort of coinage at a premium and the other at a discount. With regard to bullion, this Bill protects all the silver in the country at the present moment, but the people who have to deal with silver will have an apprehensive feeling in their mind that if they get silver into this country it may be impounded, and the great institutions that are responsible for supplying the East, both China and India, with silver will refrain from bringing it to this country, and will supply their wants from San Francisco or some other Pacific coast port, and a very large trade, which has been going on in this country for a great many years, may be seriously endangered. If the Government have the intention of keeping silver in the Bill, I hope they will at least accept the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) and let us have a time limit—any time that the Treasury may think fit to impose. I think the possibility of the London market ceasing to be the important market for silver that it now is is worthy of the consideration of those in charge of the Bill.
    Mr. WISE: I do not think it is fully realised that silver is a commodity in the

    1843
    same way as gold or any other article, and if you control a commodity like silver it is sure to affect your trade in the East. When this Bill was first presented the rupee rose in price. I do not know whether any secret got out at the time, but I was told by an Eastern banker that information was current in Calcutta about this Bill prior to it coming before the House. In the last few days the rupee has fallen. Now the essence of the rupee is that it should be on a gold basis. On that basis its value to-day would be 2s. 9d., but, owing to its having become associated with silver, it has dropped to Is. 6d. If it is controlled for more than a certain period it will be a detriment to our trade in the East. Take the case of the Hong Kong dollar, which is based on 50 per cent, of silver; control would affect trade from Hong Kong into China. Again, if you have to have control, it should not be beyond a year, and at the end of the period the offer can be renewed. Then if you have licences there will be difficulty in obtaining them; there will be more expense and more bureaucratic control. I hope the Government therefore will consider the advisability of leaving silver out of this Bill.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I regret that I cannot see my way to accept this Amendment. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Stewart) minimised what we consider at the moment to be a very real risk. There is a strong demand at present for silver coinage from this country in some parts of the Empire which use that coinage, and we are afraid, and we think we are justified in the fear, that if silver coinage were not included, it would be purchased and sent away, and there would not be sufficient coinage for our own requirements, which, as hon. Members know, at present are very great. The real objection is in regard to bullion. I admit frankly, and I said as much on the Second Reading, that the time for safeguarding bullion, as was done during the War, has passed away. I told the House that I would carefully consider the removal of the ban on bullion at as early a date as possible. I have had an opportunity since the Second Reading of considering this question very carefully, and I will give an undertaking to the Committee that, when this Bill has become law, I shall be prepared to draft a fresh
    1844
    Order in Council under the Statute to take the place of Orders in Council which were drafted under the War legislation of 1914, and in the new Order in Council I will undertake to leave out all restrictions on silver bullion. Honestly, I do not see any likelihood of these restrictions being resumed for, possibly, an almost indefinite period; but I feel, if I may repeat what I said on the Second Reading, that although silver is far, far less important than gold, it is desirable, in putting these powers on the Statute Book, to deal with emergencies in time of financial stress, that the word "silver" should be included as well as gold. I hope and believe it may be many, many years before it may be necessary to impose any restrictions, but we are living in very uncertain and unsettled times financially.
    I would remind the Committee once more that the new powers given under this Bill cannot be put into force until the matter has been fully discussed between the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being and the City of London, and when they are in agreement it is always possible to raise a question in this House, so that there is no fear of anything being done under the cloak, or behind people's backs, or that one would be ashamed of in the light of day. I do not know whether the pledge I have given will satisfy the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel), but it certainly does make impossible that very dark picture which he spent several minutes in painting at the opening of this Debate. We propose, as far as silver is concerned, to retain only the powers which this Bill will give us as regards coinage, and that, we believe, is all that is necessary for the present.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend has, I think, admitted the whole case of those who are responsible for this Amendment, because, with his usual frankness, he states that he does not see any immediate necessity for the exercise of these powers under this Bill with regard to silver. Not only did he say that, but he added that he did not see any likelihood of the exercise of those powers in the dim future. He told us by way of supporting his contention in favour of having these powers that we live in very uncertain times. Certainly we do, and if there is one think that business requires above all other things, it is all the power that latitude and certainty can give it. Nothing so much assists a business man

    1845
    as to know, with regard to any commodity in which he deals, that he is free from Government control unless an Act of Parliament is passed to deal with it. As I have said before, so long as my right hon. Friend is where he is, I feel quite confident that these powers will not be arbitrarily exercised; but that is not the way to legislate. We have to legislate, not upon the personnel of the Ministry, but upon the broad merits of the schemes which they submit. As the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment and all the other speakers upon it have said, the case for the omission of silver from this Clause is really not contested. I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend, with his great fairness and frankness, does not say that what is really meant is that the power is needed for gold. I admit that, but it is business legislation to ask only for those powers that you want, and not for powers which you think you may want years hence. That is the War habit which has got hold of us again. Those hon. Members who have spoken on this matter, with the exception of myself, are every one of them men who thoroughly understand it. It is a matter which either has been or is a part of their daily life. I cannot pretend to be an expert on silver, but I do claim to have some knowledge of business, and I say that the volume of testimony and argument which has come from those hon. Members, who are actuated by no motive other than that of the public interest, is a very serious thing for my right hon. Friend to set aside. I suppose it is too late to ask him to change his mind on the matter, but not a shred of evidence has been adduced to the Committee for the inclusion of silver in the Bill. I do not know whether my hon. Friends are going to a Division, but, if they do, I shall feel bound to support them, although we know what the result will be. I hope, however, that the question will be raised again on the Report stage, and that a larger number of hon. Members will be present to hear the merits of the matter discussed as efficiently as they have been discussed to-day.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I think we ought to have a little more explanation of the prohibition of the export of coin. The financiers of the nation are very desirous of making every addition to their income that they possibly can, and as it is in the power of the Chan-
    1846
    cellor of the Exchequer, through the Mint to sell for 5s. silver which now costs 3s. 8d., I cannot understand the principle which does not encourage the Mint to buy all the bullion that it can and to sell it to those customers of whom the right hon. Gentleman tells us he has so many. I remember that in earlier days it was a very sore point with exporters that they had to go to the Mint and pay 5s. for what at that time was costing only 2s. 2d. or 2s. 6d. For the sake of the nation I do beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to encourage the buying of silver at its lower price, and, through the Mint, to add to our financial resources, which are in a state of such sore need.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: When my hon. Friend brings something before the House he usually has a good following, but I think he will admit that in this case, both on the Second Reading and on this stage, we have not heard anyone speaking in favour of his proposal. Like other speakers, I cannot understand why either bullion or coin should not be exported. The trade has gone on from time immemorial. I suppose there must be some reason, but no one appears to know it, and, with all deference to my right hon. Friend, he has not explained it. He has said that, after this Bill has been safely piloted through its various stages, he will undertake that there shall be an Order in Council. I do not like Orders in Council; we never know where they start or where they finish. It is the Bill that we want to see. If there is going to be afterwards an Order in Council, why should not the Bill itself be altered, so as to give the merchants the opportunity of exporting the silver either as bullion or as coin? Why has there been a shortage of coinage? It was because the price of silver was as high as 80d. or 90d. an ounce. It is now 44d., which puts a totally different complexion on the matter. There cannot possibly be any advantage now in exporting coin, because there is not the value in the coin itself, and I should like to press my right hon. Friend to say here and now whether there is any specific reason that he knows of for placing this embargo upon the exportation of coin. This is a very important question, and I hope my hon. Friends will divide upon it, although I suppose that the Government will turn the Whips on, and

    1847
    the Government will be "Aye" or "No" as the case may be to a great many hon. Members who have heard nothing about the matter, and know nothing about the matter, with the exception of a few who have spoken against the measure. I think that my right hon. Friend, with his usual generosity and courtesy, might have given us some idea of the reason. If there be
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland), to leave out the second "or silver," deals with the same
    any reason, let us know it; perhaps it may alter our opinions. With the information before me, if my hon. Friends divide, I shall support them.
    Question put, "That the words 'or silver ' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 53.

    Division No. 383]

    AYES.

    [8.35 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Moles, Thomas

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Gardiner, James

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Murray, C. D. (EdinDurgh)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Neal, Arthur

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

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

    Barrand, A. R.

    Gregory, Holman

    Parker, James

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')

    Parry. Lieut-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Blair, Reginald

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Perring, William George

    Blane, T. A.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Briggs, Harold

    Hilder, Lieut-Colonel Frank

    Prescott, Major W. M.

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Casey. T. W.

    Hood, Joseph

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudon(Barnstaple)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm.,W.)

    Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey Farnnam)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

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

    Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)

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

    Smith, Sir Allan M Croydon, South)

    Colvin, Brig-General Richard Beale

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir- Alexander

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Stanley, Major Hen. G. (Preston)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jesson, C.

    Steel, Steel, Major S. Strang

    Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Dixon, Captain Herbert

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Donald, Thompson

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Taylor, J.

    Doyle, N. Grattan

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

    Whitla, Sir William

    Edge, Captain William

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

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

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Wills. Lieut-Colonel Sir; Gilbert

    Edwards Hugh (Glam., Neath)

    Lorden, John William

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Elliott, Lt-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lynn, R. J.

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Martin, Captain A. E.

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    NOES.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborougm

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Knights, Capt. H. N. (C-berwell, N.)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Sugden, W. H.

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

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

    Swan, J. E.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, west)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Manville, Edward

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cairns, John

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Waterson, A. E.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Wignall, James

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Glanville, Harold James

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

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

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wintringham, T.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Robertson, John

    Wise, Frederick

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Hinds, John

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Irving, Dan

    Sexton, James

    Mr. Samuel Samuel and Mr.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Bigland.

    point which the Committee has just decided.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I understood on the ruling of Sir Edwin Cornwall, that the two would go together. We were fighting on the two.
    Major-General Sir N. MOORE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
    "Provided, however, that any gold or silver coin and gold or silver bullion which may be imported after the passing of this Act may be re-exported at any time, whether in the same or in any re-melted form or converted form, and a transferable licence to that effect shall be granted at the time of importation."
    I do not know whether this Amendment will meet with the same fate as the last, but I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury will indicate to us that he is prepared to make an Order in Council instead of proceeding with legislation under this Bill. The Government are endeavouring to regulate or prohibit the export of gold or silver. I am satisfied that while they may regulate the gold that is in this country at the present time, this Bill will have the effect that no new gold will be imported into this country. At the present time there is a regulation or understanding between the gold producers and the Department concerned here under which a licence is given for gold, provided that it is imported into this country and not re-exported before a period of five weeks. We realise that the production of gold has fallen very considerably. The production of gold within the British Empire has fallen from something like £58,000,000 to £51,000,000. If we are to secure our share of it, it is absolutely essential that some undertaking should be given that, with respect to all new gold imported into this country, a licence should be granted enabling it to be re-exported. There can be no harm in that. It means that if we do not get these licences to re-export, the new gold will not come here. It will go, as in the past, to China, America, and India. By such a provision as the one now proposed we shall get the gold here, and then it can take its chance of being re-exported. We want to re-establish London as the chief exchange so far as gold is concerned. I am speaking for people who are actually producing the gold. I speak for and represent the South African point of view, as well as the Australian producers. Therefore, I think the Government ought to pay some attention to the people who know something about the subject. Since the Second Reading debate I have spoken to
    1850
    several bankers, very important people, and they assure me that the provision which I have now proposed should be inserted in the Bill, and they hope the Government will give favourable consideration to it.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment. I do not want to say anything about the general purpose of the Bill except to ask hon. Members on the Labour Benches to realise that, though this is a temporary measure, there is a tendency for these things to become permanent and to create a very dangerous monopoly. This Clause will mitigate some of the worst effects of the Bill. It is exactly the same principle as we are embodying in the Housing Bill, which is not to apply to houses built after a certain date, because it is commonsense that, while you may apply this restrictive legislation to buildings which are already on the ground and cannot run away, there is no use in applying it to houses which are not built, because the result would be that they would not be built at all. The very same point applies here. Having got a certain amount of gold in the country, it may be necessary for some purpose, which is difficult to understand and which I have not seen explained, to put the right to license into the hands of the Inland Revenue, so that a few gentlemen down in the City, who think they know better than the community the natural economic laws and how gold and silver should ebb and flow for the purpose of trade; but if you put that monopolistic power into their hands, you need not think that gold will come into the country.
    Gold is the most fluid of all commodities. It is one of those things, like credit, which can take wings and fly, and it will not come here if it going to be subject to the license of a number of highly respectable financiers who deal in gold and silver in the city of London. Speaking for large producers in South Africa, I know that they are very much alarmed about it. Throughout the War they sent their gold, very large supplies, faithfully home to this country and sold it at a less price than they could have got in other countries largely from patriotic motives and also because they had been also in the habit of doing so. They might have made more by taking it out to China or India, and there was the threat held out at the time that an

    1851
    effort would be made not to allow gold to reach its true value and to continue it after peace, and it was when the South African Government took its courage in its hands and refused to allow this restrictive monopoly that gold was allowed to reach its true price, but if these producers are going to be asked to put their head into the trap to bring their gold here and yet not to be allowed to take it out, they will be in the position of the Exciseman who went into the smugglers' cave and was asked, "Did anybody see you coming in?" and when he said "No," he was told, "Well, nobody will see you going out." If they are to be allowed to bring gold in and not to take it out, it will not come in.
    Once a monopoly of this kind starts it is very difficult to get rid of, and when the dire effects of the gold produced in our Dependencies going to other parts of the British Empire and the world will be seen with disastrous results to our trade you will still have the gentlemen who have the power of issuing licences still at their work and assuring the officials of the Treasury and the Excise that everything is all right, and so it will be for them, but it will not be for the trade, industry and credit of the country. Therefore, I advise you to put a stop to the action of the clutching hand which is insisting not only on grasping control of the bullion in this country, but wants to make a dive at the stuff which is not yet crushed out of the rock, if ever by any chance people are foolish enough to bring it here. I want to see gold streaming into this country. The more that comes the better for our credit and foreign trade and rate of exchange, and the more the cost of living will be reduced, but if you allow this monopoly to go further than it has gone, if you allow it to go so far as to get hold of the gold which has not yet come in, you will inflict one of the most serious blows that are possible on the credit and finance of the country.
    Mr. BALDWIN: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I interpose at this moment, because, while I am unable to accept the Amendment as it stands, I have done my best to meet the case which has been raised by the hon. Members, and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy them with the words which I propose. I cannot accept the Amendment because the words as drafted make the
    1852
    proposal far too wide. Referring particularly to the case of South Africa, to which my hon. Friend (Mr. Macquisten) has alluded, it is within his knowledge that there is an agreement at present working with regard to South African gold. We have been approached by those interested in the subject, and we are quite agreeable to give a statutory form to the continuation of that agreement, and to do it in such a way as to give us power to make and give effect to similar agreements for the gold producers in other Colonies and Dominions. The Amendment which I shall propose is to insert at the end of Sub-section (2) the words,
    "Gold produced in any part of His Majesty's Dominions and imported into the United Kingdom under any arrangement approved by the Treasury may, notwithstanding anything in this Section, be exported in accordance with the terms of that arrangement."
    I saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thursday evening, when this proposal was first drafted, and obtained his approval. Otherwise it would have appeared on the Paper on Friday. As this may be regarded as short notice, I will move that Amendment on the Report stage. It is an Amendment which the Government have put down in view of the wider Amendment now before the Committee.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a general idea of the nature of some of the arrangements to which he has alluded?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: They vary and may be altered.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: What is the general nature of the arrangement between the Government and the Dominions or other parts of the Empire where the gold is produced?
    Sir N. MOORE: I believe there is some arrangement for gold to be introduced into this country under licence, and to be re-exported provided the re-export takes place within five weeks of its arrival in this country. If it is to be an arrangement of that kind it is not likely to be very much good. I think it will be much preferable for the Government's proposal to be brought up on the Report stage. It would not meet my views at all if it is to be merely an arrangement of the kind I have indicated, and to apply only to a period of five weeks.
    Mr. BALDWIN: If the hon. Member is willing to withdraw his Amendment, I could put mine on the Paper, and hon. Members could then examine it.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: As far as I can see, the Treasury Amendment still leaves an elastic power in the hands of the Treasury. If the Treasury have been "got the better of" sufficiently to introduce this Bill it will be "got the better of" to make some arrangement that will do some harm. I cannot agree that this Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend drives a coach and four through the Bill. It seems to exclude just new gold. Why there should be any objection to that I cannot understand, if there is a genuine desire on the part of the Treasury to get gold into the country.
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I am certain that the Committee would be very glad to do anything which would facilitate the Government in the passage of a very difficult, very technical, and very important measure. There is a limited number of experts in the House to discuss the Bill, but it is a Bill of very general importance and interest, going to the very vitals of the country's business. If the Amendment of the Government goes on the Paper, what will be the effect? It will come on on the Report stage, and we know what that is. The Report stage provides nothing like as easy or as efficient a way of handling an intricate measure. Hon. Members can speak only once. What the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has suggested is certainly a mitigation of the stringency of the Bill as it stands. But if it is true, as I am sure it is, that gold exported shall not remain in this country longer than five weeks, the proposal seems to me to be futile. I would suggest to the Government that they report progress, that the suggested Amendment be put on the Paper, and that thus we shall have an opportunity of discussing it with knowledge. The Government are not pushed for time. They are quite willing to give days for discussion of all sorts of subjects. The House will undoubtedly be sitting right up to Christmas, because of what is happening in another place. An Adjournment might also settle an Amendment now standing in my name. Give us
    1854
    a little more time to consider these matters in Committee, and when the Report stage is reached it will be almost a formal stage.
    The CHAIRMAN: I ought to say that there is no Report stage of a Bill which is taken in Committee on the Floor of the House, unless the Bill is amended. We ought to bear that in mind. I do not know whether the Government propose to accept any Amendment on the Paper?
    Mr. BALDWIN: There will be a new Clause of some kind. I shall have to move one in Committee, and there will be an alteration in the Bill.
    Mr. BIGLAND: The need of the Amendment would be abolished altogether if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, "We will pay the market price of the world for gold." We are in the most extraordinary position in England that we are buyers of gold at 77s. 10½d., while in New York the price is 117s. 4d. Why should the Treasury refuse to pay the world price for gold? If the world price is paid here, every part of the Dominions and all the world would ship gold to London. The whole trouble is caused by the fact that the Government are trying to buy something worth £5 17s. for £3 17s. 10½d.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    It would be for the convenience of the Committee to report Progress, for two reasons. First of all, I think it would be a very good thing for the Members of the House to have the opportunity of seeing the words of my Amendment and, secondly, there is an important point raised in an Amendment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). I had approached him earlier in the evening and said that I was considering the point,. but would be unable to give my reply until the Report stage. If the Motion to report Progress is agreed to, we shall be able to deal with that point also, as well as my Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

    CLAUSE.— (Power to make Temporary Advances from Local Loans Fund to Local Authorities for Housing Purposes.)
    (2) Interest on advances under this Section shall be payable at such a rate as the Treasury may from time to time fix or, if the rate applicable to any advance is less than the bank rate for the time being in force, at the bank rate.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I beg to move, in Sub section (2), to leave out the words "the rate applicable to" and to insert instead thereof the words, "so long as the rate which shall be fixed by the Treasury in the case of."
    The Amendment ensures that in no case shall the advance be made at less than the bank rate which gives effect to what was desired by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time" put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  HULME TRUST ESTATES (NON-EDUCATIONAL) CHARITY BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 (Confirmation of Scheme) and 2 (Short Title) agreed to.

  HULME TRUST ESTATES (NON-EDUCATIONAL) CHARITY BILL.

    SCHEDULE.—(Scheme for the application or management of the Hulme Trust Estates (Non-Educational).)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Charity Commissioners to give us an explanation of the Schedule which contains the gist of the Bill. I would also ask why is it necessary to take this Bill, which may be very important, on the Floor of the House instead of sending it upstairs, when the Government assure us
    1856
    that they have not time to bring in measures which hon. Members feel strongly ought to have been brought in long since.
    Sir GODFREY COLLINS: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I may say that the Schedule is the model trust in Bills of the kind. As to the other point, it has been the custom in the past for Bills initiated by the Charity Commissioners to be taken in this House by general agreement.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  BAPTIST CHAPELS CHARITIES BILL.
  Considered in Committee: reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1920–21.
      (CLASS 4.)

        PUBLIC EDUCATION, IRELAND.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £528,600, 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 Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, including Grants in Aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland."
        The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The sum which the Committee are asked to vote arises owing to the fact that a Viceregal Commission was appointed in 1918 to consider the question of the salaries and pensions of the teachers in Ireland, both male and female, and that Commission reported recommending certain increases of salary. The increases in the first instance were not granted by the Treasury, but the teachers appealed to the Arbitration Board, and in the month of Septem-

        1857
        ber last the Arbitration Board directed the Treasury to agree on a certain sum with the teachers in the matter of salaries. The result of that agreement involves an increase of £528,600 to the teachers' salaries, and that is the sum for which we ask. I should mention that the increase has been spread over a period of three years, and the third, representing the increase for the first year, amounts to £528,600. The English teachers' salaries have also been increased, but In the case of the Irish increase it is provided to be one-third for each year for three years, and this sum of £528,600 represents the figure arrived at as the result of negotiations between the teachers and the Treasury.
        Sir D. MACLEAN: What the Committee is asked to grant to-night is not merely the sum of £528,600, but £1,585,800. That is what we are committed to, although we are only asked to vote a third of that sum now, but it is not conceivable that once the authority for the first third is given, there is any likelihood of the other two-thirds being refused. Am I right in the assumption that when the original Estimate was passed the Department concerned did not know there was likely to be an increase of a further £500,000 This would seem to be the second Supplementary Estimate which has been asked for by the Irish Education Department this year, and I should like to know what is the meaning of this exceptionally bad calculation on the part of the Department, which requires them to come down twice to this Committee for Supplementary grants. Under the Act which was passed some little time ago for obtaining better order in Ireland, and dealing with the retention of grants, is there contained power to hold back these particular grants?
        Mr. HENRY: No.
        Sir D. MACLEAN: Do I understand that, notwithstanding the disturbed state of Ireland, the education of children is still going on?
        Mr. HENRY: Yes.
        Sir D. MACLEAN: I am very glad, indeed, to hear that, and I hope that nothing will happen to disturb that. It is some evidence that things are not as bad in Ireland as they are painted, and
        1858
        if the children go to school, there is some hope for the country. Personally, I do not raise any objection to these additional payments to the Irish teachers, because there is no doubt at all that the teachers on this side of the Channel have just cause to complain of their inadequate remuneration, but the under-payment of teachers in Ireland has been a scandal, which is only now being partially remedied. You cannot get anything like moderately good education out of teachers who are so grossly under-paid. Even in these times of monetary stress, I feel that while some economies might be effected in many directions, and even in the Education Department, I cannot oppose this Supplementary Estimate. It is quite clear from what my right hon. Friend says that this particular Supplementary Estimate is the result of an arbitration which only reported in September last, and therefore this could not have been in actual figures foreseen when the original Estimate was put before us.
        Sir F. BANBURY: I think it is quite clear that there have been two bad shots at the amount which would be required for the Estimate for public education in Ireland this year, because, first of all, we had the original Vote, which was £3,358,371, then we had a Supplementary Estimate of £557,290, and now we have the further sum of £528,600, which is the second Supplementary Estimate within 12 months. It is quite possible that this second Estimate may be necessary, but it shows the very bad business habits of the Irish Education Office, that they should not have been able to come to a correct conclusion as to what the actual sum they would require during the year for the purposes of education would be. I remember very well that in the old days it was always considered to be a sign of inefficiency in any public Department which was constantly bringing in Supplementary Estimates. I am not certain, but I should say that it is very rare that a Department brings in two Supplementary Estimates for the same service in any given financial year. My right hon. Friend opposite says he is glad to hear that the children in Ireland are still receiving education. I do not think the education they receive, or which their fathers and relations have received, has so far done them much good.

        1859
        There might be an exception in the case of hon. Members on these Benches.
        Dr. MURRAY: There are 30,000 people in Belfast who are not educated at all.
        Sir F. BANBURY: I do not quite follow the interruption of the hon. Gentleman, unless it is that the people who represent Belfast are no good. I do not agree with that. I should have thought, so far as I know them, that they were more or less the pick of Ireland, and that they had taken advantage of the opportunity given them in education. I should certainly say that the majority of the people in Ireland had been taught wrongly, or if they had not been taught wrongly that they were born wrongly. I would prefer to believe that it was not natural sin born within them, but that the education authorities had given them wrong instructions. However that may be, we ought to have some further explanation of this Estimate from the learned Attorney-General. I hope he will tell us why it is necessary to have these two Supplementary Estimates in a given year. I do not wish to introduce extraneous matters, but I do not know whether we shall be in a position next year to discuss Irish education, or whether it will be discussed in a Parliament in Ireland. If it is discussed in this Parliament, I hope we shall get an assurance that the Vote will be introduced after due and careful consideration, and that it will not be necessary to have two Supplementary Estimates.
        Mr. LYNN: I think the right hon. Baronet has forgotten that Lewis has recently gone dry, and therefore the hon. Member (Dr. Murray) does not understand how things have been done in Ireland and what things are happening there. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) that the teachers of Ireland have been very badly paid. No class of people in the United Kingdom has been worse paid. A good deal of the trouble has been due to the fact that we have had an underpaid staff of teachers in Ireland. When one looks at the salaries paid to them, the wonder really is that they have not been more disloyal. Complaint has been made with regard to the Government not having estimated for this thing. So far as we are concerned, our withers are unwrung, because we tried two years ago to induce
        1860
        the Government to increase the salaries of these teachers, who are getting a miserable pittance. Hon. Members on the Labour benches will agree that these people have not been paid the trade union rate of wages. If our young people are to be properly educated, it is important that we should have a staff of teachers who are competent, efficient, well paid, and content. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Liberal party agrees that this should be done. Speaking for an Irish constituency, I say that the grant is fair, but I would like to have seen it even larger. I wish to ask the Attorney-General why it is that secondary teachers are not being better treated. The Government are to be congratulated on dealing generously with the primary teachers, but they have treated the secondary teachers very shabbily.
        Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: This is a very considerable sum, which will have to be paid out of the national pocket, and I would like to ask, what proportionate effect is it likely to have on the Irish rates themselves? How far are Irishmen in various parts of the country contributing out of their rates towards education at the present time? I fully agree with what my hon. Friend opposite has said on the subject of education. I congratulate the Attorney-General on this increase for educational purposes in those parts of Ireland which have been very badly neglected in the past as regards education. So far as I understand the Irish Question, it has been one of many troubles that you cannot get the Irish themselves to display sufficient interest to come down here and exert pressure on the Government in order to obtain a proper amount of money for education. The empty bench below me is the best example you can possibly have. Here is money going to be expended in the interests of the Irish people, yet not a single Nationalist Member takes the trouble to come and support the right hon. Gentleman. Under the Home Rule Bill what chance is there of this sum being passed on to the Irish people themselves to pay? I have always been rather vague as to the precise position under the financial Clauses of that Bill. Before we vote this sum of money, we should know whether it is likely to be a permanent charge on the British tax-

        1861
        payer or whether, in due course, the Irish will be able to take up their own burden and carry it themselves in future.
        Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: I wish to say, on behalf of the teachers of Ireland, how much this action of the Government will be appreciated. It is exactly twenty-eight years ago since anything was done in the way of improving educational facilities in Ireland. In the meantime Scotland and England have advanced by leaps and bounds in that direction. It might surprise the Committee to tell them that if Ireland were to receive her equivalent grant, according to the Goschen ratio, instead of having £500,000, as compared with Scotland, she would be getting nearly £2,000,000. Compared with England, if Ireland got her equivalent grant, instead of £500,000, she would receive nearly £1,000,000. So that the Government is not asking for a Vote which is in any way extravagant as compared with the grants given to England and Scotland. Questions have been asked with reference to the Supplementary Vote to be found in H.C.148. I would like to remind the House that £200,000 of that money was granted out of War bonus and introduced in the House as War bonus. Those who are responsible for education in Ireland saw that the teachers were being starved at the beginning of the year; that their salaries, commencing for women at £64 and for men at £78 a year, could not be lived on, and not until this year did the Irish teachers get any War bonus That was an additional sum that was granted. The remainder was an interim grant in anticipation of the standardisation of salaries, and that is how the H.C.148 Supplementary Grant was passed in this House.
        I would like to say how much we on these benches appreciate the remarks which fell from the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) with regard to teachers in Ireland. They were thoroughly sympathetic, and I believe he meant every word of them. On 24th February of this year a Bill for Irish Education was introduced into this House. Day after day, when Mr. Speaker put it from the Chair, the Noble Lord who has charge of the business invariably said "To-morrow." It is "To-morrow" still, and it will be for ever "To-morrow" so far as that Education Bill is concerned.
        1862
        This is the only thing, probably, that we will get from this House by way of an education grant. It is at least something that the teachers know that the House appreciates all that they have been doing, under the most difficult and trying circumstances, in Ireland, and by the passing of this Vote in a unanimous way these teachers in Ireland will appreciate it all the more.
        May I say one word to supplement the remarks which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for the Woodvale Division (Mr. Lynn) upon the question of secondary education? Bad as is the position of the primary teachers, the secondary teachers are in a very much worse position. The primary teachers have pensions which are very small at the moment, but the improvement now in the salaries will eventually improve the teachers' pensions. Secondary teachers, after twenty years' teaching, have no pensions, and I am only sorry that we have not got the equivalent grant to which we are entitled as compared with England and Scotland, and then you would not only have to-night the consideration of the improved salaries for primary teachers, but we would also have sufficient money out of that equivalent grant to deal with secondary teachers. In conclusion, may I say how much we on these benches appreciate the action of the Government in dealing with this much vexed question? Teachers appreciate it, I can assure the Committee, more than they can possibly express, and I trust the Vote will pass unanimously.
        Mr. TYSON WILSON: The Government are sometimes charged, and rightly charged, with being extravagant, but on this occasion I do not think they can be charged with extravagance. This Vote is only an act of innate justice. I remember in January of this year, when I was over in Ireland with some friends of mine, we met representatives of teachers from different parts of Ireland, and heard the pitiful story of the payment they receive. They said that unless something were done, and done quickly, they would take as many positions in this country as they possibly could, and I believe quite a number of teachers have come over to this country from Ireland to teach in English schools on account of the higher salaries paid here. We have to recognise that, if we want good

        1863
        teachers in our schools, either in this country or in Ireland, if we wish to attract good teachers, we must pay them a decent salary. So far as we are concerned, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman we shall not offer the least opposition to the passing of this Vote, and I am sure that, while the amount of the increase granted may not be considered adequate, I am quite certain the increase will be fully appreciated by the teachers in Ireland.
        Sir W. WHITLA: I am surprised and delighted with the last speaker's remarks. It is quite refreshing to find that he has at length repented. I do not think it would be treating the Committee fairly if we did not disclose the situation in Ireland. England raises from her rates a sum almost equivalent to the grant for primary education. Scotland raises a sum equivalent to something like three-fourths of the grant given by the Treasury. Ireland receives the same amount proportionally, but she, owing to religious difficulties, has not any power to strike a rate. Consequently, all these teachers have been starving. It is a scandal to the nation and to this House. When the last speaker was addressing the House, I could not help remembering that when a Bill was brought in to remedy this state of affairs and to enable us in the North of Ireland to strike a rate, so that the teachers could be paid, it was blocked by the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Yes!"] However, we may rejoice in this Supplementary Estimate, which partially removes a very great scandal and grievance. I do not think that scandal is anything to compare with the scandal of the treatment of the secondary teachers. The position of the secondary teachers is truly appalling. When we recognise that these primary teachers, who have been devoting their whole lives? the teaching, especially of the working classes, and that those who are not in the workhouse are driven to exist on an average pension of something like £40 a year, it is a state of affairs which ought to be remedied. I would beg the Attorney-General to bring in a Supplementary Estimate for the secondary teachers, whose case is even more urgent than that of the primary teachers.
        Dr. MURRAY: I need hardly say that I am heartily in sympathy with the giving of
        1864
        this money to improve the position of the teachers in Ireland; the thing is very much to the point—and certainly in respect to the secondary teachers. My hon. Friend who spoke honoured me with a cryptic reference to the Island of Lewis—the third largest island of Great Britain— having gone dry. In Belfast it appeared to me, when I was there, that there were about ten times as many public-houses as schools. The difference between that place and the Island of Lewis is that on the island there are ten times as many schools as public-houses. I am not at all sure, in respect to Scotland, that there is not a big fallacy underlying this matter, and it is that about which I got up to ask. I agree that more money should be paid to the teachers. But does not Ireland get an advantage in other ways? Should there not be in this matter, when Ireland gets a grant, an equivalent grant given to Scotland, and also, possibly, to England? Certainly, if England were interested in education, for I do not believe in giving money to countries which are not so interested! England never worries about it. If we got an equivalent grant for Scotland the teachers might have it, and so it would help; or it would help to reduce the rates in some of the districts. The fact that there are 30,000 children in Belfast for whom accommodation cannot be found seems to reflect on the energies of the distinguished journalists from Ulster whom I see on the opposite Benches.
        Mr. HENRY: Several questions have been put to me. I shall endeavour to answer them. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City referred to the fact that there had already been a Supplementary Estimate this year. I thought I had pointed out that the sum in the first Supplementary Estimate was for additional war bonus for the teachers to the extent of £191,000, and an interim grant for the year 1919–20 in anticipation of a standardised scale of salaries for £345,000. The present Supplementary Estimate is in respect of the year 1919–20. It only arose in the month of September, the former Estimate having been presented to the House in July.
        Sir F. BANBURY: But is this not very much out of order, bringing in in July, 1920, an Estimate for the previous financial year? Ought not that Supplementary Estimate to have been brought in before March of this year?
        Mr. HENRY: Well, that is the form in which it has been brought in. The main point I wished to emphasise was that the two Supplementary Estimates were not in respect of the same items.
        Sir F. BANBURY: That makes it worse.
        Mr. HENRY: The 1919–20 Estimate was in anticipation of the standardised scale of salary.
        Sir F. BANBURY: That makes it worse. How do we know that next year we may not have another Supplementary Estimate for this year?
        Mr. MOLES: Is not the sum that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland has read out the interim grant of the war bonuses related to an award that has only been made lately—that was only settled by arbitration in September last?
        Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member (Mr. Moles) ought to be on the Front Bench.
        Mr. HENRY: There is no double vote —no second vote for the same items. My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock asked me about the rates. There is no rate raised in Ireland for education. The cost falls upon the State. These charges will have to be borne by the Irish Department, and will fall upon the English taxpayer.
        Sir F. BANBURY: Before the Vote is carried, may I call the attention of the Committee to what seems to me to be a very serious position? I do not know about an equivalent grant for Scotland or England, but the extraordinary position is this, that the? money put into the pockets of the ratepayers does not reduce the cost!
        Mr. LYNN: That is not our fault.
        Sir W. WHITLA: That is the English Parliament.
        The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of legislation which we cannot discuss.
        Sir F. BANBURY: I was not discussing it. I was my hon. Friends below me. All I was going to say was that the grievances of Ireland seem to me to be disappearing, because so far as I can make out the whole sum spent on Irish education comes
        1866
        out of our pockets. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] In the event of Ireland becoming a little more civilised it would not be a bad place to live in.
        Question put, and agreed to.

      Class 5.

        COLONIAL SERVICES.
        Motion made, and Question made:
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, 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 sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants in Aid."
        The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): It may perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee that I should explain briefly why we are asking for this Supplementary Vote, even though it is only a token Vote. As the Committee will see, there is an estimated additional expenditure in connection with Somali-land of £60,000. The greater part of this, that is, say, about £34,000, is due to the extra cost of the recent Somaliland campaign, mainly in connection with the purchase of certain additional stores and equipment required by the Air Force for that campaign.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I remember the Debate and the lucid statement which the hon. and gallant Member made last Session on this question. Have we not already voted the cost of the expedition against the Mullah?
        Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I was just explaining that point. The Committee may remember that the operations of the Air Force, which contributed so largely to the astonishing success of that brief and short expedition, were estimated for in this form, namely, that a small detachment of the Air Force was borrowed from Egypt, and the Air Ministry calculated for an expenditure of £50,000 over and above the normal cost of keeping that detachment in Egypt. This amount was for the expenses in Somaliland. Certain extra stores had, however, to be brought from this country, and the amount comes to something over £34,000. Those were essential purchases in connection with what was by far the most economical campaign we ever had, because the total cost amounted only to £100,000, and for that sum we disposed of an enemy who has cost this

        1867
        country many millions, as well as a very considerable number of gallant lives. I believe and I trust that we have disposed of our enemy finally, and I think this expenditure will enable the whole of that country to be put under British administration. I hope in a few years time we shall have a revenue from that country which will meet the cost of administration.
        The remainder of the £60,000 is almost entirely made up of expenses in connection with the Exchange. As hon. Members are no doubt aware, Somaliland is on the rupee basis, and both the expenditure and the deficit is reckoned in Indian rupees. If the Indian Exchange goes up the same grant-in-aid does not go so far. Unfortunately, just after the original Estimate, the India Office came to a certain decision in connection with the rupee which sent it up from 2s. 2d. to something like 2s. lid. for a considerable period, and all the heaviest expenditure in connection with the Somaliland campaign, and the general expenditure of administration, including the purchase of camels and other expenses, had to be made during the early months of the year, when the rupee was standing anywhere between 2s. 4d. and 2s. 11d. If the rupee had stood in January, February, March, and April at the figure at which it stands at present, I do not suppose I should have had to ask for any Supplementary Estimate at all. For reasons which certainly could not be foreseen by the Somaliland Administration or the Colonial Office, the rupee rose very sharply in the early months of the year, and that is practically responsible for the whole of the rest of this £60,000. We have come to the House for a token Vote of £10 only because it has been found possible to make a saving on the next sub-head grant in aid of Uganda of approximately the amount we require.
        10.0 P.M.
        Sir D. MACLEAN: Those hon. Members who were present just now when we discussed the Bill dealing with the export of gold and silver will now see how very important that measure is, because we immediately come to an Estimate which shows what a very remarkable reflex there is on the Treasury in connection with the movements of silver. I think hon. Members will do well to bear in
        1868
        mind that these small Bills, such as the one we have just passed, although they are very dry and technical, have a very practical bearing upon other problems which come before the House. With regard to the campaign in Somaliland, we congratulate the Colonial Office upon the brevity, the economy, and the success of that campaign. I only wish to say that I regret the same result has not distinguished the operations in Mesopotamia, because if they had adopted something like the same methods of dealing with that difficulty by the Air Force, I think we should have saved scores of pounds and possibly hundreds of lives. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote will explain more in detail than he has done the saving in connection with Uganda amounting to £59,990. I understand that the reason for bringing this token Vote before the Committee is to get the authority of the House for this additional expenditure, although on the total sum issued from the Treasury nothing more is really required. I understand that no extra sum is required, but that a fresh authorisation is required to devote this saving to another purpose. Really, this £34,000 is what we are dealing with, and £26,000 has practically gone in the difference in the exchange. The real sum we are dealing with is £34,000 which is left over from the original Estimate.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to ask a question about the difference in the exchange value of the rupee. I understand it has gone against us in Somaliland, but it has apparently gone in our favour in Mesopotamia. We understand that the War Office has been enabled to postpone for some time the Supplementary Estimate for Mesopotamia, because the rupee has fallen or risen in value, and that is in our favour. How is it that fluctuations in the exchange value of, I presume, the same Indian rupee benefit the War Office in regard to Mesopotamia and, I suppose, the Secretary of State for India, but, apparently, hit the Colonial Office in Somaliland. It is rather puzzling, and if the right hon. Gentleman could explain that I think we would all be very much the wiser. With regard to the saving of £60,000 in Uganda, the words used by the Under-Secretary were that they were a postponement of certain expenditure, and

        1869
        I was rather disappointed, because I thought there had been a saving, and I was prepared to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the one Government Department that apparently had been able to make a saving. I hope the saving has not been made in some necessary service, because life out there is particularly hard for our officials, and I hope the saving has not been made by cheese-scraping in any of the amenities that these officials enjoy. I would rather like to know what these postponements are and whether they could not have been postponed indefinitely, because we are in such a state that even £60,000 is something.
        Before we vote this money I should like to ask, have we really settled what part of Somaliland we are going to hold? It is being run at a loss to-day. The revenue and the expenditure do not balance, and I do not think it will ever be run at a profit. It is a desert country, and I doubt whether it will ever be worth the expenditure of a European administration, especially as regards the interior. It may be necessary to hold the coast line for stategic purposes—I am not discussing that—but is there anything in the rumours that there is going to be a readjustment of frontiers between Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland? The Committee ought to know that, because it will affect future expenditure. Our Italian friends have been pressing for readjustments in their favour, on the ground that the mandatory areas made over to Italy have not been so favourable as those made over to this country and France. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may be able to tell the House whether anything is settled, and, above all, what is our policy? Are we going to push on any further? We are accused by our enemies on the Continent of trying to push right in there, and to absorb Abyssinia, although I think my right hon. Friend denied it on the Estimates last year. Although we are only asked to vote altogether a sum of £210,000 for Somaliland—and I hope we have got rid of finally the mad Mullah, who was the principal cause of the expenditure then— I do not think we will ever do any good in the interior of the country. The number of packets of troops that we have scattered about in different parts of the world is a danger to the Empire. We have only a certain limit of recruitment in this country, and we ought to cut our
        1870
        commitments wherever we can, and the interior of Somaliland is one of the places where we can cut our commitments without loss of prestige and without any loss of valuable markets.
        Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Having only just entered the Committee, I have not heard the speech of the hon. and gallant Member below me (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), but I gather that he has advocated that the hinterland of Somaliland could be evacuated. If that be so, I venture to support the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the appeal he has addressed to the Government. I carry my mind back to 1911, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely) was Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and, if my memory serves me correctly, he recommended that Somaliland should be evacuated. A great deal of water has flown under the bridges since those days, and, if anything, the reasons why the hinterland of Somaliland should be evacuated are stronger and more insistent than at that time. It may be true to say that there are naval advantages in retaining a portion of the coast line, but what is the strategic advantage or any other advantage to this country in remaining in possession of Somaliland to the extent that we do at the present day 1, for one, fail to understand. In 1911 a sum of £210,000 was not a sum that occasioned much comment or aroused much opposition, but in these days it is a very considerable sum, and very good arguments ought to be brought forward by the Government if they are to substantiate the expenditure of such a sum in the retention of the hinterland of Somaliland. I venture to suggest to the Government that they should withdraw all troops from Somaliland, retaining only Berbera, and, if necessary, the coast line. If they were to carry out some such policy as this it would very largely reduce this Estimate of £210,000 which is now necessary as a grant-in-aid of local revenues. Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House if there is any reason from the point of view of commerce or trade why we should remain in Somali land, or from the strategic point of view? If he can do so, that will alter the situation. If he cannot do so, then I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £10, in order to elicit from him whether or not

        1871
        there is any good reason why we should retain the hinterland of Somaliland at the present time.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): That would be a negative.
        Dr. MURRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman finally assure the House that the Mullah is disposed of? The Mullah seems to have not a human life but the nine lives of a cat. I have read of his death every year for I do not know how many years past, and I should like to be absolutely assured that he is finally disposed of in some way or another. I do not mind how, whether he has been blown up or killed in some other way, or captured, or put into prison. I should also like to have an assurance that in this part of the world the policy of forced labour is not to be adopted. It seems to be a pity that in some parts of the world where we have influence or exercise a mandate it is apparently a growing practice to have forced labour or slavery in some other form. I want an assurance that in Somaliland, at any rate, these practices will not obtain.
        Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I would like a very full explanation of these anticipated savings which are spoken of in connection with Uganda. We ought to be told how they have been brought about. Is it due to a reduction in the number of officials, or is it because your taxation has proved more remunerative than was expected? We should have this information so that we may act upon it in other Departments. Then I would like to be told if these anticipated savings are in any way due to a change in silver currency. We have been told it is postponed expenditure. I do not see how that can be an anticipated saving. If it is postponed expenditure, why was it ever entertained? If it can now be put on one side it surely need not have been proposed in the first instance, and why the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote—working his Department as efficiently as we know he does—should have proposed it I cannot understand. Why should we expend the money at all? Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain that in due course. As regards Somaliland, I am far from wishing to hold a vast tract of more or less barren land, which has been known to the public
        1872
        chiefly through the exploits of the Mad Mullah, but, before we make up our minds either to hold or to abandon it, we should be told clearly and definitely, first of all, what its value may be from the point of view of trade purposes, and whether there is any possibility—I do not think there is—of opening up through the country access for trading purposes to any other part of Africa; and, secondly, whether it is necessary to hold any part of it, either temporarily or otherwise, for the purposes of protecting prospective trade routes in the future. I doubt that, but the Committee should be given the position clearly, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman has much fuller information on the subject than we have. Can he also tell us the exact number of troops, the details of the garrisons, and the probable expenditure upon them in the future? We are told, for example, that certain works have to be done in other parts of the world; is there any proposal, either on the coast or inland, involving capital expenditure here? We have a right to know in full detail what is going to be the Government policy as regards Somaliland in the immediate future.
        Major-General SEELY: As I have had a good deal to do with Somaliland, I may be permitted to address a few words to the Committee on this matter. We now have a Supplementary Estimate for Somaliland, but we have a saving elsewhere. I put it to the Committee that, if it had not been for the wise disposition of His Majesty's Forces in Somaliland, we should, instead of this small sum, have had several hundred thousand pounds to deal with. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) that it is undesirable to attempt to hold Somaliland with small garrisons here and there, and that that will only involve us in continuous and increasing expenditure without any corresponding advantage to this country. In Somaliland, however, we had the first proof of the power of the Air Service, when it is used, as it should be, as an independent arm. My right hon. Friend beside me (Sir D. Maclean) whispers "Mesopotamia," and on another occasion I shall hope to develop that theme; but here we have a most striking example. After much argument—and my hon. and gallant Friend opposite deserves credit for this—it was given to the Air Service, but, in the press of other matters, in-

        1873
        sufficient notice was taken of it. It is not untrue to say, however, that this country was saved at least £1,000,000 in Somaliland alone by the use of the Air Service, directed by the Air Service. Had we adopted this method elsewhere, we might have saved, not £1,000,000, but many millions. Here, at last, we have done it. We are grateful to my hon. Friend (Lieut. -Colonel Amery) for having secured the adoption of what I call the modern policy in Somaliland of holding on to the coast, where our Navy can always secure us from being involved in wild adventures which we find it difficult to carry through. From that secure base we can work with the Air Service on a far more humane method, in the long run, by saying to those with whom we are dealing, "If you will agree to our reasonable proposition, if you will maintain the pax Britannica, all will be well. If not, we can continue, not only to embarrass you, but even to terrify you, and to shoot you down from the air." If we adopt that wise policy elsewhere we shall save ourselves millions of pounds and thousands of lives. Somaliland was evacuated on my advice, as I was representing the Government at the time, and I was denounced in the House of Lords by Lord Curzon for having followed that policy. "We all know now that the policy of His Majesty's Government at that date was sound, and that it was a ridiculous thing to attempt to hold on to Shech and other villages beyond. I trust that my hon. Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Amery) will not be led by old-fashioned militarists— and there is always that danger unless he protests—into again following on the Mesopotamian plan of advancing little packets of infantry into that country in the hope that by so doing you may establish a claim here and a claim there, and gradually extend your influence. That is not the way to do things nowadays. We congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the great success- of an entirely new, more humane, and wiser policy, using modern methods, which are more economical and more effective, and we hope that he will tell his colleagues that this Committee applauds his action and hopes that others will follow suit.
        Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad to hear that the Government have done something well and have saved some money. It is the first occasion for a considerable
        1874
        time that I have ever heard those two things attributed to this Government. Am I right in thinking that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman (Major-General Seely) has been carried out by himself, or that my hon. Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Amery) has himself carried out this policy which has been so successful?
        Major-General SEELY: My hon. Friend.
        Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad to hear that it was carried out by my hon. Friend, I presume, on the advice of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) did not know whether the rupee had gone up or down. It has done both. Silver rose from somewhere about 24d. to the ounce to nearly 80d., and it has now gone down to somewhere about 60d. per ounce.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What I wanted to know, and perhaps the right hon. Baronet can inform me, is this: Why is it that on the fluctuation of the rupee the Colonial Office loses money and the War Office gains money?
        Sir F. BANBURY: I suppose it was because the exchange operations took place at two different times. That is the only solution which I can think of. I rose to put two questions to my hon. Friend, and I am surprised that they have not been asked before. In the footnote there is this statement:
        "The expenditure out of this Grant-in-Aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General,"
        Why not?
        "but he will be furnished by the Colonial Office with the audited accounts and with any report of the Director of Colonial Audit thereon."
        Why should not the Grant-in-Aid be accounted for in detail by the Comptroller and Auditor-General? He is an officer appointed by this House. The only people to whom he is responsible is the Committee of Public Accounts. The result of these sums being accounted for by him has always been satisfactory. He has to appear before the Committee. They issue a report which I hope is read by all Members, and they show where the official has mismanaged, if he has done so, the money granted by Parliament. Personally, I attach, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman for Paisley (Mr.

        1875
        Asquith) would agree with me in this, very great importance to the preservation of this check on the public expenditure We have not very many checks, but the check by the Comptroller and Auditor-General is the best one which we have got.
        The foot note goes on to say:
        "no surrender will be made at the close of the year of such sum as may be issued out of the Grant-in-Aid."
        That is directly contrary to all precedents in connection with the financial control of this House. It has always been held that money not spent at the end of the financial year must be returned to the Treasury. Personally, I think that that is a very sound doctrine. In times past I think everybody, from Mr. Gladstone down, held that though there might be arguments against the policy of surrender yet on the whole the greater weight of argument was in favour of it. Even though the Colonial Office has saved some money, that is no reason why it should be exempt from the law which applies to all Government offices. I may be told that there have been occasions of this sort in the case of the Colonial Office in days gone by. I am not sure whether that is right, but, if so, I would say in reply that we are in a very difficult position at present. We are passing through a financial crisis and, although in times gone by we may have granted these facilities to the Colonial Office, we ought not to do so any longer. All the safeguards imposed by our predecessors on the spending of money should be jealously maintained. I see that it is proposed to meet this £60,000 by a saving of £59,900 which is anticipated under sub-head E, "Uganda." I expect that I am right in saying that it is admissible to transfer from one sub-head of the Vote to another sub-head with the consent of the Treasury, but not from Vote to Vote. I presume that the consent of the Treasury has been given.
        Lieut.-Colonel AMERY indicated assent.
        Sir F. BANBURY: It does not say so, and it would have been more in order if it did. The words are "a saving is anticipated." That means that hon. and gallant Gentleman lives in hopes of this saving taking place. What ground is there for the anticipation?
        Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I can hardly complain of the reception which this Supplementary Estimate has had. I am certainly very grateful to my right hon. Friend (Major-General Seely) for what he has said about the policy of dealing with the long-standing military difficulty in Somaliland on the line of independent air operations. They certainly were extremely successful. At the same time, personally, I should hesitate a little before drawing too far-reaching conclusions from that fact. The conditions under which the Air Force could strike in such a manner as to see the enemy and be able to disperse him effectively, were extremely favourable, and I should not like the Committee to think that in other circumstances, such as in Mesopotamia, the conditions were such that what was done in Somaliland could be as well done here. However, that is not my province. The operations were undoubtedly a very complete success. In answer to the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Murray), I would say that the Mullah escaped, and only just escaped with three followers, while the rest of his family and followers were taken prisoners. At this moment the Mullah is well in the interior of Abyssinia without any following, and is not in any position to hurt us. The whole of Somaliland is now in a peaceful and undisturbed condition.
        I am not proposing to traverse in any way the wisdom of the decision of my right hon. and gallant Friend (Major-General Seely) and the Government of the day with regard to the withdrawal to the coast in Somaliland. They were dealing with an active and troublesome enemy, and an attempt to hold a large and disturbed country would have required the splitting up of a very considerable force, with no real security anywhere, and with very considerable expense. The condition of affairs now is very different. The whole force employed in the so-called operations was in any case a very small one. We increased the local mounted constabulary from 450 to something like 600 men, and we borrowed a battalion of the King's African Rifles from East Africa. That battalion has gone back. The constabulary have been reduced, I believe, to the original figure; at any rate, there will be a reduction on the pre-operations military expenditure of something like £27,000 a year. I hope it may be possible to carry that further.

        1877
        On the other hand, the revenue, even of the portion of Somaliland that we held, and held back to the Abyssinian frontier, before these operations, was growing very satisfactorily, and Sir Geoffrey Archer, to whom credit is mainly due for all that has been done in Somaliland, is confident, now that peace is restored, that without any attempt to introduce an elaborate administration, or to set up a number of officials all over the interior of the country, there will be a steady increase of revenue and the resumption of, trade. It is not altogether fair to Somaliland or to ourselves to treat that country as a desert and uninhabited. There is a great deal of very good stock country. Some of the coast region is suited even to cotton-growing. I do not see any reason why we should despair of the future economic value of Somaliland and of its capacity to pay for its own administration, any more than in the case of many another part of the Empire which at the present moment is very successful and more than paying its way, and which not so long ago was described as utterly valueless. I remember when the late Mr. Henry Labouchere described the whole of the interior of West Africa as a hopeless and unprofit able wilderness which would never cover the expenses of the carrying on of the administration. We have never yet had anything in the nature of even the most cursory geological survey of Somaliland, but there have been extremely favourable indications of oil, and investigation is now being carried on. There may be other minerals, and it is worth while spending a little to find out what assets you have really got in order to develop a reasonable administration there without cost to this House. Personally, I have every confidence, now that peace is restored, that in a reasonable number of years even Somaliland, which has long been a burden to the British taxpayer, will pay the cost of its own administration. The hon. Member for the Western Isles asked a question about forced labour. I demur strongly to the suggestion that we are introducing anything in the nature of slavery anywhere, and I can assure the hon. Member that there is no question of forced labour in any form or in any shape in Somaliland. The hon and gallant Mem-
        1878
        ber for Hull (Lieut-Commander Ken-worthy) put a conundrum as to why the rupee has been the occasion for extra expenditure to the Colonial Office and a source of economy and saving to the War Office. I can only hazard the conjecture that it is due to the variation of the rupee, and that in the case of the War Office that the rupee stood high when the particular estimate was made, and there was a saving from the subsequent fall. As the hon. and gallant Member knows, during the last four or five months the rupee, which had previously soared to 2s. lid., has steadily fallen, and at this moment stands in the neighbourhood, I think, of Is. 5½d. As to the question about the footnotes raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), I confess frankly this was not an innovation introduced at my instance or at the instance of the Colonial Office in my time. I always understood that these grants-in-aid were given in that form. As to the footnote about a saving being anticipated, it is possible that the language is not as clear as might be wished. The anticipation refers to the amount; there is no doubt about there being a saving. We put down the sum of £59,990, and we preserved the right of the House over any change from this sub-head to any other. As regards the actual nature of the saving, the position is this: There are certain public and other works, which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull rightly described as amenities, in connection with educational institutions and other things, for which Uganda is getting a loan from the Treasury, though that loan is actually appearing in the form of a grant-in-aid, but in connection with a change in the annual accounts of the Uganda Protectorate this expenditure has been postponed from the beginning of the year till after 31st March, and the postponement of this borrowing will involve on this year's Estimates a saving sufficient, and I think a little more than sufficient, to cover the £60,000 in question.
        Sir D. MACLEAN: Then there has not been a saving, but only a postponed payment?
        Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: It is a saving on this year's Estimates, but something corresponding will appear in next year's Estimates.
        Sir D. MACLEAN: I think it would have been very much better to have

        1879
        allowed the Uganda postponed payment to fall back into the General Fund and to have taken the thing on a proper business basis as an extra payment out of the Treasury. The method followed in this case is mixing up two things, and I do not take nearly so favourable a view of the transaction, from a business point of view, as I did before. I think it is wrong to mix up the accounts of Somali-land and Uganda in this way.
        Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I quite see my right hon. Friend's point, but if he will look at the smaller print on the Paper he will see that the figure that matters to the Committee is the £2,815,248, and that represents the position quite exactly. I venture to think that, whichever way it is put, the position finally has been made perfectly clear to the Committee.
        Major-General SEELY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered my question. I expressed the hope, which I think is shared by the Committee generally, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has scored so great a success in these operations, will not fall into the error of now going back to the old-fashioned way of dotting Somaliland with small infantry garrisons. Will he tell us if we are going to hold this place in what I believe to be the common-sense way, by concentrating whatever forces we have near the coast—you will have your political officers in the interior—and by not attempting to garrison with small bodies of infantry six or eight different districts?
        Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not really answer the main point put to him. He rode off by suggesting that it was necessary to spend £210,000 a year on Somaliland in order to carry out a geological survey.
        Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No!
        Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: That certainly was the impression left on the Committee. The question I put to him was: Could the British Government withdraw from Berbera and the hinterland? If not, will he indicate whether there is any reason, from the point of view of trade, commerce or strategy, why we should continue in the hinterland of Somaliland and spend this vast amount of money? We are constantly
        1880
        asked by the Government to indicate ways in which money can be saved. When we come down here and show how money can be saved, the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives no answer at all.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWO RTHY: We get very few opportunities of asking what the Government policy is. One day we are told we cannot debate matters because they are under discussion and the next day we are told we cannot discuss them because they have been settled. I would respectfully ask for an answer on this question of Somaliland. What is being done there? The Italian papers were full of it a little time ago, and, after all, it is a part of the world which is at present under British protection.
        Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I apologise for not having answered the point, but there is no question of an alteration of the boundaries of Somaliland. As regards the main question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I must also apologise for not making myself sufficiently clear, though I confess that I thought I had done so. I tried to say that I thought it would be an unwise policy in dealing with a disturbed country full of hostile forces, such as Somaliland was at the period referred to, to scatter infantry posts about. There is no question of scattering infantry forces about anywhere in the interior, except the smallest detachment at Berbera itself. There is a small force of mounted Constabulary which is now able to preserve peace all over Somaliland and to enable the trade of the country, which was already very satisfactorily developing before the recent operations, to develop further. My belief is that that trade will very soon develop to a point at which the normal expenditure and income of Somaliland will begin to approximate, and that eventually the income will cover the expenditure. There is no question of our spending £210,000 a year. That sum covers the actual cost of the whole of these most successful operations. In a normal year the deficit will be not only a much smaller one, but I hope a very rapidly decreasing one. I am confident that much of the resources of Somaliland which have been decried in the past will, with the general peace and the development of trade, including fisheries, minerals, and possibly even cotton plantations in certain of the better watered regions, be so developed that

        1881
        that part of the Empire will lapse into the position of so many other parts and will be very rarely heard of in this House, and that the ordinary Budget will be sufficient to carry on such administration as may be adequate for maintaining law and order and ensuring the gradual progress and well-being of that country.
        Major-General SEELY: There are no sedentary garrisons in the interior?
        Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No sedentary garrisons.
        Question put, and agreed to.

      (CLASS 6.)

        MISSION OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF CONNAUGHT TO INDIA.
        Motion made, and Question proposed.
        "That a sum, not exceeding £8,000, 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, as a Grant in Aid of the Mission of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught to India."
        Sir D. MACLEAN: I am certain the Committee very much appreciates the action of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught in undertaking this mission to India. It is entirely typical of his unfailing devotion to public duty. We much regret that his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is unable, owing to the strenuous nature of his very valuable and prolonged services in other parts of the Empire, to fulfil his contemplated mission to India; but we are quite confident that in so far as his place can be taken, it is amply and most efficiently taken by the Duke of Connaught. There is a footnote to the Vote which says that certain expenses in connection with the Vote will be defrayed from the Navy Vote. What is the total expense? If that can be communicated, I shall be glad.
        Mr. BALDWIN: I may tell my right hon. Friend and the Committee that it does not mean that any further money will have to be asked of the Admiralty, but I am afraid that, until the journey is completed, it will be impossible to say what the expenses are. The only expenses that I can tell my right hon. Friend for certain are whatever the extra cost may be of the
        1882
        steamer which takes His Royal Highness to India over and above what she would have consumed had she been employed all the time. I understand that the Suez Canal dues will amount to £3,000, and there are being incurred certain expenses in providing suitable accommodation for the party, which numbers 13. That expenditure will probably be a matter of about £4,000. That is the whole of the information at present in my possession, but at a later date, I am sure, the total information will be obtainable from the Admiralty, when they know what the expenses of the journey are.
        Question put, and agreed to.

      (CLASS 7.)

        NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (IRELAND).
        Motion made, and Question proposed:
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £68,540, 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 the Insurance Commission (Ireland), and for sundry contributions and grants in respect of the cost of benefits and expenses of administration under the National Insurance (Health) Acts, 1911 to 1920 (including certain Grants in Aid)."
        Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There is one item likely to be rather controversial, and I want to ask the Government—
        It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
        Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
        Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
        The, remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
        Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall), pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  CASUALTIES, NEAR EAST AND IRELAND.
  CASUALTIES, NEAR EAST AND IRELAND.
  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR PENSIONERS.
  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR PENSIONERS.
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
ROYAL NAVY.
  CAPITAL SHIPS.
  CAPITAL SHIPS.
  MINESWEEPERS' TRAWLING SOCIETY.
  MINESWEEPERS' TRAWLING SOCIETY.
BRITISH ARMY.
  ROYAL ARMY VETERINARY CORPS (HALF-PAY).
  ROYAL ARMY VETERINARY CORPS (HALF-PAY).
  SCOTS GUARDS HEADQUARTERS, WIMBLEDON.
  SCOTS GUARDS HEADQUARTERS, WIMBLEDON.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  POST OFFICE DIRECTORIES.
  POST OFFICE DIRECTORIES.
  LAND SETTLEMENT.
  LAND SETTLEMENT.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY HOTELS.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY HOTELS.
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  SPARKLING WINES (DUTY).
  SPARKLING WINES (DUTY).
  EUROPEAN DISTRESS (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
  EUROPEAN DISTRESS (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
  BUDGET STATEMENT, 1921 (UNEMPLOYMENT).
  BUDGET STATEMENT, 1921 (UNEMPLOYMENT).
  FLOATING DEBT.
  FLOATING DEBT.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  FIVE PER CENT. WAR LOAN (DEPRECIATION FUND).
  FIVE PER CENT. WAR LOAN (DEPRECIATION FUND).
  CIVIL VOTES (MILITARY OPERATIONS, NEAR EAST AND IRELAND).
  CIVIL VOTES (MILITARY OPERATIONS, NEAR EAST AND IRELAND).
  NAVY ESTIMATES.
  NAVY ESTIMATES.
  TAXICABS (IMPORT DUTY).
  TAXICABS (IMPORT DUTY).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  OIL BORINGS, DERBYSHIRE.
  OIL BORINGS, DERBYSHIRE.
  PHOTOGRAPH PAPER INDUSTRY.
  PHOTOGRAPH PAPER INDUSTRY.
  DE BEERS CONSOLIDATED MINES COMPANY.
  DE BEERS CONSOLIDATED MINES COMPANY.
  UNITED DAIRIES COMPANY.
  UNITED DAIRIES COMPANY.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  MANUFACTURED ARTICLES (IMPORTS).
  MANUFACTURED ARTICLES (IMPORTS).
  FABRIC GLOVE INDUSTRY (GERMAN COMPETITION).
  FABRIC GLOVE INDUSTRY (GERMAN COMPETITION).
  EXPORTS CREDIT SCHEME.
  EXPORTS CREDIT SCHEME.
DYESTUFFS (IMPORT RESTRICTION) BILL
  PRINCIPAL MANUFACTURERS.
  PRINCIPAL MANUFACTURERS.
  BASIS OF AGREEMENT.
  BASIS OF AGREEMENT.
  BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.
  BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.
  PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS.
  PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS.
  GOVERNMENT GRANTS AND LOANS.
  GOVERNMENT GRANTS AND LOANS.
IRELAND.
  CURFEW RESTRICTIONS.
  CURFEW RESTRICTIONS.
  MILITARY AND POLICE CASUALTIES.
  MILITARY AND POLICE CASUALTIES.
  INCENDIARY FIRES, CORK.
  INCENDIARY FIRES, CORK.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (FIREARMS).
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (FIREARMS).
  POLICE SEARCH, DUBLIN (MRS. GREEN)
  POLICE SEARCH, DUBLIN (MRS. GREEN)
  ARRESTS, TUBBER, GALWAY.
  ARRESTS, TUBBER, GALWAY.
  CROKE PARK, DUBLIN.
  CROKE PARK, DUBLIN.
GOVERNMENT STAFFS AND ACCOMMODATION.
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND FORESTRY COMMISSION, BELGRAVE SQUARE.
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND FORESTRY COMMISSION, BELGRAVE SQUARE.
  BARRICADES, DOWNING STREET.
  BARRICADES, DOWNING STREET.
HOUSING.
  ECONOMIC RENTS, 1927.
  ECONOMIC RENTS, 1927.
  OFFICE OF WORKS SCHEMES.
  OFFICE OF WORKS SCHEMES.
  MILE END POOR LAW OFFICERS (WAGES).
  MILE END POOR LAW OFFICERS (WAGES).
  POOR LAW REFORM.
  POOR LAW REFORM.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  CANADIAN BACON.
  CANADIAN BACON.
  TINNED FRUITS AND RED SALMON (RE-EXPORTATION).
  TINNED FRUITS AND RED SALMON (RE-EXPORTATION).
  POULTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  POULTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  LIVESTOCK.
  LIVESTOCK.
  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (WAGES, GRIMSBY).
  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (WAGES, GRIMSBY).
EDUCATION.
  "HYGIENE OF FOOD AND DRINK" (SYLLABUS).
  "HYGIENE OF FOOD AND DRINK" (SYLLABUS).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, DALMUIR.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, DALMUIR.
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY WORKSHOPS (SUPERVISORS).
  RAILWAY WORKSHOPS (SUPERVISORS).
  RAILWAY COMPANIES' ACCOUNTS.
  RAILWAY COMPANIES' ACCOUNTS.
  RAILWAY WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS.
  RAILWAY WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES (MESSRS. WEINER, LIMITED).
  TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES (MESSRS. WEINER, LIMITED).
  TELEPHONE CHARGES.
  TELEPHONE CHARGES.
  TELEPHONISTS AND CALL OFFICE ATTENDANTS (ARREARS OF PAY).
  TELEPHONISTS AND CALL OFFICE ATTENDANTS (ARREARS OF PAY).
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT (BANK EMPLOYES).
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT (BANK EMPLOYES).
  MINING INDUSTRY (WAGES).
  MINING INDUSTRY (WAGES).
  COAL PRICES (FOREIGN BUNKERS AND EXPORTS).
  COAL PRICES (FOREIGN BUNKERS AND EXPORTS).
  SENTENCE FOR THEFT, HULL.
  SENTENCE FOR THEFT, HULL.
  NAURU ISLAND.
  NAURU ISLAND.
  LAND VALUATION.
  LAND VALUATION.
  GOVERNMENT WOOL SALES.
  GOVERNMENT WOOL SALES.
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT SOCKS (DISPOSAL).
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT SOCKS (DISPOSAL).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack

THE POSITION OF SCOTLAND.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I have given notice of a private Question to the noble Earl the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with reference to the position of Scotland under the Agriculture Bill. It is an English Bill but is applied to Scotland by one clause and some passages in some of the Schedules. The references are extremely complicated, and no explanation has yet been given as to what the effect of the Bill will be upon Scottish land. I understand it is proposed to take the Division on the Second Reading of the Bill on Wednesday afternoon before dinner. I know that the time of the House is much engaged, but it does seem to me, if so little time is to be given to this complicated measure, that we ought to sit earlier on Wednesday or have an assurance that someone representing Scotland will give us an explanation as to how the Bill will apply to Scotland. I am wholly unable to understand it, and I do not believe that the references in the Bill are correct.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, as the noble Lord has indicated, it is hoped that the Division, if any, on the Agriculture Bill will take place about half-past seven on Wednesday. I am not sure whether it will be possible to meet earlier on that afternoon. I shall have to ascertain whether the judicial business of the House will permit it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Do the Law Lords sit on Wednesday?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): It SO happens that their Lordships do sit judicially on Wednesday, but I can easily arrange that they should not sit after the luncheon hour.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If that arrangement can be made so that your Lordships can sit earlier, I will discuss this
1024
afternoon at what time it would be convenient to your Lordships generally to meet. As regards the application of the Agriculture Bill to Scotland I quite appreciate what the noble Lord has said, and of course an explanation must be given of the clause which he finds obscure.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: May I ask the Lord Chairman whether it would not be for the general convenience if we could work from the old Bill? The Bill has been reprinted, and the Amendments on the Paper are all according to the pagination of the old Bill.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Bill has been reprinted only so far as we have gone through it in Committee, but obviously it would be more convenient to deal with the Bill as we started with it.
Clause 24:
Discussion resumed on the Amendment (the first of a series) moved by Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH —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."
VISCOUNT FINLAY: I desire to offer to the Committee a few observations on the subject of the Amendment of my noble friend. The object that my noble friend has in view is to get rid of the double taxation which Clause 24 in the Bill would impose on all persons resident and domiciled in Ireland. Your Lordships are aware that under the provisions of the Bill Income Tax and Super-tax are reserved to the Imperial Parliament. If the

1025
Bill passes into law in its present form these taxes would be collected by the officers of the Imperial Revenue, and Income Tax and Super-Tax would be in Ireland as they are in England. That is the effect of Clause 20 of the Bill. But Clause 24 is one which, as it stands, gives power to the Irish Parliaments to impose, in addition to the Imperial Income Tax and Super-Tax, a local Irish Income Tax and Surtax, as it is called, which is a Super-Tax in everything except the name, on all persons who are resident and domiciled in Ireland. I will use for brevity the expression "Income Tax" as including Super-lax. One Income Tax, as it stands at present, is quite enough, and to have a second Income Tax would be a burden which might seriously affect not only the individuals immediately concerned, but also the prosperity of Ireland itself.
My noble friend proposes to amend the clause in a manner upon which I shall afterwards say a few words. I have on the Paper an Amendment to omit Clause 24 altogether. It has been suggested that any Amendment such as I have put down would be the subject of privilege as between your Lordships' House and the Home of Commons. Whether privilege exists is immaterial at this stage. Supposing privilege to exist the practice has been that the matter should be discussed in your Lordships' House, and if your Lordships thought fit to make an Amendment, a question of privilege might be raised by the Commons, or the Commons might, as in certain cases they do, waive their claim of privilege. Strictly speaking, therefore, it is not necessary at this stage to consider the question of whether the case of privilege would apply to such an Amendment as I have on the Paper; but as the suggestion has been made I think it might be convenient if, in a very few sentences, I state to your Lordships the grounds on which I have arrived at the conclusion that privilege would not apply to a proposal to leave out this power in Clause 24. Your Lordships will observe that it is a proposal to confer upon a Parliament to be set up in Ireland the power of imposing an additional tax. That; is a question of what should be the Constitutional. Powers of the Irish Parliaments which this Bill is to set up in Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The subject of privilege has always been the imposition of taxes within the limits
1026
of our Constitution as it exists. After a long struggle it may be taken, I think, as settled Constitutional law that the privilege of the Commons applies to any proposal to impose a tax. It applies not only to the imposition of a tax it applies to its incidence and to everything connected with the collection of the tax, or the liability to it. It would apply also to cases where the Imperial Parliament, our Parliament, delegated to a local authority the privilege of rating. That would be a burden on the subject imposed within the limits of the Constitution under the authority of Parliament. Taxing Acts in the Imperial Parliament, of course, are passed through the Legislature under the rules of our Constitution as to privilege, but we are now dealing with something very different. This is a proposal to alter the Constitution by transferring from the Imperial Parliament to the Parliaments to be erected in Ireland the right to impose certain taxes. As you have a proposal of that kind you stand on different ground altogether from that which you occupy when you are dealing with proposals to impose burdens within the limits of our Constitution as it exists.
When you have a proposal to alter your Constitution by erecting another Parliament and to transfer to that other Parliament a power of taxation which at present is vested in the Imperial Parliament, you are on a different plane altogether. You are not dealing merely with the imposition of a tax, as to which the privilege of the Commons applies. You are dealing with a proposal to alter the Constitution, and whether the Constitution ought to be altered in that respect is a matter with which, I submit, your Lordships' House is entitled to deal as freely as it can do with any subject which forms the matter of legislation brought before this House. The power to impose the proposed tax is not within the limits of the Constitution, as we know it, with reference to which privilege has grown up. The proposal is this —that the Imperial Parliament is asked to alter the Constitution by parting with its prerogative of taxation in certain respects and transferring it to the Parliament to be created. It would, my Lords, be very startling if you were debarred from dealing by Amendment or otherwise with such a proposal.
To all Taxation Acts of the Imperial Parliament the Commons privilege applies

1027
While the House of Lords might reject a Bill for taxation they could not amend it, but a change of the Constitution is another matter altogether. This is really a proposal to transfer the functions of our House of Commons to a new Parliament. It is not a question of imposing a tax or a rate within the limits of our Constitution. It is a question of changing the supreme taxing authority. It never could be contended that the proposals with which we are dealing constitute a Money Bill within the terms of the Parliament Act, with which we have become lately so familiar. The question is what is the extent to which the common law privilege might be applicable to the case, and while the matter is not very relevant at this stage, I hope your Lordships will think that I have done right in giving my grounds for the conclusion to which, after some consideration, I have arrived, that the common law privilege has no application.
Now on the merits, I put it to your Lordships that Clause 24 is open to the very gravest objection. Let me read to your Lordships the material words of Clause 24. Clause 20, as I have said, reserves the Income Tax as it exists for the Imperial Parliament. Then Clause 24 reads —
"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 case of the imposition of a surtax, whether or not the individuals are liable to income tax or super-tax."
The rest of the clause deals, in other subsections, with what is matter of machinery. Your Lordships will observe that this liability to a second Income Tax and Super-Tax is imposed upon all persons who are resident and domiciled in Ireland.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It may be imposed.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: I said liability. Whether the tax will be imposed will be a matter for the Irish Parliament. The question we are concerned with is whether the power of imposing that second burden should be conferred upon the Irish Parlia-
1028
ment The word "resident" needs no explanation, but those who are to be subject to this second taxation are to be "domiciled" as well as resident in Ireland. I am not going through the various interpretations put upon it by law, but I suppose "domiciled" popularly may be best explained by saying that a man's home is in Ireland. Not only are all persons having their homes in Ireland and resident there liable to have this taxation imposed upon them, but the tax, you will observe, may be imposed in respect of the total income of those individuals from all sources —that is to say, whether the income comes to them from Ireland where they live, or from Great Britain or any other part of the world whatever. It is to be liable in any case to this second income Tax and Super-Tax.
The incidence of the income made subject to this second burden is very startling. We have, of course, in this country taxation of what are termed foreign possessions. If a man had property abroad, for a very long time, until I think the year 1914, the liability to taxation depended upon the question whether the proceeds of that foreign property had been remitted to the owner in the United Kingdom. There are a great many authorities on the question of what constituted a remittance. Since 1914 the matter has been tightened somewhat, because in the case of securities, stocks, shares, and rents it was deemed proper to say that even if the amounts were. not remitted the tax should be imposed, because it was found that a practice was growing up on the part of the owners of accumulating the amounts in foreign countries, and thus escaping taxation, and some time afterwards, in a manner which could not be traced, the accumulations found their way to be applied for the benefit of the owners. With regard to all other property —with regard to the sugar plantations, of which we heard in the old day, or rubber plantations, of which we have heard more in recent years —the rule would apply. With regard to any business abroad the old statutory limitations would apply, and the Income Tax would only apply to what was remitted to this country.
But Clause 24 knows nothing of these limitations at all. All property, although not a penny may ever come to Ireland, is to be assessable to this second Income Tax and Surtax. The persons liable to this

1029
taxation will be between the upper and nether millstones. When they have been broken to pieces by Imperial Income Tax they will be ground to powder in the mill of Clause 24. The Super-Tax is here called a Surtax, but I do not know that the change of name will very much alleviate the plight of those who have to pay. I do most earnestly invite your Lordships to get rid of this second burden upon persons resident and domiciled in Ireland. Just consider the case of these persons. We all know what Income Tax and Super-Tax is, and I do not know what our feelings might be if we were told that we were to be liable to a second burden of the same nature. It is to the possibility of such a second burden that this clause proposes to subject all such persons resident and domiciled in Ireland.
I think I may say, for the persons who will feel the weight of this tax if it should be imposed by the Irish Parliament, that almost without exception they have been distinguished alike in clear and dark days by their unswerving loyalty to the British Crown. Why should they be singled out for a burden of this kind? All I ask is that they should not have a greater burden imposed upon them than is imposed upon other people. I ask your Lordships in this matter to do justice to the individuals. I think that I may also put it upon even broader grounds. I believe that the prosperity of Ireland itself is very much concerned in removing such a liability. Ireland has many attractions as a place of residence, and surely in the interests of the country it is not desirable to discourage persons from making their home there. If you have an enactment the effect of which may be to penalise those who make their home in Ireland is it not obvious that you are doing something to detract; from the chances of the country doing well under any new Constitution which may be conferred upon it? The effect of the working of Clause 24 might be to inflict a penalty upon those who have made their home in Ireland. So far from doing that, I think we ought to encourage in every possible way the residence in Ireland of people who would bring their money there, who would spend it in Ireland, and who would promote the prosperity of the countryside. This tax will tend to drive out all those —and they are many —who are already resident in Ireland and whose home and domicile are in Ireland. The liability to a second
1030
taxation may lead them to consider whether they ought not to move to another country which has not such liabilities attached to residence.
I think that I may say the same with regard to residence for the purpose of business. In a great many cases business may be rendered profitable only if the proprietor of the business resides on the spot and gives his personal attention to it; at all events, the business might have a much better chance of success under such circumstances. Suppose a man thinks of starting a business in Ireland. He feels that in order to make it successful he ought to reside there and give to it his personal attention, but if he makes his home there and becomes a domiciled Irishman for the purpose of attending to that business he will be subject to the second taxation. Surely in these circumstances the possibility of such an impost might have a most unfortunate effect. A man may be ready to put his money into a business in Ireland, but if to make it successful he has also to reside there and that may entail the second Income Tax and Sur-Tax he will think twice or thrice about it before he undertakes such an enterprise. The burden of taxation and the possibility of taxation under Clause 24, on the top of the liability to the Imperial Income Tax, may have the effect of preventing many people setting up business in Ireland who would otherwise do so with great advantage to that country. I most respectfully appeal to the House to lighten this Bill by striking out Clause 24.
My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh deals with Clause 24 in a somewhat different way. By a series of Amendments he takes away altogether the power to impose new taxes, and converts it into machinery for giving relief in Ireland from the Imperial Income Tax which, under Clause 20, is reserved for the Imperial Parliament. I am at one with my noble friend in desiring to get rid of Clause 24, and what I would suggest very respectfully for his consideration is whether he would take the course of allowing the omission of the clause to be put first. I believe that may be done by arrangement. Then he could bring forward his proposal on Report, or as a new clause. I have written out a clause as it would stand according to my noble friend's Amendment, and he might now, or if the Lord Chairman thinks it better on Report, move that as a new clause. But that is a

1031
totally different matter. That is a question of giving certain relief to persons domiciled in Ireland from the Imperial Income Tax. Different questions may arise with regard to that. I would ask my noble friend whether he would have any objection to the Amendment for the omission of the clause being put first. If the clause is amended it would be difficult for me to say "omit it." Logically, my Amendment conies first. I think that I have sufficiently explained the matter, and I strongly put it to your Lordships that this Bill would be greatly improved by getting rid of this possibility of double taxation.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: Although I have on a previous occasion said a few words in this House, they were so few that I feel justified in craving that indulgence which your Lordships invariably extend to a maiden speech. It has been made abundantly clear in the course of the present debate that those of us who have any claim to represent Southern Ireland in your Lordships' House are unanimous in our dislike of this Bill as a whole. It would be surprising if that were not the case. But there are two other points on which we are equally unanimous, and which should, I think, be made equally clear. The first is that we do not desire to escape one penny of our fair share of taxation, whether it be for Imperial or domestic purposes.
The second point is this. Much as we dislike the Bill, if and when it comes into law we are resolved to accept it loyally, and, so far as those who have hitherto been our political opponents in Ireland enable us, we are prepared to co-operate to the utmost of our ability in the work of establishing on a firm and sound basis the new Ireland which will come into being, and of promoting the union of North and South. It is in this spirit that we approach the discussion of the financial clauses of the Bill. But we fear that if the provisions of the clause now being debated by the House become operative all those who belong to the propertied class in Ireland will be debarred from any such cooperation, because in a very short time they will have been taxed out of existence. The loss of our own co-operation may be a very small matter although our extinction would inevitably entail a certain amount of local unemployment which, for no selfish motives, we are intensely anxious
1032
to avoid. Every one, however, will agree that the disappearance of any large number of men who either in agriculture or industry hold a considerable financial stake in the country would cause the most terrible and widespread unemployment and would deal a fatal blow at the prospects of Ireland. We fear this possibility not so much because we are afraid of any senseless or vindictive legislation on the part of those who will represent the majority in Southern Ireland. We feel that it is absolutely unfair that Ireland should be exposed to any such risk, but lack of generosity has never been an attribute of the Irish nation, nor has the folly that would kill a golden goose which is already sufficiently emaciated.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: What we are afraid of is that under the present proposals the resources of Ireland will not suffice to provide for her Imperial contribution and domestic expenditure without having recourse to additional taxation, and under this Bill the form that such taxation is certain to take is that of this unholy Surtax. I know that in framing the clauses of the Bill the Government naturally had at their disposal much information which is not readily accessible to us, that they made the most careful examination into the financial position of Ireland, and that they were actuated by the desire to be not only just but generous. I should have felt sure that they were satisfied that, after paying her Imperial contribution, Ireland would have an ample margin to meet her domestic needs were it not for the provisions of this clause, which certainly seem to indicate a doubt in their minds on this point; otherwise it is difficult to see on what grounds of justice or expediency these provisions have been inserted.
Even in this country estimates are apt to prove incorrect, and nowadays it is seldom indeed that they are found to have erred on the side of caution. How much more is that likely to be the case when one is dealing with a country almost wholly lacking in that wealth of administrative and financial experience which exists in England, and one, moreover, which will be receiving its first cheque-book. I fervently hope that these gloomy forebodings are unnecessary, that the Government are satisfied and are right in their calculation,

1033
and that those who will administer the finances of Ireland may even be so fortunate as to find that their Budget justifies them in taking advantage of the power to remit taxation which is generously conferred upon them by this clause. But I fear that the unhappy Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer will find, when he draws near to it, that this radiant vision is only a mirage, and if the Government are wrong and we are right then this clause is an invitation to direct taxation of an absolutely crushing nature.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: I recognise that the clause specifically provides that the Surtax need not necessarily be imposed only upon those who are already subject to Super-Tax or even to Income Tax, but all the circumstances make it only too probable that those are the persons upon whom the bulk at any rate of the tax will fall. I do not see how they can possibly sustain this additional burden. It will indeed be a more humane method of wiping out an entire class than that employed in Russia, but I believe it will be equally effectual.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: The last thing this House desires, and the last thing the Government desire, is that all those who have attained prosperity in Ireland and all those who are fortunate enough to derive funds from outside sources should be driven from the country, but I feel most strongly that this is no imaginary danger and that Clause 24 will in practice have that effect. It is for that reason that I beg you Lordships to give your most earnest and, if possible, your most sympathetic consideration to this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SLIGO: I confess I am somewhat puzzled by what I believe to be a novel proposal made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Finlay. It would mean deferring the whole of the proposals of Lord Balfour of Burleigh to the Report stage. I venture to think that it would be better if your Lordships first discussed Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendments as they are on the Order Paper, and then asked the opinion of the House on them before going into Lord
1034
Finlay's Amendment. I much prefer. Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendments to that proposed by the noble and learned Viscount, and I believe that all of us in Southern Ireland much prefer them if I may, therefore, I will confine myself to discussing Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendments.
From what the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, said on Thursday last when this clause was being discussed, it seemed to me that he did not realise how very apprehensive we who live in Southern Ireland are of the powers proposed to be granted. In fact, he appeared to be inclined to rate or even to scold us for harbouring such fears, and as other members of your Lordships' House may not be able to realise our fears, I propose briefly to indicate why we, rightly or wrongly, think that if this clause is unaltered it will bring ruin and disaster, not only to individuals but to the community. As the noble and learned Lord said, this clause proposes to give power to the Parliaments to impose a Surtax in addition to Income Tax and Super-Tax, unlimited in extent, on all incomes no matter from what sources derived, on all who are resident and domiciled in Ireland.
May I emphasise what the noble and learned Lord said by giving an example of what might happen in two almost parallel cases. First of all, take a man who has a large house in England with a large park, gardens, and pleasure grounds. He spends a large sum every year in entertaining his friends and in maintaining and improving his property. The whole of the income with which he does this is derived from Ireland —namely, from Dublin house rents and from investments in commercial and industrial concerns in or near Dublin. He never goes to Ireland; he never spends a penny in Ireland if he can help it. He pays 12 s. in the £ Income Tax and Super-Tax in England, and because he is not resident or domiciled in Ireland escapes the Irish Surtax. The second example is a man with an equally large house, gardens, pleasure grounds, and coverts in Ireland. He also spends a large amount of money in maintaining them. The whole of the income on which he does this is derived from sources out of Ireland —from London House property, from industrial concerns and from investments spread all over the world. That man also pays 12 s. in the £ in Income Tax and Super-Tax, but in addition to that the Irish Parliament is empowered to take

1035
the rest of his income, the remaining 8s. in the £. What is this man to do in these circumstances? If he retains his residence or domicile in Ireland he may he taxed out of existence. He must dispose of his lands. But who would buy a large house in Ireland, because the purchaser would be liable to a similar penalty? It seems to me that all that man can do is to destroy his house, either by taking the roof off and blowing it up, or setting fire to it, or in any other way that will render it uninhabitable.
The ancestors of these men who have lived in and about their homes for 300 years, and perhaps in the existing houses for 200 years, and who have taken root there generation after generation and endeavoured to improve and beautify their homes —these men love Ireland just as passionately and earnestly as any Sinn Feiner or any Nationalist, although they may vary perhaps in their feelings as to how Ireland should be governed and how its prosperity should be increased. It would break the hearts of those men to destroy their houses and leave their homes, but as their incomes are independent of Ireland, of course they can do it. But what of the men whose income is entirely dependent upon Ireland —the commercial and professional men, and the large farmers. They, too, must live; they, too, must make arrangements, under the circumstances, to realise all their assets and to leave the country. Under these circumstances the sales must be forced sales. These men will not be able to realise their assets, and to many of them it will mean ruin.
We believe that the imposition of this Surtax must mean driving all capital out of the country. I know that Lord Peel said that it is absurd to suppose that any Government would be so mad as to adopt a tax which would of necessity drive all capital out of the country. But, rightly or wrongly, we feel that unless the possible area of obtaining revenue is considerably widened the Southern Parliament must be compelled to use the whole of its powers in regard to this Surtax in order to raise the necessary revenues to carry on the services of the country. Lord Peel said he did not understand our contradictory methods —at one moment asking for powers to increase taxation, and at another moment asking to restrict them. I cannot help thinking that he really understands what we mean. We really and seriously believe
1036
that if this clause is put into operation in its present form, capital will be driven out of the country, and bankruptcy and ruin will supervene, and that very soon, because the limit to be obtained by this Surtax will be reached within two, three, four, or perhaps five years, but even if it be prolonged for a year or two bankruptcy is inevitable. Then Southern Ireland will come back to England and say, "You have forced a form of Home Rule upon us which we do not want; you have given us certain powers of taxation of which we have taken full advantage, and of which we have made use to the fullest extent granted under the Act; but even with all this we are unable to make both ends meet. You must help us out of this by more financial assistance." And you will be obliged to give it. But in the meantime the loyal and stable elements of all classes and of all religions will have been ruined and driven out of the country. The Lord Chancellor said —
"For twenty-five years Ulster has been the victim and plaything of every political party in England."
But for fifty years the loyal minority has been the victim and plaything of English political parties. Every bid for the Irish vote made by English political parties has been paid for by the loyal minority. In every successive Land Act, from 1870 to 1909 inclusive, their rights and privileges and their estates have been taken from them bit by bit, and their incomes whittled away. If this clause as it stands is put into operation it will be the crowning act of injustice. This is the reward for generations of loyalty to the Empire. It is a bitter and humiliating thing to say, but it is true, it has not paid to be loyal if one has lived in Ireland, out of Ulster.
These are our fears. Lord Peel thought fit to consider them groundless, but he gave us no adequate reason for those opinions. I submit that we are justified in thinking that, unless some other means than this is found to provide the necessary revenue you must bring bankruptcy on the country, and in doing so ruin that section of the community for whom you profess so much sympathy and whose interests you say you wish and intend to protect. I earnestly hope that the Lord Chancellor, or some member of the Government will be able to remove from our minds these fears. What Lord Peel said on I Thursday did not convince us. Over and

1037
over again we have been assured that we have the deepest sympathy of everyone, but we ask for something more than oral sympathy; we want something tangible. You have now a great opportunity. If you amend this clause and widen the area of taxation, you will prove that you really mean what you have so often said, and will show that your sympathy is not confined to empty words.
LORD BUCKMASTER: After the moving and impressive speech of the noble Marquess who has just sat down there seems to me but little more that can be said on this matter, but I want to say a few words from the point of view of an Englishman and for the purpose of pointing out the mischief of which this clause is part. I have more than once asked myself in the course of this debate whether this Bill is ever intended to operate at all, or whether it is merely introduced in order that it may be said "We have attempted to give self government to Ireland, and Ireland is so ungracious that she throws the gift back in our face." Because it has seemed to me that unless you give to the Parliament in Ireland some real power of raising revenue it cannot possibly discharge its functions as it should. The only effective power is this power of extracting from men who have already been subject to the double burden of Income Tax and Super-Tax in this country a further tax which is to be levied upon the residue of their income and made acceptable under the name of a Surtax. Our taxation is submitting men to the thumb screw, but this taxation submits them to the rack. If the tax is to be made effective there can, as I apprehend, really be no remedy left for the men who suffer it other than that which was pointed out by the noble Marquess. It will break up the associations, it may be, of centuries, and they will be compelled to leave their country.
The noble Viscount, when we were discussing a kindred matter on the Motion for enlarging the powers of taxation which the Irish Parliament possesses, pointed out that they had other taxes that they could raise, and he was so kind as to satisfy my curiosity when I asked him what they were. I must say that my curiosity is unabated still. He said there was a turnover tax.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I only made two or three suggestions on the spur of the moment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If the noble Viscount wishes me to pass them by as matters of no moment I gladly will.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, no.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Very well, we will treat them seriously. One is a tax on turnover. I ask you for a moment to consider what the position would be of a business man in Ireland if he finds —take the big business for manufacturing stout —that there is to be a tax on the whole of his turnover, while his brother proprietors —Barclay and Company —over here are free from any such tax at all. The injustice of the thing will become obvious, and the result will undoubtedly be that he will proceed to loosen his anchor in Ireland and take himself elsewhere. The truth is that if you are going to apply discriminating taxation of this kind, taxation which will submit the people in Ireland to a burden which people in a corresponding position in England do not have to endure, you are making the government of Ireland hateful from the very start, and are seriously impeding any hope of a satisfactory and wholesome settlement coming out of this arrangement.
I find it extremely difficult to know what to do with this Amendment, and for this reason. As the Bill stands, to vote for this Amendment means to take away from the Irish Parliament practically all form of taxation altogether. There is nothing left, unless it be what I trust the noble Viscount will not think me discourteous if I call fancy forms of taxation which have never been tried anywhere at all up to the present moment. What is to be done? How are we to vote upon it? I sincerely hope that this discussion, and the discussion that took place the other night, may induce the Government to do now what, so far as I understand, they have never done up to the present moment —take steps to consult the opinion of the people who represent the South and West of Ireland, who would be only too willing to give you the benefit of their counsel and advice as to the best way in which you can use this measure for the purpose of restoring peace and some semblance of prosperity to their torn and most unhappy country.
LORD BALFOUR OF BI JRLEIGH: Being in Committee I have the privilege of saving another word. There are two

1039
questions that have been rather mixed up in the discussion that has taken place. There is the question of procedure and the question of merits. The question which the noble Viscount gave prominence to in the early part of his speech was the question of procedure. He said that if my Amendment were withdrawn it would be free to the House to say whether the clause should be inserted or not, and that would be an easier way for the House to deal with it.
A matter of opinion must, of course, be decided by the noble Lord in the Chair, but I am pretty sure I am right in this. When you have two proposals, one to amend a clause and one to strike it out, you usually take the amendment of the clause first, and then the question of whether it shall stand or not as a clause hereafter. If you say "No" to the clause and the House decides to delete it, you clearly cannot at this stage of the Bill proceed to amend it. That will have to be done at a subsequent stage in a new clause. I am largely in the hands of the House and those who are responsible as to whether it will be better to withdraw my Amendment or not. Personally I am of opinion that it would be better to take the opinion of the House upon my Amendment and then decide whether or not the larger Amendment of the noble Viscount should be accepted. So much on the matter of procedure.
I should like to say that I very cordially concur with what the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken has said on this subject. The noble Viscount who represents the Government in regard to this part of the Bill made a condemnation of my Amendment the other night, part of which was on the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has stated to-day. He said that the subordinate Parliament would have no revenue, and that probably is so, but that does not touch the question of the hardship of the raising of the revenue in this particular way. No single speaker, I think not even the noble Viscount, said it was a just tax, and no single speaker in this discussion has attempted to defend the proposals which are in this clause. I frankly say it does not matter to me whether the clause as a whole is or is not deleted, but I think that even if we delete this power of new taxation we shall do good rather than harm, for this reason. I think it would give the Government the
1040
opportunity in another place of reconsidering the financial provisions of the Bill to some extent.
I differ from the noble Viscount, Lord Finlay, that his Amendment is less one of privilege than my own. I doubt very much whether there is privilege concerned in either, because I have always understood —and I am not a professional in the matter —that the question of privilege is only concerned when you are putting a tax on the British taxpayer. My Amendment certainly does not propose to put on any new tax, but if we had voted for the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, the other night, we should directly or indirectly have been obliging a reconsideration of the financial provisions of the Bill; we should have been insisting upon a further tax on the British population. My opinion is that it would be better on a matter of procedure to take the Division on my Amendment first if there is to be a Division. All the other Amendments are consequential and there will be no second Division, because if the first Amendment is carried the others will follow consequentially.
As a last word I wish to say that I think it will be desirable to accept this Amendment. From what we see in the newspapers and from what we hear I think there is a possibility of more agreement about this Bill than there has been in the past. I think if we send it back to the other place with this clause either altered or struck out, it will give the other place a chance for meeting a demand for some revenue which I agree they must have, and enable the subordinate Parliament to raise it in a less invidious way than this. Perhaps if we take this Amendment we may be laying the foundations for that very extension of the Bill in the direction of peace which was the subject of the very eloquent speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Grey of Fallodon, the other night. Under all the circumstances I think I shall be interpreting the wishes of the House if I adhere to my Amendment, leaving the question as to whether the clause as amended shall stand part of the Bill to a later decision.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: My only anxiety in this matter is to get the clause into the best possible form. The difficulty I feel about the course which Lord Balfour of Burleigh has suggested is this. If the

1041
clause is amended as proposed I do not think the House will want to strike it out. The object of my Amendment is to strike it out because it gives this double power of taxation. The clause as amended would take away this double power of taxation altogether, but would give a power to remit a portion of the Imperial Income Tax, which is the only Income Tax left if the Amendment is carried. What I would suggest is that we should have both Amendments —that we should strike out the clause and substitute for it, as a substantive clause if the House so desires, the power of remission with regard to the Imperial Income Tax which is the substance of the Amendment. The words are all there in the terms of the Amendment.
I wish I could agree with Lord Balfour of Burleigh as to what the limits of privilege are. It is thoroughly settled that it does not apply merely to the imposition of taxes. Beyond all question it applies to modifying in any way the incidence of the tax. I think he will find that there is not the slightest doubt about it. I have given my own views as to there being no privilege about the proposal to strike out this clause altogether, and I am only anxious to get the matter straight.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I gather that on the substance of the matter Lord Finlay and Lord Balfour of Burleigh are agreed. They want to prevent the possibility of this extra Surtax being imposed upon Irishmen. The difference between the two noble Lords is only a difference as to the method of achieving that end. Lord Balfour of Burleigh is in possession of the House and has moved his Amendment. If it goes to a Division I cannot doubt that a majority of your Lordships will support him. But there is an additional reason why we should do so, apart from the fact that he has submitted his Motion for your judgment, and it is that it changes the Government's clause less than the Amendment of Lord Finlay does. We always seek moderation in your Lordships' House and do not desire to go further than is absolutely necessary. The Government clause proposes that the new Irish Parliament should have power not only to remit taxation but also to raise it in respect of Income Tax, and as the important part in the agreement of the two noble Lords is to prevent them raising it, we may leave that part of the Government
1042
clause which allows the Irish Parliaments to remit it if they think fit. It is not a matter of great importance between the two noble Lords, as the matter stands, and I think we may go to a Division and settle it.
THE EARL OF WICKLOW: We are all grateful to the noble Lord for moving this Amendment —certainly the Irish taxpayer should feel very grateful indeed. The prospect of obtaining relief from taxation is certainly one which positively makes one's mouth water, but I hardly think that your Lordships who are unconnected with Ireland need be in any hurry to be jealous of those of us who are connected with that country. It strikes me that the possibility of the Irish Parliaments being in any position, out of the pittance which they will receive under this Bill, to apply any funds to the relief of taxation is remote in the extreme. It is more likely that those Parliaments will be compelled to explore other sources of revenue in order to save themselves from bankruptcy.
There are those who are fond of saying that if Home Rule is granted to Ireland and an Irish Government is set up the first thing that Government would do is to pass unjust and vindictive legislation and to impose inequitable taxes. I do not believe an Irish Government would do anything of the kind. It is a little doubtful whether this Bill, imposing as it does partition on Ireland; a particularly hated thing in Ireland, and giving to the Irish people so small a share in the management of their own finances, will ever become operative. But if it does, and a Parliament for Southern Ireland materialises, I believe that that Parliament will be particularly careful to act with the greatest justice and impartiality in order to prove that Irishmen can manage their own affairs just as well as any one else.
We must not lose sight of the fact that these two Parliaments, when they come into being, will be particularly short of cash and the temptation to supplement their resources by so simple a method as the imposition of a Surtax may quite possibly prove almost irresistible. We are, therefore, particularly grateful to the noble Lord for proposing to put temptation out of their reach. In view of what has been going on in Ireland lately your Lordships and His Majesty's Government are prob-

1043
ably disinclined to make any concession whatever to Irishmen, but I should like to ask the House to consider what we Irishmen are giving up under this Bill and what we are getting in exchange. Ireland at this moment has a right to representation in the House of Commons larger in numbers than that to which her population entitles her, and man for man Irishmen have actually a larger say in the management of the affairs of the Empire than have Englishmen or Scotsmen. I do not say that that is as it should be. At the present moment it is true that the privilege of sitting in the House of Commons does not seem to be appreciated by the representatives of Ireland. But supposing that the elected representatives of Ireland were to come here in a body and were all to agree on demanding some concession for their country —it is supposing a good deal —how long would any Government be able to refuse to grant them the concession? I believe there is no concession to Ireland which the representatives of Ireland could not get if they combined to ask for it. Under this Bill we are to give up that representation, and to receive instead forty-six members of the House of Commons and two Parliaments in Ireland, which the majority of us do not want in the least. In spite of our greatly reduced representation in Parliament the House of Commons will continue to tax us. The House of Commons will provide the two Parliaments in Ireland with an allowance with which they will be expected to carry on the business of governing the country. If they find that allowance insufficient for their purpose they are empowered to impose certain Taxes, among other the Super-Tax.
Consider the position of the unhappy payer of Super-Tax if he becomes liable also to Surtax. It seems to me that there is nothing to prevent that unfortunate individual from being called upon to pay under all three Taxes —the Income Tax, the Super-Tax and the Surtax —an aggregate of 20s. in the £. Will anybody be found to argue that that is fair treatment to apply even to an Irishman? Some of us were at first a little tempted to support the Amendment in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Finlay, but after all what is there to be gained by taking away from the new Irish Government the power to grant relief to the taxpayer even if, as I ventured to point out, it is not likely in the near future that they will be able
1044
to exercise that power? I hope very much that your Lordships will accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It seems impossible that the Parliaments of Ireland will ever have sufficient funds to grant the relief, but if at some future date, by dint of careful economy, they do find themselves in a position to give the relief we should all like to receive, then I think we shall have more cause to feel grateful to the noble Lord for having moved his Amendment than we have at the present moment, and we shall have reason to congratulate ourselves that we had the good sense to follow his lead and vote for the Amendment for moving which in your Lordships' House we thank him.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Before we go to a Division we ought to be quite certain what we are voting about. I am ready to vote against the proposal that an Irish Parliament should be allowed to impose this proposed Surtax on individuals. I agree with every word that noble Lords from Ireland said about that and I am prepared to vote with them. Undoubtedly, if the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Finlay, were moved, we should be voting with them and doing nothing else. Just now the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said that he did not see much difference between the proposals, but as I read the thing there is a difference. Let me read the words at the beginning of the clause as they will be if the Amendment to strike out words and the consequential Amendments to insert words are carried. They will then read thus —
"The Parliament of Southern Ireland or of Northern Ireland shall have power to grant relief from Income Tax or Super-Tax or either of those taxes to individuals resident and domiciled —"
I do not pretend to be quite clear about it, but it appears to me that this is giving the Irish Parliament power to exempt individuals in Ireland from English Income Tax and Super-Tax. I believe that will undoubtedly be the effect of the clause if the Amendment is adopted. With all good will to the noble Lords from Ireland, while I am perfectly ready to vote against extra taxes being imposed —
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that is already in the clause. What my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh leaves in the clause is already there.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I do not know. I should very much like to hear the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Finlay, on it again, but my opinion is that the Irish Parliament cannot interfere with the English Income Tax and Super-Tax. I am not prepared to vote for the Amendment, though I am prepared to vote for any Amendment for the relief of noble Lords from Ireland.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: I apologise to the House for speaking again. I think there is no doubt that the effect of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is that the Irish Parliament will have power to remit the Imperial Tax and the amount remitted will be made good from the Irish Consolidated Fund, but it will be the remission of the Imperial Tax and of that only. It is not now in the clause. What is in the clause is power to impose an Irish Tax and power to remit that Irish Tax. The clause will be altered so as to turn the power to impose an Irish Tax into a power to grant remission from an English Tax. I think the House should realise what it is doing. I am most anxious to get the matter straight as it is important.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: May I make it clear from our point of view? The noble and learned Viscount is right, no doubt, in saying that it is a reduction of an Imperial Tax, but if this Bill is passed Ireland has to pay, according to the Bill, £18,000,000 a year to Great Britain. No change of the Tax will affect that £18,000,000. The only effect will be that if Ireland could make economies and was able to reduce taxation she would have the power to do so. That seems to me to be eminently fair.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I spoke on the proposal on Thursday last and I do not wish to repeat what I then said, but out of courtesy to noble Lords I think that I ought to say something. I do not propose to follow the elaborate argument of the noble and learned Viscount on the question of privilege, because that really does not appertain to me and I never raised the question when I was speaking. I think a few words are due also out of courtesy to other noble Lords, and more particularly to the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, whose forcible plea on behalf of Southern Unionists I think made a good deal of impression on your Lordships' House.
1046
I am going to sum up the case as rapidly as I can. I shall deal purely with the Amendment and not with the further question of relief which I understand may be raised on another Amendment. The whole argument of noble Lords is this —that if this special power is given to the Irish Parliaments they will use it in an unjust and vindictive way. They know Ireland much better than I do, and if they think that Irish Parliaments are unfit to be trusted with this kind of taxation they will no doubt give expression to their views. But I wish to say quite shortly that that does not seem to me a strong argument in view of the overwhelming vote your Lordships gave in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill, because it does not require a Chancellor of the Exchequer of any ingenuity to act vindictively if he really wishes to do so. You cannot stop every hole, and in spite of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said, they have a great deal of freedom in raising other Taxes, and in regard to Taxes which have been raised before and are now handed over to them, they have complete power of wiping out (if they choose to commit such a stupendous act of folly) the wealthy people of taxable capacity in their own country.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: Noble Lords from Ireland specially said that we were not afraid of any senseless or vindictive legislation on the part of the majority in Southern Ireland. What we were afraid of was that they would not be able to relieve us from a Surtax because their finances would not be sufficient.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was fully aware of the argument by noble Lords. If the noble Earl had waited I would have dealt with it. But that argument was used by a number of members from the South of Ireland, that they were afraid of penal taxation. I will only say one word upon that. They have complete command over Death Duties, and if you wish to exercise penal taxation you can do it quite as well by Death Duties as by Income Tax. Further may I say, regarding the arguments used by the noble and learned Lord to the effect that if this punitive taxation were put on it would prevent people setting up business there and prevent Ireland being used as a place of residence, I should have thought that those arguments were just the arguments which would appeal to

1047
any Chancellor of the Exchequer as forcibly as they appealed to the noble and learned Lord, and one would hope that one of the results of this Bill would be, when there was no longer any motive for disturbance in Ireland, that a more reasonable frame of mind would prevail.
It is, I agree, a question of general policy, with which I am not now dealing, and it is a question also of knowledge of the country. I am going, however, to confine myself to the financial arguments, because on that point I can meet the arguments of noble Lords. They have said again and again that Ireland will be in such an unfortunate financial position that, not out of vindictiveness but out of financial necessity, she will be forced to put on an extra Surtax to the 12 s. What that will yield of course I am not in a position to say. The financial position is entirely different from that, because as the financial matters are handed over to the Irish Parliaments they will have a surplus of £7,500,000 on an expenditure of about £14,000,000. Just think what would be the position of a Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country if he had a 50 per cent. surplus on his Budget. Yet that will be the position in Ireland, and if that is so what possible financial reason can there be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put wholly unnecessary taxation precisely on those classes of persons on whom he might have to rely if there was really financial strain. That is the financial argument —that on financial grounds no one in his senses could possibly put on such a Surtax.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Then why leave it in the Bill? Why have a Surtax at all?
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is a fair question, and I will give it an answer. The reason is this, that it does not follow that that will always be the situation. Noble Lords are looking upon the Income Tax and Super-Tax as if they were fixed in this country for all time. I do not say that I am extremely hopeful that there will be very much reduction in the Income Tax or Super-Tax in this country in the very near future, but we are legislating not for to-day but for the future, and it may happen that in the future Income Tax and Super-Tax may be largely reduced in this country. It might quite well happen that the Irish Government did not want to have exactly the same rates of Income
1048
Tax and Super-Tax as the British Government, and the whole of this clause is for the purpose of giving as much freedom to the Irish Government as it is possible to give it in the matter of these taxes. I have explained the administrative reason why it is impossible to hand over the administration of the Income Tax to the Irish Government. Then is the Government to give them, short of controlling the Income Tax, the widest possible freedom in dealing with it; and it is a proposal also which deals not with existing circumstances to-day but possibly for a great many years to come.
There is only one other point before I sit down, and it is the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Midleton. It is an interesting point and it was this. I think he voted for giving general freedom of taxation to Ireland, and he said that he was going to vote against this particular proposal of the Government because if the Irish Government were, as it were, headed off the general sources of taxation they would be more likely to concentrate upon this particular tax. Surely if that is so he ought rather to support the Government, because he is not going to cure that difficulty by still further curtailing the financial responsibility of the Irish Parliament. That is, I think, a very short statement of the position of the Government. It all rests upon the confidence which you have in the way in which the future Irish Government would be conducted; and if you have so little confidence in the way in which they will deal with this power I do not see why the Second Reading was carried by so large a majority. I am, however, conscious, of course, that there is no very great support in this House for the proposal of the Government, and in fact I think if your Lordships went to a Division there would probably be an overwhelming expression of opinion against it. Under those circumstances —and as your Lordships know the Government wish to act with moderation, as they were counselled to do by Lord Salisbury —the Government do not wish to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, and I can assure your Lordships that your strong expression of opinion upon this particular matter will be very fully and carefully considered by the Government.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I must say that I desire to be quite clear as to what point we are dividing upon.
Several NOBLE LORDS: We are not going to divide.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I want to be quite clear what it is we are going to do. I am very much obliged to Lord St. Davids for making clear to us the difference between Lord Finlay's Amendment and the Amendment of Lord Balfour. As I understand, the Bill gives power to the Irish Parliament to put on a Surtax and take that Surtax off. Lord Balfour's Amendment deprives the Irish Parliament of the power of putting on the Surtax, but gives them the power of taking off some of the existing Imperial Income Tax and Super-Tax. I am not in favour of that. I think my view is met by Lord Finlay's Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know whether I can save trouble if I deal with that particular point. I thought your Lordships were going to deal with Lord Balfour's Amendment. Of course, the point raised by the noble Earl is quite plain. This power of relief will not enable the Irish Government to alter the Imperial Income Tax and Super-Tax. All it does is this. If persons or classes of persons in Ireland are paying say 6s. in the £ and 3s. Super-Tax it enables the Irish Government to give them relief out of other taxation, and so ease the burden on them. It does not give them ally power whatever to alter the existing rate of the Imperial Income Tax or Super-Tax. I think that makes the point quite clear.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that the remaining Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved —
Page 25, line 3, leave out from "respectively") to the end of line 5.
Page 25, line 6, leave out ("or the relief") and insert ("and such relief may be").
Page 25, line 7, leave out ("exceeds or").
Page 25, line 8, leave out ("imposing the tax or").
Page 25, line 9, leave out from ("relief") to the end of subsection (1).
Page 25, lines 12 to 15, leave out subsection (2).
Page 25, line 22, leave out ("the levying and collection of any such surtax and").
Page 25, line 25, leave out ("the proceeds of the surtax shall be paid into and").
Page 25, line 32, leave out ("levy and collect such surtax or").
Page 25, line 35, leave out ("collected or").
line 36, leave out ("collected or"). (Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
Irish Church Fund.
30. The Irish Church Temporalities Fund shall belong to and be apportioned between the Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland in such manner as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board, and the parts apportioned to the several governments shall be managed, administered, and disposed of as directed by Act of the appropriate Parliament:
Provided that all existing charges on that fund shall, if and so far as not paid, be paid out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, and be made good by means of deductions from the Irish residuary share of reserved taxes in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO moved, in the proviso, to leave out from "Kingdom" to the end of the clause. The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the Church Temporalities Fund. As that Fund is in a totally bankrupt condition the whole of its liabilities would fall upon the Irish Government. I do not know whether the Government here are aware of that fact. The liabilities of the fund exceed its assets, and the Amendment which I propose would prevent the existing charges being borne by the Irish taxpayer.
Amendment moved —
Page 29, line 25, leave out from ("Kingdom") to the end of the clause. —(The Earl of Mayo.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The proposal of the noble Earl is a direct attempt to lay a special charge upon the British taxpayer, and I think a most unfortunate one. These matters are wholly Irish, and if there is any deficiency in the Irish Church Temporalities I think that deficiency should be made good from Irish sources. The noble Earl wants it to be made good from British sources. I can only say that the Government must oppose that absolutely, because it would lay a further charge on the British taxpayer for a purely Irish service.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I shall not press this to a Division, because I know I should be badly beaten, but I must protest against this most strongly. It further waters down some of the money that we are told we are to have so much of. A portion of the £7,500,000 has gone already by a few words from the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Earl is insatiable. He wants more contributions from the English taxpayer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clauses 31, 32, 33, and 34 agreed to.
Clause 35:
Future consideration of the transfer of Customs and Excise.
35. If at any time after the date of Irish union an address for the purpose is presented by both Houses or the House of the Parliament of Ireland, the Joint Exchequer Board shall forthwith take into consideration the transfer to the Parliament and Government of Ireland of the powers of imposing, charging, levying and collecting customs duties and excise duties reserved by this Act, and report thereon and on the methods by which in case of such transfer the payment of the Irish contribution to Imperial liabilities and expenditure can be secured, and shall cause a copy of their report to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Parliament of Ireland.
TILE EARL OF SELBORNE TILE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to leave out Clause 35. The noble Earl said: We had a debate last week in which the Government opposed a proposal of my noble friends behind me to transfer the Customs at once to the Irish Parliament. That debate was a fairly full one, and I have no intention of repeating the arguments to the House which I then addressed to it. But the Government on that occasion, according to my recollection, took their stand on a very clear expression of principle. It is because this clause seems to me to be inconsistent with the principle on which the Government then took its stand that I move that the clause should be deleted from the Bill.
What does this clause do? It makes no promise to the Irish Parliament, but it holds out a distinct hope that if the Parliaments of North and South Ireland can agree on a scheme by which control of Customs shall be transferred from the Imperial Parliament to these two local Parliaments, the Imperial Parliament will consider favourably their proposal. I do not believe that it is possible, consistently with the safety and interests of the United Kingdom, to give Customs to any local Parliament, be it Irish, Scottish, or English. I know that my noble friends the Peers from Ireland believe that on this question hangs the possibility of a real agreement and settlement (so-called) between the two nations. I believe nothing whatever of the kind. Although it might patch up a temporary settlement I think that if the Customs were transferred to Ireland it would be the beginning of a new stage in the age-long tragedy between the two countries. I do not believe it possible for Ireland to control its own Customs without friction arising between
1052
the two Islands that would be more dangerous than any friction that has hitherto existed. It is because I think two sets of Customs-Houses within these Islands is absolutely incompatible with the welfare or prosperity of the two Islands that I move this clause be omitted.
Amendment moved —
Leave out Clause 35. —(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Earl has been a very consistent critic of this Bill throughout, and has always attacked any proposals which might interfere with any Federal solution of the question of the Government of these Islands. He is also strongly, on general grounds I understand, against at any time allowing Ireland to control its own Customs. This clause does not go so far as that. It contemplates the position that might possible arise when the two Parliaments become one, and when, therefore, a totally different situation has arisen in Ireland as regards general feeling both between themselves and, let us hope, this country, than exists at present. This does not prejudice the case in any way. It does not suggest even that the Customs should be handed to Ireland, but it leaves the door, not open but, shall I say, ajar. All it does is to suggest that if an Address is presented by the Irish Government a Report can be made by the Exchequer Board to the Imperial Government on the particular point. It was probably felt that if such a question as the handing over of the Customs was the one bar to complete goodwill and reconciliation between the two countries, that might not possibly be too great a price to pay, if it would really secure it. But this does not do that. It leaves the matter open to report, and possibly to that limited extent the noble Earl might not object to the clause.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: I cannot agree with my noble friend who has just spoken, that this clause only leaves the door open. It seems to me that, if anything, it is a pledge that the matter would be seriously considered. If the thing was not done, if the people in Ireland considered this as really no pledge at all, they would undoubtedly complain that faith had not been kept with them. I do not think it does leave the matter quite like that; if I thought it did, I should be bound to vote for the noble Earl's Amendment.
LORD MAC DONNELL: The position in Ireland with regard to the transfer of the administration of the Customs and Excise is this. The idea is that there should be a permanent free trade arrangement between Great Britain and Ireland, that it would be entirely unnecessary to have Customs barriers to carry out that arrangement, and it is hoped that there would be very little difference between the existing arrangements if the transfer was effected. It always has been the expectation of Irish Nationalists that the administration of Irish Customs and British Customs should very closely approximate to what they are now, and that the real difference would be to transfer to the Irish Parliament the power of informing themselves that the administration of Customs was conducted in a manner satisfactory to Ireland. The idea of making Britain the antagonist of Ireland in regard to Customs has never been felt by Ireland. Inasmuch as the question has been decided I think I need say no more at present, but so long as you keep the administration of Excise and Customs in British hands and exclude Ireland from the administration altogether you will never settle the. Irish question.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I hope that noble Lords, especially noble Lords from Ireland., will not agree to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Selborne, and delete this clause from the Bill, because after all I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount said, that it leaves the door ajar. This is a clause that looks very far into the future. If we are going to have a peaceful and proper agreement in the future between the two countries it is quite right that this matter should be taken into consideration, and there is no reason in the world why there should not be free trade between the two countries over this Customs business. I see the noble Lord smiling, but it is possible for an arrangement to exist between the two countries. That is a very different thing from imposing Customs on articles coming from abroad. I hope that your Lordships will not throw out this clause but will give Ireland a chance of being able in future to impose, levy, and to collect its Customs and Excise duties. I lay great stress upon this matter because there are in it the germs of a peaceful solution of a very much debated question in the country from which I come.
LORD SHANDON: Clause 35 certainly does not impose in any way whatsoever an obligation on the Imperial Parliament to make this change. The question will have to be considered by the Joint Exchequer Board, who will report thereon and on the methods by which in case of such transfer the payment of the Irish contribution to Imperial liabilities and expenditure can be secured, and they are to cause a copy of their Report to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Parliament of Ireland.
Certainly this Bill has not been favourably received by Southern Ireland. I have spoken against several of its clauses myself, but the deletion of this clause, containing as it does the possibility at any rate of some future adjustment of this question of finance without binding the Imperial Government to it, would certainly carry dissatisfaction still further. The clause in no way does more than this. We have heard much of the great business capacity and the great loyalty of Northern Ireland to the Empire —two facts that I, for my part, freely and at once concede. I would also wish to be able to claim that we are making an incorrect assumption if we think that there is no business capacity and loyalty in the South of Ireland. But both North and South will have to combine to consider this matter. There seems to be in this clause what is always regarded as a protection —I mean the interference in any question of the Northern Parliament, then of the Joint Exchequer Board, and, finally, there is the all-powerful interference of the Imperial Parliament. I ask your Lordships not to delete this clause. It is quite true that it does not go far enough, but it goes some way and the deletion of it would cause intense dissatisfaction in Ireland.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Before the House actually divides, I would like to say why I differ from my noble friend who moved this Amendment. This matter has been discussed until it can be discussed no longer in Ireland. There was but one feeling on the part of all the Southern representatives at the Convention, except those who were acting together and are present in this House. That feeling was that no settlement would be secured on the question of Customs unless they were finally at some time to become the property of the Irish Government. I should have thought my noble friend would have been

1055
satisfied that the contingency is a pretty remote one, or the Government would not have put Clause 35 into the Bill. It assumes a union between the two parts of Ireland. I cannot imagine anything more unlikely than that union will ever result from this Bill which sets up two Parliaments that will be mutually very disinclined to give in to each other. Therefore I look upon the contingency as remote.
On the other hand, my noble friend anticipates very great friction between Ireland and England as the result of any separate Customs arrangements. Logically I dare say he is correct, but logic has never governed Ireland and never will. The suggestion was made —and I believe it is an extremely possible one to carry out —that you should have an agreement of free trade in the products of the two countries between Ireland and England for a term of years from the commencement. I quite admit if Ireland had separate Customs with regard to foreign products that would not prevent the necessity of putting up Customs-houses, but as I told your Lordships the other day the Customs Department in this country do not anticipate any serious difficulty in that respect.
There is a great deal of practical ground for this Amendment. There is no question that the difference in the habits of the two populations is very great, and the ability to bear Customs duties is quite different in many parts of Ireland from what it is in this country. But the case I put forward is this, that if you desire this Bill to have any effect at all in Ireland and you decide to exclude any possibility of Ireland obtaining Customs and Excise you may regard the Bill as dead before it ever reaches Ireland. For that reason I must vote with the Government.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I think the contingency is very remote that this clause will ever come into operation, but at the same time it leaves us, if not with a probability, at any rate a possibility that at some time Ireland will be given control of her own taxation. I would remind the noble Earl that if this Bill is thrown out the 1914 Act comes into operation automatically. That Act contains a provision of much the same kind, but that is a matter to be considered when the expenditure and revenue of Ireland balances. It balanced long ago, and therefore if you omit this clause it would be necessary to
1056
eliminate that provision in the Act of 1914. It would be necessary, too, to contradict everything that has been said by the Prime Minister to the Convention. In fact, to omit this clause would do away with all possibility of peace in Ireland. The one thing that we who more or less represent the South and West of Ireland know is that this Bill, or any Bill for granting a measure of self-government to Ireland, has not the remotest chance of making a settlement and of being a success until you give the Irish Parliament, or the Irish Parliaments, control of their own taxation.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: To give the Irish Parliaments control of their own Customs may be a good thing or a bad thing. What I submit to your Lordships is quite impossible is that the Irish Parliaments should have free trade with England and a Customs barrier against foreign countries. That has been actually suggested by Lord MacDonnell and my noble friend behind me. Let me follow that out in a single case —potatoes. The Irish grow a great many potatoes, and they want (let us say) to protect themselves against French potatoes. But they have free trade with England and therefore there is no duty against the English potatoes. All that the potato merchant in England does is to import potatoes from France, because there would be no duty against potatoes in England, and to transmit them to Ireland. The whole thing breaks down at once.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to. Clause 37:
Clause 37:
Establishment of courts.
37. The Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland shall cease to exist, and there shall be established in Ireland the following courts, that is to say, a court having jurisdiction in Southern Ireland, to be called the Supreme Court of Judicature of Southern Ireland, a court having jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, to be called the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland, and a court having appellate jurisdiction throughout the whole of Ireland, to be called the High Court of Appeal for Ireland.
THE EARL OF DESART THE EARL OF DESART moved to leave out Clauses 37 to 42, and insert the following new clause —
"37. —(l) Until the establishment of a Parliament for all Ireland, all matters relating to the

1057
Supreme Court of Judicature of Ireland shall be reserved matters and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and all judges of the same court shall be appointed in the like manner, and hold office and enjoy the same salaries, rights, powers and privileges as heretofore, and their jurisdiction shall extend over Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, and over all inferior courts situated therein, but the law shall be administered by the said court in accordance with any statutory enactments having special force within Northern Ireland or Southern Ireland respectively.
"(2) The rule making authority in Ireland established by the Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877, and the Acts amending and extending the same shall in addition to the powers now possessed by them have power and authority to make rules providing for the sitting from tine to time of the Divisional Courts and of the Courts of Appeal, in the city of Belfast as well as in the city of Dublin.
"(3) Rules shall further be made giving power to the said court to assign at any stage any cause or matter originating in the court sitting in Belfast to time court sitting in Dublin or originating in the court sitting in Dublin to the court sitting in Belfast. All writs of execution, injunctions, habeas corpus, or any other writ, process, or proceeding by which orders of the said court are now enforced, and all commissions of assize and other commissions now issued to judges of assize shall continue to issue as heretofore under rules to be made by the said authority.
"(4) There shall be established in Belfast for the purpose of discharging such business as the rules making authority shall allocate to them such offices and staff as may be prescribed by the Lord Lieutenant.
"(5) The extra cost occasioned by the operation of this section shall be certified by an officer nominated by the Treasury, and shall be chargeable in respect to the services of Northern Ireland, and shall be paid and borne by the vote for such services in Northern Ireland.
"(6)"Originating" in subsection (3) of this section shall mean commenced by writ, summons or process in the offices in Belfast or Dublin.
"(7) The provisions of this Act as to existing judges and existing pensions shall after the date of Irish union with the necessary modifications extend to the judges who at that date are judges of any of the said courts and to any pensions which at that date are payable to any person on account of service as such judges."
The noble Earl said: The object for which I have put down this Amendment, which is connected with the future arrangements for the Judicature and the administration of the law in Ireland, is quite obvious. My purpose is, so far as may be possible under the changed Parliamentary conditions in Ireland, to preserve the system, the administration, and the working of the law as nearly as may be as it is. I have felt it my duty to put this down, not only because I felt that it is desirable, but that I know there is a very large body of business and commercial opinion in Ireland that looks with consternation
1058
upon the changes that are proposed to be made in consequence of the creation of the two Parliaments.
I hope I shall not be too sanguine in saying that I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will probably agree that, as a general proposition, where you have a system of law that has been more or less uniform for centuries, where there has been a common Judiciary and a common Bar —a profession and an administration united —and where the law is not changed and the Judiciary continues to be appointed by the same authority, it is undesirable, with a population of 4,000,000, to divide that Judiciary, to divide that profession, to divide that administration, giving a separate Judiciary and a separate administration to I ¼millions of people. That, as an abstract proposition, most people would agree upon. The question, therefore, that I have endeavoured to consider, and on which I hope to obtain the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, is whether the creation of these two Parliaments involves the necessary consequence that that should be done which is proposed to be done in this Bill. It does not, I confess, appear to me to be so, and if I should be right in that I do not see why you should disturb the existing arrangements more than in some small details because of the possible operation of this Bill.
In my judgment, and as far as my intention goes, this has nothing whatever to do with politics. That at any rate is not my idea, and I beg my noble friends from Ulster and the Government to accept that personal assurance. I have regarded it purely and solely from the point of view of the administration of justice, and the advantages to the business men of the country, who are, or who may be, litigious. I do not see that it is necessary to change the whole judicial system because of these two Parliaments, or that, by leaving it as it is, you would alter in any way the status of the Northern Parliament of the Southern Parliament,or the position of the inhabitants of the Northern or Southern province under these Parliaments. Of course, I recognise that it may be said, and truly said, that usually when you create a Parliament, which is in a sense sovereign, the administration of the law is one of the things which it should supervise and control. But I think that the circumstances are so unusual in this case

1059
that you cannot apply logically that provision —or you would not apply logically that provision. I should perhaps have been in a better position to deal with this question, and to deal with it possibly more shortly, if I had had the advantage of hearing some exposition from the Government of the grounds on which they thought it necessary to make these very drastic changes.
I hope the noble and learned Lord will not for a moment think I am complaining. In the very lucid statement he made on the Second Reading he naturally directed himself to the more controversial political aspects of the question, but it is a fact that on this particular subject we have not heard any exposition from the Government of the course they have adopted, and I cannot but observe that this course was not adopted in the year 1914 in the Amending I Bill when it was proposed equally to create a partition of Ireland. In the same way a partition of Ireland would have extended the Northern Province to the whole of; Ulster, and therefore the new Province, or the separated Province rather, would have had a larger population than is the case under this Bill where only six counties are included. I may he stupid, or I may be unwise, or perhaps I ought to appreciate the reasons. At any rate I can call that in aid, that when the Government of that day —I think my noble friend Lord Crewe was responsible for the Bill in this House —adopted the course of partition they did not think it necessary to alter the judicial arrangements.
The effect, it seems to me, will in many ways be so injurious to the interests of justice and to business that I cannot but submit, if it be possible to avoid it, if it is not a necessary consequence of the Bill, it should be avoided. You have judicially in Ireland a united Bar and a united body of solicitors. The Bar have the right of audience in all Courts in Ireland; the solicitors have the right to practice in all Courts of Ireland; and I have been trying to work out in my own mind what would be the consequence of altering that. Take the Bar, in the first instance. The existing barristers' rights are safeguarded under the Fourth Schedule, front which I infer that future barristers would have to elect specifically in which area or province they will practice, and they will not have the right of audience in the other one. In regard to solicitors, it is specifically stated I
1060
that while all existing solicitors shall become solicitors of the Supreme Court of both Southern and Northern Ireland, any person who is afterwards admitted to the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland is a solicitor only of the Court to which he is admitted. So that it will in effect ultimately separate the Bar and the solicitors' profession.
You have also as regards the Bar an old-established Inn of Court, the King's Inn. That is, I understand, like the Inns of Court here, responsible for the examinations, the education and call of barristers. The King's Inn has funds, and has the means of doing this. Is it proposed —I do not know —to have a separate Inn of Court for the Northern Province by which the same functions are to be performed, and is it to be endowed with funds to provide for its examinations and its examiners or not? Equally with regard to the solicitors' profession, is there to be a separate Incorporated Law Society in the North, and are solicitors to be admitted and educated, and is provision to be made for that, and if so, how? I am sorry to be obliged to put my speech in so interrogatory a form, but the answers to these questions are important and have a bearing on the view your Lordships may take of the matter.
Then you will have to a large extent, as it seems to me, to duplicate the officers attached to the Courts. It is quite true that in any case you must make arrangements for the sitting of the Judges continuously in Belfast, and you must make arrangements for such officers as are required to attend them, but by transfer I should have thought that could be done in a more simple way than a complete establishment for all these offices both in the North and in the South. I think it is deplorable to create judicially a small Bar in a small Province. I think you lose a great deal by it. I do not want to press that, because that is a question of feeling, but it is a conviction I have myself. You will lose breadth, you will lose experience of different classes of people, and on the whole I believe that the administration of justice will to some extent suffer judges are a reserved service until Irish union; therefore there is no difference in their appointments. They are appointed by the King in either case, and whether they are allotted to the Northern Province or the Southern Province does not appear to be

1061
a very serious matter. A Judge is not, or ought not to be, a politician. What you want is a lawyer. I can understand the argument that for Parliamentary purposes the majority should have the preference, which is the argument I think for Ulster, so that they may be properly represented and have their proper share of authority, but ] cannot see that that in any way applies to judicial officers who are not politicians. Some day we hope there may be Irish union. If Irish union comes all this elaborate machinery created for the two Provinces will have to be reconsidered, and no doubt there will be vested interests that will have grown up which will also have to be regarded and dealt with in some way. It is a question of whether it is a necessary consequence. You always come back to that. Is it, or is it not? If not, I submit that all considerations render it undesirable.
I do not want to sit down without referring to one or two details, I do not say small details, because they are important. There will be all the inconvenience of service of writs out of the jurisdiction, and things of that kind. There is one matter that is very serious, and I confess I do not see how it is to be got over; it may be that it is unavoidable. There is no country in which it is more necessary than in Ireland to have the opportunity of changing the venue from North to South. I have no hesitation in saying that it is absolutely necessary in many cases if justice is to, be done at all, whether it be in civil or criminal cases. As I read the provisions of the Bill, that must disappear. I regard that as so serious a matter in the real interests of justice that I should be very glad if the Lord Chancellor could say, either that it could still be done or that there were any means of providing that it should be done consistently with the establishment of these two Parliaments. Is there any real object in depriving the Lord Chancellor of nearly all his functions in the historical office always held by a distinguished lawyer where he has for many many years performed certain functions of great importance and great dignity to the public advantage? As far as I can make out without going into details, there is really, with the exception I think of charities or lunatics or one or two other things, very little left to him except his salary.
Then in regard to the new tribunals to be created, I am not quite sure whether
1062
I follow it altogether, but it seems to me that you have added one Court of Appeal. There is under this Bill to be the Court of trial, then —perhaps the Lord Chancellor will tell me about this, because I cannot quite make it out —there is a Divisional Court for some purpose; there is an appeal from the Divisional Court to the Provincial Court of Appeal, from the Provincial Court of Appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ireland, and from the Court of Appeal for Ireland to the House of Lords. If my view is right you have added a Provincial Court of Appeal, and I do not know why If there is a Divisional Court. I should have thought you should have gone direct to the Court of Appeal for Ireland.
It is undesirable in a small country like Ireland to have two complete Jurisdictions, one of them containing a population less than that of the West Riding of Yorkshire. Yon have historical continuity, your law known and administered by experienced Judges, a Bar who are accustomed to act together, and it seems to me undesirable to scrap it if it can be avoided. Without derogating at all from the independence of the Parliaments, either of Northern or Southern Ireland, you might have carried on the common flow of justice perfectly without giving umbrage to one Province or the other.
I hope no one in Ulster will think that this is part of a plan of the Southern Unionists to attack the independence of the Northern Parliament. I can give my personal assurance that I have never looked at it in that light, and speaking also for a large body of business opinion in Ireland they have never looked at it in that light. They regard with consternation this disturbance of the Courts, and I hope, even at the last hour, that this question will be reconsidered. The impressive manner of the Lord Chancellor may convince me that I am wrong, and that there is some reason for it which I cannot controvert. I am the last man to be dogmatic. But this is an important matter. If the only reason for it is that it would appear to derogate from the dignity of the Northern Parliament, but in practice does not do so, I think the decision ought to be on the balance of advantage to the whole community and the administration of justice, which in my opinion is the central and most important feature of any organised society. If that can be

1063
secured it will not be too much to ask our friends in Ulster to sacrifice the form for the substance and allow that which has given satisfaction to Ireland, which has a great history behind it and is clung to by nearly every practitioner of the law, to be maintained.
Amendment moved —
Leave out Clauses 37 to 42, and insert the said new clause. —(The Earl of Desarl.)
VISCOUNT CAVE: Before the Lord Chancellor deals with the Amendment I should like to refer to another suggestion which is not quite the same as that of the noble Earl, but which is quite relevant to the clause with which he is dealing. I know of no precedent for a State with its own Parliament not having its own Judges. In every State in Australia, in every Province in South Africa and in every Province in Canada you find the Judges belonging to the State or Province; and it is only natural that they should be, for by adopting that course you are not only increasing the confidence in Judges but avoiding friction in every way. Although that is my view on the general question I think these clauses as to the Judicature are capable of great improvement. I will put to the House exactly how the matter stands under the Bill. A litigant in Southern or Northern Ireland goes first to the High Court of Justice for the Province. From that Court there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal for the Province. From there —the noble Earl is mistaken in thinking that there is a Divisional Court because they are abolished by one of the subsequent clauses —
THE EARL OF DESART: I am not quite clear on that point, because you will find later on something about the Divisional Court. I am not certain whether it is abolished for all purposes.
VISCOUNT CAVE: There is some doubt whether Clause 40 does not in substance do away with the Divisional Court in nearly all cases. Let us assume that they go. From the Court of Appeal of the Province there will be an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ireland, and from that Court to the Home of Lords in case of need. The unfortunate litigant in Ireland may have, therefore, to pass through four tribunals before he gets a decision. We in England have only three tribunals to pass through —the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords. Scot-
1064
land is in the same position; and it is strange you should impose upon the smaller districts of Northern and Southern Ireland the great burden and expense of four tribunals before getting a final decision. I suggest to the Lord Chancellor that he should consider this point. The right way of dealing with it in my opinion is to dispense with the Provincial Court of Appeal. In that I am in agreement with Lord Desart. You will then have a High Court in the Province, the Court of Appeal for the whole of Ireland, and from there an appeal to the House of Lords.
I should like to add that in that case you should and ought to improve the proposed constitution of the Court of Appeal for Ireland. I do not much like the proposal that it should consist of the Lord Chancellor and some one nominated by the Lord Chief justice for Southern Ireland and some one nominated by the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland. That is not the right way to constitute what should be a great Court. And, if you abolish the intermediate appeal, you would be able without the least increasing expense to form a strong Court of Appeal of Judges permanently allotted to sit in that Court who would then deal with all the appeals from the whole of Ireland. I put down some Amendments on this point, but I do not move them to-day because it seems better that your Lordships should consider first the wider question which the noble Earl has raised, but I propose to put down some Amendments for the next stage of the Bill and I hope the Lord Chancellor will give them his consideration.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to add a few words in support of the Amendment. I agree entirely with Viscount Cave as to the constitution of Irish Courts. There can be no doubt that having four Courts —the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords —is in itself necessarily not only a cumbrous method but so expensive that it might really mean a denial of justice. These are matters, however, which might be dealt with subsequently as regards the constitution of the Courts.
The noble and learned Viscount's objection to the Amendment is framed in this way. He says that wherever you have an independent Legislature, or a semi-independent Legislature, you ought to have also the power of appointing the Judges.

1065
He gave the analogy of Australia and Canada. I do not think that that analogy has any bearing in the particular case, and on this point I wish to say it word or two as to the hearing of Clause 46, which is one of those proposed to be omitted. As I. understand Clause 46 —I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, when he replies, will tell me if I am wrong, because this is a matter of the adjustment, of the administration of justice —the Judges will be appointed after the Bill is passed precisely in the same way as they are appointed at present. Not only will they be appointed in the same way, but there will be no change until there has been a union between the two Parliaments. Therefore, so far as the question of the appointment of Judges is concerned no alteration is suggested by the Bill. I am aware that their functions will be somewhat different and that there will be differentiation in terminology as between the North and the South. I think that is an answer to what the noble Viscount has said.
It might have been thought a proper thing to give the appointments, in some form, to the North and the South respectively, but that is not done. Personally I am glad it is not done, because think that a common judiciary is of enormous importance to the proper administration of justice in Ireland. While that provision exists, what reason is there for the division of the Court itself as between the North and the South? It is contemplated, at some time or other, that the distinction should be done away with, but if in the meantime the apointment of Judges is carried on as it is at present, there I do not think the objection raised by the noble and learned Viscount applies in this particular case. I put down an Amendment to leave out Clause 37 in order to raise the question. Without pledging oneself to all the terms of the noble Earl's proposal (which I have no doubt he would be the first to admit is capable of amendment), the principle is right and I shall certainly support it.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It is, I imagine, necessary that a debate upon this Amendment should largely drift into the discussion of legal and technical matters, and consequently I fear it invites —indeed, it almost provokes —interference in the debate by people who have been accustomed to the administration of the law. It
1066
seems to me that there are two things which this Amendment covers. The one is the general question of principle, as to whether or not you could assent to two distinct systems of judiciary in the North and the South of Ireland, and the other is a question of detail as to whether the detailed provisions of the Bill relating to the establishment of Courts and other similar matters could not be amended, even assuming that the general scheme were retained. I am strongly in favour of this Amendment, and I wish to tell your Lordships in a few sentences why.
No one will deny, that the establishment of a strong judicial system in Ireland is essential. If it were possible to secure respect throughout Ireland for the administration of the law half the difficulties of the Irish Government would be solved, and the fact that, that administration has not hitherto been universally respected is partly due, as I think, to mistakes that could be remedied, and partly to prejudices and ill-feeling which it would take a long time to remove. The part that I think could be remedied is this. I think, and I have always thought —and the noble and learned Lord, I know, will bear me out in this —that immense harm has been done to the administration of justice in Ireland, and not infrequently in this country too, by the use of judicial office as a reward for political service. I believe that there is nothing that tends to undermine the administration of justice more completely than that. It is particularly true in a country like Ireland, which is torn by political dissension, and if you are going to set up a new system for the administration of justice there, it certainly would be of the highest importance, if it were possible, to get the appointment of the Judges made so that no one could say they had been used not as the recognition of true legal eminence but as a reward for political fidelity. I say this with the less hesitation because, if the noble and learned Lord will permit me to say so, the power that he has exercised in this matter has, I believe, been absolutely unexceptional in its exercise, and as an old political opponent and one who has often spoken very strongly upon this matter, I think such a small recognition, if he will allow me to make it, is only what is due. But you cannot be certain, unless you can do something to put this matter outside the moving and contending forces

1067
of politics, that such a desirable result will be secured.
The first reason why I support the Amendment is that it seems to me that if you could establish one general system for the administration of justice over the whole of Ireland you would be far more likely to get rid of that danger than you would be if you retain two small judiciaries. The next reason is this. It has been pointed out by the noble Viscount, and no one can answer it, that the system which is established by this measure imposes a very grievous burden upon the Irish litigant. The idea that you are assisting in the determination of justice by multiplying the possibility of appeal I believe to be a profound mistake. If you want to set up the best conceivable form of Courts the way to do it is so to strengthen your tribunals at the base that appeals will be as few as possible, and instead of thinking that you should always be attempting to remedy mistakes that have been made in the lower Courts you should try to limit the possibility of those mistakes as far as possible, and at the same time limit the possibility of appeal. There is no use our pretending that the law is really the same for the rich man and for the poor if the rich man, with unlimited funds at his disposal, can drag the poor litigant from Court to Court until his funds are exhausted; nor, indeed, is it always fair to the rich mean that he can equally be dragged by a wholly impecunious opponent from one Court to the other in an unending chain of appeal. I am quite certain that for the best administration of justice the fewer Appeal Courts you establish the better; and this establishes a series of Appeal Courts under the burden of which, it seems to me, the unhappy litigant in Ireland may well be pressed to death.
There are one or two smaller matters which I will only mention in passing. One is the provision that you must appoint, or the Lord Chancellor may appoint if he considers it advisable, five Judges to sit in the Court of Appeal, and if he is unable himself to sit the Court is to consist of four Judges. Four is, of course, the most undesirable number you could possibly obtain for a Court of Appeal, because by sonic strange means if you set four men in a Court of Appeal they develop differences of opinion which never arise if there are three or five, and they invariably result in an
1068
division of opinion, and the effect is that the judgment of the Court below stands and the appeal and everything connected with it is simply a waste of time and money. The only result is to throw a heavier burden upon the unhappy litigant, because the case has to be heard again, a procedure which has always met with my uncompromising opposition, because it seems to me hard that, owing to the composition of the Court, with which the litigant has no concern and over which he has no control, you nevertheless throw upon him an expense which may be many hundreds of pounds.
I know that in this and other matters I may be only expressing my individual view. I think that three is as strong as five for a Court of Appeal. I do not believe you obtain judicial strength by multiplication of numbers. If you select your three men well you will get the finest Appeal Court that you can possibly desire, and you do not make it at all stronger by putting two more men to sit in it. The noble and learned Lord will, I know, realise that my criticism is not intended in any unfriendly spirit, and I hope that, the Government will give it some consideration and see whether the grievances which I have pointed out are not capable of remedy. For the rest I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the bigger your Courts within limits the better is your chance of getting better men. It is better to have one system of law administered in a small country like Ireland than to have two courts with two sets of rules and two separate schools for training lawyers. Disadvantage must always ensue when you split an entity, which by long tradition has been one, into two parts which cannot be united. I hope that the Amendment of the noble Earl will be accepted. It may perhaps be necessary to make some alterations in his proposal, but certainly the proposal in the Bill requires amendment.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: It appears to me very doubtful whether the Amendment would be practicable in the new state of things, because you have the Lord Lieutenant, and I suppose in this connection he will be guided very largely by the advice of the Secretary for Ireland, but when you have two Parliaments in Ireland who is to advise the Lord Lieutenant on questions which will arise I feel considerable difficulty about it.
LORD SHANDON: Having regard to the position which I at one time occupied as the head of the Irish Judiciary I wish to say a few words in support of the Amendment of the noble Earl. I wish to press this upon your Lordships, that my feelings with regard to it are precisely the same as those of the noble Earl. I look at the matter entirely apart from any question of politics, and entirely with a view of assisting the Government by any suggestions which I can make. I quite agree with what the noble Viscount has said that it would be an improvement if there was only one Court of Appeal. It seems to me to be the very minimum of improvement which ought to be carried out.
I respectfully differ from the view put forward that this is founded on precedent. I think I can show that there is no precedent for this particular proposal in the Bill. In the case of Canada, she had a complete judiciary for Lower Canada and a complete judiciary for Upper Canada. When there came to be union between the two Canadas it was quite rational that they should retain their two Courts and at the same time have a Canadian Court of Appeal. The present case is actually the converse. Here we have one Court which has functioned for the whole of Ireland, and it is to my mind not exactly following a precedent at all but making a precedent to set up two separate and independent tribunals, one in this very limited area in the North and another in the South of Ireland. The rational thing surely pending the transitional period would be to leave the judiciary as they are functioning in the North and the South and when the question came which arose in Canada that would be the time, if it ever arose, for separating the judiciary. I cannot see any precedent in the Canadian procedure for this case. The circumstances are different. The size of the place is different, and the whole matter can be summarised in this way, that in the case of Ireland you are disturbing the existing system, whereas in the case of Canada you were preserving the existing circumstances.
But then there are from a practical point of view very great objections to setting up these separate tribunals. We, of course, have always had certain necessary divisions in the case of common law matters between the North and South, because cases had to be tried in the North relating to the North and cases relating to the
1070
South had to be tried in the South. The advantage of having a. complete interchange of powers and having one appeal and one appeal only, if an appeal was necessary is manifest to any one who has had practical experience of this small country, Ireland. With regard to section 40 I think the noble Viscount is slightly in error. I think that only deals with the section of the Judicature Act with regard to new trial motions. Otherwise the offect of this does seem to be to set up three Courts of Appeal in Ireland. The proposal of the noble Earl is very simple, and I do not think it can possibly offend any susceptibilities either in the North or in the South. The Judges are to be appointed as heretofore, and I have never heard any suggestion that the Judges on the Bench, whatever their political views, did not lay entirely aside those views while discharging their legal duties, and did not give a. fair interpretation of the law in deciding the eases which came before them. I see no reason why that is not to be expected to continue in the future.
The effect of having a separate system of Rules and gradually diverging methods of dealing with cases certainly, in a small country like Ireland, would be deplorable. I have not heard the explanation for this change. Perhaps there may be good reasons for it. I do not think that there can be any coercive reasons with regard to double Courts of Appeal, and I should be surprised if there was coercive reason with regard to the other change. It is very difficult to explain this matter in a non-legal tribunal. Worry, confusion and an unsatisfactory condition of affairs will arise if you have this double system in Ireland. It would be wearisome to your Lordships for me to explain it, but I think in a general way you can quite understand that in a vast country like Canada or Australia it does not matter, but in a tiny country like Ireland, with this separate section set up, containing about a million inhabitants or less, it can lead to nothing except expense, delay, confusion, and unsatisfactory dealing with law. As I began I end by saying that my suggestions were not intended in any sense whatsoever as hostile to the principle of the Bill, but were put forward solely in the hope of advocating what seems to me to be a more inexpensive procedure.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I hope that your Lordships will

1071
forgive me for intervening in this debate, because I am not learned in the law, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, rather suggested that it was out of place —
LORD BUCKMASTER: I suggested it by way of apology for speaking myself.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. I did not understand it in that way. It is necessary that Peers from Ulster should give their views on this Amendment, and therefore I trust that your Lordships will forgive me for speaking. I hope that you will reject this Amendment. We in Ulster look upon it as absolutely vital that we should have our own judiciary, and we regard this Amendment as striking at the very root of the Bill itself. This question was very carefully debated in another place, and the clause was only inserted after a most exhaustive examination of the position. There are any number of precedents for a Province of the status of Ulster having its own judicature, and. there is absolutely no precedent for such a Province not having its own judicature. There are the cases of Canada, of Cape Colony, and of Natal. The two latter, before the Union of South Africa, had their own High Courts, and after the Union those High Courts became divisions of the Supreme Court of South Africa.
The effect of this Amendment is to provide a single judiciary for the Parliament of Ireland. The Acts which will be passed by the Northern Parliament will be certain at times to come under the review of the Courts, and it is absolutely essential that we should have the utmost confidence in those Courts. This is not a political question, but any one who lives in Belfast, or indeed in Ireland, knows what the words Dublin and Belfast mean. I do not know whether I can put it clearly to your Lordships, but you will never get people in the North to believe that judgments given in Dublin by Dublin judges were above suspicion. That is a fact which must be faced. At the present time many people in Belfast and in the North of Ireland, rather than submit their cases to a Judge, and especially to a Dublin jury, prefer to have them settled by private arbitration. It has been suggested that two judiciaries may entail very much increased expenditure, but we believe that there will be so many facilities for litigation that its cost
1072
will be cheapened. I ask your Lordships to remember that the Ulster Parliament will have to pay the cost of its own judiciary. It is not as if they were to get money out of the South of Ireland, or even out of the Treasury. It is the Northern Parliament itself which will have to pay all the expenses.
I do not know whether your Lordships are aware —I would not be aware of it had I not been told —that the procedure in the Irish Courts is very much out of date, and we hope, if we have our own judicature, that we will be able to bring it more into line with the procedure in England. At the present time, unless with the consent of the litigant, a commercial case cannot be tried by a Judge alone without a jury, and in the County Court it is impossible to have a case tried in which the amount involved exceeds £50. The Law Society, which represents all the solicitors in Ulster, desires that this clause should remain as it is. They wish to have their own separate judicature. The Chamber of Commerce and many other public bodies are also of that opinion. From where does the opposition come? It comes from some barristers and some solicitors in Dublin, who naturally get work acting as agents for solicitors in the North, and it comes from certain Judges —who, I may point out, are amply protected in the Bill. One can understand the Judges being adverse to it. They have their own houses in Dublin, and naturally they do not want to have to go to the North. In England you have your own local Bar, and therefore I presume the barristers in Ireland will be in exactly the same position as their professional brethren in this country.
THE EARL OF DESART: May I point out that the local Bar in Manchester and Liverpool has a right of audience in any Court in any part of England, but in this case Southern barristers will not have a right of audience in the Northern Courts of Ireland, and Northern barristers will not have the right of audience in Southern Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I do not think that this ought to be settled by what barristers think or do not think. It is a question for the people themselves. Even if barristers do suffer, the judiciary surely should be framed according to the wishes of the people themselves, and so as to give confidence to

1073
those who are likely to have commercial relations with it. Belfast is the largest. City in Ireland, but is in the same position judicially as any small provincial town in England. Under this Bill, Belfast will have the judicial advantages which are at present, given to Birmingham and Glasgow. I wish in conclusion to impress upon your Lordships that we in Ulster look upon it as absolutely vital that we should have our own judiciary, and that unless we have our own judiciary we shall find it impossible to ad m blister the Act.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The last thing I wish is to deal a blow to this Bill. Except in one connection I have supported His Majesty's Government in every Division, and I hope to do so again except on this matter. But I would point out to the noble Marquess who has just spoken —and my answer will also meet the point taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Finlay —that the proposal of the noble Earl is to make this a reserved service; that is, to make things remain as they are until there is a union of the two countries and to make the appointment vest in the Lord Lieutenant who, I understand, in this matter will be advised by Ministers of the Empire sitting in London.
I must confess that the opposition of the noble Marquess somewhat reminds me of one of Mr. Birmingham's famous novels, where the result of a successful resistance by Ulster was that Ulster insisted that it should no longer be governed by England but be governed by itself. If Ulster does not want Home Rule and only yields to this Bill because she must have one, why should not Ulster be content with things remaining as they are so far as the Judges are concerned? I should have thought it was what Ulster would have desired more than anything else both in her own interests and the interests of the Unionists in the South of Ireland. The point about Belfast is met directly by the proposition of the noble Earl that there shall be sittings in Belfast which, with deference to the noble Marquess, will not make Belfast equal with Birmingham and Liverpool, but will put Belfast in a superior position to Birmingham and Liverpool which at present do not having sittings of that kind.
If this Amendment is lost I shall certainly, follow the noble Viscount who sits in front of me in his Amendment, which
1074
proposes to get rid of the Court of Appeal, but I confess that I hope this Amendment cried. I want to point out how very crude acrid inadequate the present proposals are. There are to be two sets of Courts but there is to be one Bar and one body of solicitors. Who is to discipline that Bar? Who is to discipline those solicitors? At the present moment there is one Inn of Court, the King's Inns, and the Judges are, I apprehend, as they are in England, the visitors of that Inn, and from the action of the Benchers of that Inn a final appeal lies to the Judges. Is that appeal in future to be to the Judges of Northern Ireland or the Judges of Southern Ireland? The Courts can keep control over solicitors and they effect discipline by striking a solicitor off the Rolls or suspending him from practice. Is the Court of Northern Ireland to strike a solicitor off the rolls and the Court of Southern Ireland to hear the case solemnly and to decide it in the opposite direction, or is it to be vice versa? Imagine the scandal that will take place if there are different decisions taken with regard to the same solicitor by the Courts of Southern Ireland and the, Courts of Northern Ireland.
Then there is a point which appeals, perhaps, only to Judges: what is to happen about the authority of eases? If the Court of Northern Ireland has cited to it a case decided by its Southern brethren, is it to say "We are not bound by that, and we shall not follow it"? Are we to have authoritative constructions put upon old laws, not upon new, by Courts in Northern Ireland in one way and in Southern Ireland entirely divergent and different I cannot help thinking that, this matter has not been thought out. Of course, one cannot expect His Majesty's Government to give way to-day, but I trust there will be such strong feeling in support of this that ultimately we may have the present position of the Irish Judicature preserved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): It can hardly be said that there has manifested itself to-day the strong feeling upon one side which the noble and learned Lord hopes to see at a later stage in the Bill. In fact, the chief impression which I gather from a very balanced debate upon this difficult subject is that there are many who take one view but there are also many who take the other view. The noble Earl who moved the

1075
Amendment said with perfect truth that. I did not deal with this topic at all on the occasion when I moved the Second Reading. The omission was not due to any lack of appreciation on my part of the importance of the topic. In fact, I had prepared a careful note upon it, but, to be perfectly frank, I was so dismayed at the length which the oration I delivered on that occasion had already assumed that I somewhat reluctantly abandoned the few observations which I proposed to make upon that subject.
THE EARL OF DESART: I hope the noble and learned Lord does not think that I made any complaint.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, indeed not. The noble Earl spoke with very great feeling upon the effect upon the Bar, solicitors, and the Bench, and acknowledge gladly that in all that he said there was no tinge of any desire except to secure a conclusion which in his view would conduce to the administration of justice in its most efficient and impartial form. What the noble Earl said of the position of barristers and solicitors is open, I think, to the observation that, very important as those matters are, and certainly very important to those of us who belong to the legal profession, any loss of prestige to our colleagues in Ireland, if indeed there ultimately emerges a loss, would be the cause of as much regret, as he knows, to us as to himself.
But we are surely bound to approach this discussion upon the basis of the acceptance of the principle of the Second Reading. Everybody must concede that on the Second Reading your Lordships reached the conclusion that there were to be two Parliaments, one for Northern Ireland and one for Southern Ireland. I will discuss the question upon the hypothesis that the Southern Parliament for the moment is coming into existence, because that is the more complicated and difficult case; the other ease is perfectly simple. Most unhappily neither here no indeed in another place are there many, if there be any, repersentatives of those who at the present moment would be likely to constitute the majority in the Parliament for Southern Ireland. If we had the advantage or at any rate if we had the convenience of the presence amongst us of those who are likely to constitute the majority in the Southern
1076
Parliament I cannot think that any one will dispute the high degree of probability and indeed almost the certainty that they would insist just as strongly as Ulster —I will say a word about Ulster in a moment —upon their right to have their separate judiciary and their own individual Courts. I do not believe that anyone who under, stands the trend of opinion among the majority of those in the South will dispute that view. I know, of course, it is not entertained by those of my noble friends who sit in this House and represent the South of Ireland, but I very much doubt whether it will be disputed that that view would be held by those who are certain to control the majority.
The views of Ulster are well known, and they have been expressed to-night by the noble Marquess, Lord Dufferin and Ava. I am in a position to tell your Lordships in the clearest language at my command that opinion in Ulster, I will not use the exaggerated expression "is unanimous," but is overwhelmingly on the side of the proposals that are contained in this Bill. And when the noble Earl said that business opinion in Ireland is in favour of his Amendment I think I must remind the noble Earl that the businesses of Belfast play, as he well knows, a very considerable part in the total business importance of Ireland.
THE EARL OF DESART: I said a large body of business opinion in Ireland.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are few proposals that cannot command the support of some body of opinion in Ireland. But it would be the business opinion in the South that the noble Earl means. Well, there is every indication, as far as business men in the North are concerned, that this Amendment would fill them with consternation and, indeed, would destroy at once the whole of the limited satisfaction that they feel with the Parliament that we are to assign to them. If I am right in my surmise as to the view which would probably be taken by a Parliament in Southern Ireland, and if I am right, as I most undoubtedly am, in the statement I made as to the view taken to-day by the representatives of Ulster, then what is this Amendment inviting us to do? It is inviting us, with the same gesture as that with which we set up these two Parliaments in Ireland, against the wishes probably of both of them —certainly against the wishes

1077
of that, one of them as to whose constitution we are more certain —to do what no Parliament possessing functions comparable to these has ever been asked to do in any part of the Empire of do not think that we can justify such a course.
The noble and learned Lords who have spoken have attempted —it seems to me with great unsoundness —to distinguish the case of the area of each of these Parliaments From the area of judicial influence which has been conceded to separate States in America, in Canada, in Australia and in South Africa. It is no answer to say, as Lord Shandon does, that these places are much larger than Ireland. We are dealing with distinctions which go deep down in the roots of human nature, and which are far more important than the geographical considerations which have so much exercised the mind of the noble and learned Lord. All the world over the view has been taken that almost mechanically side by side with the concession of Parliamentary power there shall be given the responsibility in the matter of the administration of justice. And when it is said that the Amendment of the noble Earl at the present moment would secure, as was said by Lord Phillimore, the appointment of Irish Judges until the moment of union, to be administered on the advice of the Lord Lieutenant, I do not, as at present advised, so read the Amendment of the noble Earl, but I make no point of that, because he could not doubt so alter it as to make it produce that consequence.
But my objection is not based on that. It is based on the consideration that such a proposal could not possibly or reasonably survive the setting up of a Parliament in Dublin. If such a Parliament met they would say at once "You have given us great responsibilities; you have conceded to us, or it was part of your proposal to concede to us, the administration of justice, and we are not prepared to submit to the stigma and humiliation that we alone in the Parliaments of the British Empire should not be able, on the advice of our responsible Ministers, to name the Judges who shall administer justice in our Courts." We could not, of course, resist that claim, coming, as it would come, from the North of Ireland and the South of Ireland. Nor am I quite prepared too hurriedly to reject the view that there is something to be said for the probability—
1078
I exclude, for the moment, the making of political appointments —that the very different type and temperament that is to be found in the South and in the North might well produce on the Bench a difference in personality —not necessarily based upon inferiority on one side and superiority on the other —but a difference of type corresponding to the immense and temperamental difference which everyone knows exists between the South and the North. Of this I am sure, that it would be a bad thing for the administration of justice in the North and a bad thing for the administration of justice in the South if each of the Parliaments applied itself to its task with the feeling that it had been badly, inadequately, distrustfully treated, and was prepared to discover causes of resentment and causes of misunderstanding owing to judgments that might be given, either in the South in the one case, or in the North in the other.
The noble Earl asked me how it was proposed to deal with questions of discipline. That is, perhaps, a small point, but I would reply to him by saying this has never been found to be an insuperable difficulty where a new state has come into existence, either in the United States of America or in our own Empire. There is no difficulty at all among the great and experienced practitioners and judicial persons who will come into existence in Ulster in setting up disciplinary bodies comparable to those which have discharged those duties in England and in Ireland in the past. The last speaker, Lord Phillimore, said you may have the scandal of different Courts in the South and in the North giving different; decisions. It is, of course, always troublesome when Courts below do not always give the same decision, but we are familiar with that circumstance even in higher Courts, and in this Bill Courts of Appeal are provided, and it would be one of the functions of those Courts of Appeal to arrive at a true conclusion, if they were presented with such differences of opinion; and unless we are to suppose that either the Courts in Northern Ireland or the Courts in Southern Ireland disloyally refused to accept the ruling of the Appellate Courts the difficulty would be resolved, and we should know what the true solution of it would be.
I was asked a number of other questions which deal with detailed modifications of the proposals of the Government. I

1079
was much impressed by what the noble Earl said on the subject of the numbers of the Courts of Appeal —four or five. The noble Viscount is right there agree entirely with what was said by my noble friend Lord Cave, and repeated by Lord Buckmaster, on the unwisdom of the multiplication of Courts of Appeal. I agreed with much other (as it seemed to me) sound doctrine which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, enunciated, and I am specially grateful to him for the very kind reference he was good enough to make to myself in that particular respect. I have looked at Lord Cave's Amendments, and it appears to me at the moment that they give effect to his expressed object, but if (on the assumption that your Lordships do not adopt this Amendment.) between now and the Report stage he will put down his Amendments I would not wish nor, I think, would be ask me to give a final answer now, but my impression is that we shall be able to accept the suggestion made by the noble Viscount. I am not at all in disagreement with his criticism that it is not the best constitution for an Appellate Court that the Lord Chief Justices of the Provinces should nominate a member. I think that at least ought to be very carefully considered.
I will also pay attention to the objection which my noble friend Lord Buckmaster took to the constitution of the Court in the absence of the Lord Chancellor. I may say that the arguments used in different directions rather met at this point. And Lord Desart somewhat ignored the provisions of the Bill when he said that the Lord Chancellor's principal duty under modern conditions was to draw his salary. I can assure the noble Earl that the task of presiding over a Court of Appeal is a very considerable competitive occupation. But I will say no more on this point about the office of Lord Chancellor. I greatly regret and, I may say, resent the encroachments that are made on the office of Lord Chancellor, and. as I read through these provisions in their original form I confess I murmur to myself Proximus ardet Ucalegon. I confess I feared most of these changes were inevitable, but I noticed that by an Amendment which has been carried by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shandon, the Lord Chancellor was made the President of the Joint Senate which I think the noble and learned Lord set up. At a proper time I shall attempt to show your Lordships that the
1080
noble and learned Lord, unlike his usual behaviour, has not really thought out a tolerable or a. practicable scheme in this Amendment, which was proposed somewhat hurriedly and carried, and that the joint. Senate, whatever other course may be adopted, is not really one to whom these functions can be committed. But whether the Council of the original Bill is reconstituted or whether some other body takes its place, it would be quite possible for the noble and learned Lord to maintain his view as to the position of the Lord Chancellor by adding to the functions which he still retains the presidency of a body which might easily prove to be the most important body in the next few years in Ireland, and, if it succeeded in its ultimate task, the most important and illustrious in Irish history.
I think I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised, and would only add in conclusion that your Lordships resisted a most formidable attempt to deny to Ulster the Parliament which we have now given to her, and your Lordships were quite clear and quite firm in your conclusion. Having given that Parliament, when they tell us —as they unanimously tell us through their representatives —that they think the gift incomplete unless they are given judiciary, complete if they are allowed it, and when they are able to point at the same time to an invariable and unbroken course of precedents of many years all over the British Empire, I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DESART: Might I ask if the noble Lord has any plan or suggestion in his mind with regard to the difficulty about change of venue? It is a matter which I look upon as being a very grave One.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry I forgot it. I tell the noble Earl at once that there will be a very considerable difficulty. He knows as well as I do that under the existing system that difficulty was becoming a very serious one. I had occasion when I was Attorney-General in England, in consultation with the Irish Law Officers, on several occasions to suggest that the venue should be changed from Dublin to Belfast. I do not know whether the noble Earl knows that those invitations to the authorities in Belfast were being received with a degree of

1081
enthusiasm which diminished every week, and I do not believe that in Belfast they would indefinitely have consented to try crimes coming from the South of Ireland under the very terrible circumstances of which we are aware as existing at the present moment. The noble Earl has raised a point which I had not specifically thought of, and I should be very grateful it he would allow me an opportunity of considering it.
THE EARL DESART: I see the difficulty. It is a very important matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is a very important one. I quite agree.
THE EARL OF DESART: The noble and learned Lord has put with great force the instances of Canada and America, where you started Parliament with a judiciary, and justice naturally followed, but I do not think there is any case where you had

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Roden, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L

Sandwich, E.

Deramore, L.

Northumberland, D.

Selborne, E.

Desborough, L.

Sutherland, D.

Shaftesbury, E.

Dewar, L.

Wellington, D.

Strafford, E.

Dynevor, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Abereorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Faringdon, L.

Bath, M.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Harris, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hylton, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lee of Farcham, L.

Bradford, E.

Cave, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Esher, V.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Finlay, V.

Ormathwaite, L.

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

Hood, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Milner, V.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Eldon, E.

Peel, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Fortescue, E.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Abinger, L.

Riddell, L.

Howe, E.

Addington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L

Lindsay, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Roundway, L.

Lovelace, E.

Armaghdale, L

St. Leven, L.

Lucan, E.

Avebury, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Balfour, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Onslow, E.

Clinton, L.

Sumner, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery. E.

Clwyd, L.

Tweeddale, L. [M. Tweeddale.)

Plymouth, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Harlech, L

Crewe, M.

Hemphill, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Holm Patrick, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Islington, L.

Barrymore, L.

Killanin, L.

Drogheda, E.

Bellew, L.

Kiltnaine, L

Iveagh, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Lawrence, L.

Kingston, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

MacDonnell, L.

Mayo, E. [Teller.]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Midleton, E.

Crofton, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Morton, E.

de Mauley, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Reading, E.

Decies, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Wicklow, E.

Denman, L.

Parmoor, L.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.) [Teller.]

Pentland, L.

Allendale, V.

Phillimore, L.

Bangor, V.

Farnham, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Bryce, V.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Shandon, L

De Vesci, V.

Greville, L.

Southwark L.

the existence of a united Judiciary and a unified Bar and all the rest of it in one country and where you separated that country into two sections with the avowed intention of uniting them at some future time. I do not think that is really within the precedent quoted in support of it. I believe the position is altogether unique. The law is the same; the Judges will be appointed in the same way; it is all there in existence before you create the double area, and you create the double area with the intention some day of uniting them both. I think this differentiates the case very much from those that have been quoted.
On Question, whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill? —
Their Lordships divided: —Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 4S.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
Clauses 38 to 42 agreed to.
Clause 43:
Prorisions us to Lord Chancellor.
43.—(l) The provisions relating to the tenure of office by a judge of the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, shall apply to the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall affect any jurisdiction exercised by the Lord Chancellor in respect of and on behalf of His Majesty as visitor of any college or other charitable foundation; but save as aforesaid, the Lord Chancellor shall not exercise any excutive functions, and the Lord Chancellor shall cease to be Keeper of the Great Seal of Ireland, and the custody thereof and such executive functions as aforesaid shall be transferred to the Lord Lieutenant.
LORD PHILLIMOREhad on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (2), after "Chancellor" where that word first occurs, to insert "and existing Lord Chief Justice of Ireland." The noble Lord said: I have two Amendments on the Paper with regard to the position of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland. I do not know that it is necessary that both should be accepted, and I should prefer to take the second Amendment which I propose to move after Clause 43, to the effect that the existing Lord Chief Justice of Ireland shall, if he consents, be the first Lord Chief Justice of Southern Ireland, but shall retain his present title and rank and Alan continue to hold and exercise all non-judicial offices and duties annexed or appertaining to the office of Lord Chief Justice of Ireland.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble and learned Lord prefers the second of his Amendments there would be obvious considerations of convenience which would make it better to move it.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I will take the second Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: That will hardly do.
LORD PHILL1MORE: My first. Amendment is really declaratory—namely, that the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland should have reserved to him the position which
1084
he has with regard to a number of nonpolitical, accademic, and other bodies, and that his name should be put in after that of the Lord Chancellor. I shall be glad if that can be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 16, after ("Chancellor") insert ("And existing Lord Chief Justice of Ireland"). —(Lord Phillimore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment, and the next in the name of the noble and learned Lord, contains certain proposals with reference to the existing Lord Chief Justice of Ireland. On reflection he will see that they will not properly come into the body of the Bill. They are transitory provisions as to existing judges, and such transitory provisions belong properly to Schedule 4 of Part III, under which the existing Lord Chief Justice will become the Lord Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland unless he elects to retire or be transferred to the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland. The effect of the Amendment to Clause 43 would be to preserve the jurisdiction of the present Lord Chief Justice as a visitor of any college or charitable institution. I think the noble and learned Lord has called attention to a useful sphere of activity on the part of the Lord Chief Justice and one which is consecrated by many years' tenure, and I am very willing to attempt to meet his wishes.
With regard to his second Amendment he now proposes that the existing Lord Chief Justice, if he becomes Lord Chief Justice of Southern Ireland, should retain his title and rank. So far as that goes I see no objection to the proposal. It would be exposed, of course, to the superficial criticism that he is called the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland whereas, in fact, he would become, Lord Chief Justice of Southern Ireland. But after all mankind is very much influenced by titles, especially when they have their roots in history. The title of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland has been a distinguished title, and if the present holder of the office would feel some solace in the face of the changes by which he is confronted, I would certainly make a great effort to meet the views of the noble and learned Lord in that respect.
The latter part of the Amendment of my noble and learned friend, I think, goes too far. It proposes that the existing

1085
Lord Chief Justice should continue to "exercise all non-judicial offices and duties annexed or pertaining to the office of Lord Chief Justice of Ireland." In the absence of some very satisfactory and precise definition of what my noble and learned friend has in his mind I think would be dangerous to accept the proposal, because it might have the effect—I am groping about after his meaning—of depriving the Lord Chief Justice of the Northern Supreme Court of privileges and powers which are incidental and ought properly to be annexed to his office. With the aid of the draftsman, attempting to give effect to what I believe to be the fundamental purpose of the noble and learned Lord, I have drafted an Amendment which I think may possibly meet his views. I should propose that in the Fourth Schedule on page 67, line 7, at the end, to insert the following paragraph (c)—
"The existing Lord Chief Justice of Ireland if he becomes Lord Chief Justice of Southern Ireland shall so long as he holds that office be entitled to retain the rank and title of Lord Chief Justice of Ireland and to exercise any jurisdiction in respect of and on behalf of His Majesty as visitor to any college or other charitable foundation exercisable by him on the appointed day."
LORD PIIILLIMORE: I understand that would tike the place of both my proposals?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
.LORD PHILLIMORE: So far as I can judge, that would be quite satisfactory. If know that the proposals I made would have been satisfactory to the Lord Chief Justice, but of course he is not here. On the understanding that tire Lord Chancellor will be good enough to move his Amendment at the proper time I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45:
Transitory provisions.
45. The provisions set out in Part III. of the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to existing judges and officers of the Supreme Court of Ireland, existing barristers and solicitors and pending proceedings.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The two Amendments which I move in this clause are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 37, line 3o, after ("Ireland" (insert ("including officers attached to that court")
Page 37, line 31, leave out ("and solicitors") and insert ("solicitors and solicitors' apprentices").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46:
Provisions as to judicature after Irish Union.
46.—(1) All matters relating to the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland, the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland (including the registration of deeds), and the High Court of Appeal for Ireland shall be reserved matters until the date of Irish Union…
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "(including the registration of deeds "). The noble and learned Lord said: This is con sequential on my Registration of Deeds Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 34, leave out ("including the registration of deeds").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 to 49 agreed to.
Clause 50:
Special procision for decision of constitutional Questions:
50.—(l) If it appears to the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State expedient in the public interest that steps shall be taken for the speedy determination of the question whether any Act, or order having the effect of an Act of Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, or any provision thereof, or any Bill introduced in either of those Parliaments, or any provision thereof, or any legislative proposal before the Council of Ireland is beyond the powers of such Parliament or Connell or whether any service is an Irish service within the meaning of this Act or not, or if the Joint Exchequer Board, or any two members of the Board, in the execution of their duties under this Act, are desirous of obtaining the decision of any question of the interpretation of this Act, or other question of law, which arises in connection with those duties, the Lord Lieutenant, Secretary of State, or Board, or members thereof, as the case may be, may represent the same to His Majesty in. Council, and thereupon, if His Majesty so directs the said question shall be forthwith referred to and heard and determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
(2) Upon the hearing of the question such persons as seem to the judicial Committee to be interested may be allowed to appear and be heard as parties to the case, and the decision of the Judicial Committee shall be given in like manner as if it were the decision of an appeal, the nature of the report or recommendation to His Majesty being stated in open court.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall prejudice any other power of His Majesty in Council to refer any question to the Judicial Committee or the right of any person to petition His Majesty for such reference.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "and such determination shall be final and conclusive." The noble and learned Lord said: I sent a communication on this subject to the Lord Chancellor, but he has been too busy, I know, to make any answer to me. I will tell your Lordships how I view this clause. With regard to the Dominion of Canada we have a similar provision, from which no doubt this is borrowed, enabling the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to answer questions of law put to it by authoritative people. There is no objection to that, because the same tribunal is the ultimate tribunal on appeal in any case from the Colonies, and therefore if the Judicial Committee, consulted by the Governor-General, advise; such a course is legal and can be pursued, if the same point arises in an action inter panes the Judicial Committee follows its own ruling and decides in the same way.
But with regard to the Government of Ireland we have two different Courts. The Judicial Committee is not the final Court of Appeal but the House of Lords is, and I fear you might have under these circumstances a determination by the Judicial Committee that some course was lawful, that some act of either the Northern or Southern Parliament was within the scope of the powers entrusted to it, and then in an action raised between two subjects, which came to the House of Lords, the House of Lords might come to a different conclusion. It is true that the constitution of the two tribunals is not very different; that every Law Lord is a member of the Judicial Committee as it is, and I think almost always will be, but it is not every member of the Judicial Committee who is a Law Lord, and the two bodies might any time be composed of different members to say nothing of the constitutional possibility of other than Law Lords speaking and voting on Judicial matters in the House of Lords, and coining to a very different conclusion than that intended by the Judicial Committee. In order to prevent this I have put down a few words. I am not tied to those words, but my object is merely to see that when the Judicial
1088
Committee has been consulted in this way, and has decided whether an Act is or is not constitutional, its decision shall be final and conclusive and the same points cannot be differently decided by the House of Lords.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 2, at end insert ("and such determination shall be final and conclusive").—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The object of this Amendment is to secure that there shall not be conflicting decisions of the ultimate Appeal tribunals in relation to the validity of the Statutes passed by the Parliaments of North and South Ireland. Clause 50 of the Bill enables questions as to the validity of Acts of the Irish Parliaments, or of Irish legislative proposals, to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Under Clause 48 an appeal from the High Court of Ireland to the House of Lords is allowed in any case where a decision of the Irish Courts involves a decision as to the validity of any Irish law and the decision is not otherwise subject to appeal. My noble and learned friend is quite right. A question may arise as to the validity of Irish law. Then in that case there is an appeal to the House of Lords, and so the result is that a question of the validity of Irish law may fall to be determined by either of two tribunals. At the present a decision given by the Judicial Committee is not binding upon the House of Lords, and is not binding upon itself. The decisions of the House of Lords, as your Lordships are aware, are binding upon any other judicial assembly of this House, however it may be constituted, and binding for all time. That, of course, is the distinction between the two assemblies. I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord that inconvenience might arise, but it is only a theoretical possibility, so deep is the respect naturally paid by the Privy Council for decisions of the House of Lords, and by the House of Lords for decisions of the Privy Council, as indeed is natural seeing the personnel of the two bodies is the same, or almost the same. In practice, my noble and learned friend, who is a most distinguished member of both will agree, these difficulties do not assume a very acute form. But I quite agree that there should not even he a theoretical possibility of their arising.

1089
I should, therefore, suggest to my noble and learned friend, whose vigilance has discovered this risk, that the matter ought to be met by means of a new clause, and not by an amendment of existing clauses. I do not propose to put down a new clause at this stage, because I should like to have my noble and learned friend's views upon it before I put it down. I suggest that something like the following be put down—
"Any decision of the House of Lords or of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as to the validity of any law made by or having the effect of an Act of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, and any decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on any other question of law which is to be determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under this Act shall be final and conclusive and binding upon all Courts."
If my noble and learned friend will consider that form of words between now and the Report stage I shall be happy to cooperate with him in securing its passage.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend. I dare say some one will let me have those words in writing, so that they may be fully considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52:
Provisions as to existing judges and other persons having salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall apply to existing Irish officers in the civil service of the Crown, who, although receiving salaries not charged on the Consolidated Fund, are removable only for misconduct or incapacity, including (after the date of Irish Union) officers removable under section seventy-three of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877: Provided that, in the case of any such officer whose salary is payable otherwise than out of money provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the provisions of that subsection with respect to the payment of salaries and pensions out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom shall not have effect, and in the case of any such officer whose salary is payable out of money provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom those provisions shall have effect with the substitution of payment out of money so provided for charge on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
(4) Subsection (2) of this section shall apply to any officer to whom subsection (3) of this section applies, with the substitution of a reference to a period of forty years' service for the reference to the period of service entitling to a pension.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO moved at the beginning of subsection (3), after "existing Irish officers in," to insert "or deemed under any act to be in."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Earl allow me. If he will move shortly, I think he may perhaps find it unnecessary to go into argument upon his case.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 25, after ("in") insert ("or deemed under any Act to be in").—(The Earl of Mayo.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Without committing myself finally, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to say that my impression is that this Amendment is well founded and ought to be accepted. I will accept it provisionally, provided he has not a grievance if on the Report stage I raise any point that has not occurred to me now. I have not had the opportunity of consulting the draftsmen, but I think his Amendment is right.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 53 to 63 agreed to.
Clause 64:
Provisions as to the Bank of Ireland.
64.—(1) If the Government of Southern Ireland signify their desire to acquire for the use of the Parliament of Southern Ireland the premises (hereinafter referred to as "the bank premises") of the Bank of Ireland situate in or near College Green, in the City of Dublin, they shall be entitled to do so on the fulfilment of the following conditions:—

(a) there shall be provided at the expense of the Government of Southern Ireland for the use of the bank a site and buildings suitable both as to situation of site and accommodation and ready for occupation as head office of the Bank of Ireland;

(b)there shall be paid to the bank compensation in respect of the bank premises and of disturbance, after taking into consideration the value of the new premises to be provided. as aforesaid;

and on the publication in the Dublin Gazette of an Order by His Majesty in Council declaring

1091
that the said conditions have been fulfilled, the bank premises shall vest in His Majesty for the use of the Parliament of Southern Ireland.
(2) Any question as to whether the site and buildings so to be provided are suitable or ready for occupation, or as to the amount of compensation, shall be determined by a court of arbitration consisting of one person appointed by the Bank of Ireland, one person appointed by the Government of Southern Ireland, and a judge of a Supreme Court of Justice for any part of the United Kingdom (who shall be the chairman of the court) appointed by His Majesty, and there shall be paid to the members of the court, other than the chairman, such fees or other remuneration as the chairman of the court may determine to be proper, and those fees or remuneration and any other expenses of the court shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of Southern Ireland.
LORD MAC DONNELL LORD MAC DONNELL moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "there shall be provided," to insert "unless the Government of Southern Ireland and the Bank of Ireland shall otherwise agree." The noble Lord said: My object in this Amendment is to give wider scope to the negotiations of the Government of Southern Ireland and the Bank of Southern Ireland. I propose to give to both the liberty, if they are agreed, of taking a shorter method towards the acquisition of the Bank of Ireland in Dublin. It may he possible that the Bank of Ireland would be agreeable to accepting a lump sum, say £500,000, or whatever sum may be agreed upon, and that would save the Government of Ireland from any question of propriety as to the site and the suitability of the site or the building of the Bank of Ireland in accordance with the prescribed estimates, and so on. There is no intention of departing from or restricting the Bank of Ireland, if it so pleases, adhering to and putting in force the clause as it stands. I desire to give both parties a wider freedom of contract.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 10, after ("provided") insert ("unless the Government of Southern Ireland and the Bank of Ireland shall otherwise agree")—(Lord MarDonnell.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This clause has been carefully considered by the authorities of the Bank of Ireland and, as the noble Lord may be aware, they are quite satisfied with it. There is no obligation upon the Southern House of Parliament to buy this building of the Bank of Ireland.
LORD MAC DONNELL: I quite understand that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The clause is merely inserted on an assumption, which is probably not unnatural, that the Southern Parliament will desire to live in its ancient historic home. The clause is put in to ensure that the Bank of Ireland shall be properly compensated for its removal if it has to move. There is nothing in the clause to prevent a lump sum being paid, as the noble Lord indicates, if that is agreeable to the Southern Parliament and the bank authorities. If that agreement does not take place, this provision ensures that the bank premises, if taken, shall be taken on equitable principles. I feel, therefore, that the proposed words are unnecessary, and that they certainly introduce a complication; and unless stronger cause is shown than the noble Lord has indicated I hope he will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD MAC DONNELL: Am Ito understand that the clause as it now stands covers such a voluntary agreement as I have mentioned?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes; I understand that is so, and that the bank authorities are satisfied that the clause meets all their possible requirements.
LORD MAC DONNELL: In that case, I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clauses 65 to 69 agreed to.
Clause 70:
Provisions applicable in ease of cither House of Commons not being properly constituted.
70.—(1) If the Lord Lieutenant certifies that the number of members of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland validly returned at the first election of members of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland is less than half the total number of members of that House, or that the number of members of the House of commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland who have taken the oath as such members within fourteen days from the date on which the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland is first summoned to meet is less than one-half of the total number of members of that House, His Majesty in Council may, by Order, provide

(a) for the dissolution of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the ease may be, and for postponing the issue of a proclamation for summoning a new Parliament for such time as may be specified in the Order;

1093

(b) for the exercise in the meantime of the powers of the government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, by the Lord Lieutenant with the assistance of a committee consisting of such persons (who shall be members of the Privy Council of Ireland) as His Majesty may appoint for the purpose, and of the powers of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, by a legislative assembly consisting of the members of the said committee, together with such other persons as His Majesty may appoint for the purpose;

and the Order may make such modifications in this Act in its application to the part of Ireland affected as may appear to His Majesty to be necessary for giving effect to the Order and may contain such other consequential, incidental, and supplemental provisions as may appear necessary for the purposes of the Order, and any such Order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act but may be varied by any subsequent Order in Council.
(2) The person holding office in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and of Northern Ireland corresponding to the office of Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom shall, at the expiration of the said period of fourteen days from the date on which the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, is first summoned to meet, send to the Lord Lieutenant a list containing the names of the members of the House who have taken the oath as such members, and for the purposes of this section a member shall be deemed not to have taken the oath unless his name is included in a list to sent.
(3) Where at the expiration of the period mentioned in ally such Order in Council a proclamation is issued summoning a new Parliament to meet this section shall apply in like manner as it applies in the ease of the first election and first summoning of Parliament.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to delete Clause 70. The noble Lord said: This clause deals with what is to be done supposing these two Parliaments are assembled and one of the Parliaments or both of them has not a sufficient number of members to form a proper Parliament. The clause that I am proposing later on deals with the necessity of consent, and this clause is very much opposed to that principle. At the same time it recognises—what is in both the Amendment of the noble Marquess and my own—the necessity of some suspension before these Parliaments can be brought into being or can continue in being. The clause appears to me to be a very difficult clause, and, if the subsequent Amendments were carried, to be one which would only cause delay and awkwardness. In any event, whether the clause was there or not, the Amendments
1094
of the noble Marquess and myself would still come up for consideration.
But, taking the clause as it stands, the amount of procedure that is required under it in the first instance is very large. First, there is the election and the vote of the Northern and Southern Parliaments. It may be that the one or the other has not a sufficient number of members elected, who are prepared to take the Oath of Allegiance, to form Parliaments at all. In that case you get a Parliament in one division and no Parliament in the other. It is evidently anticipated in some of the speeches made in this House that the Southern Parliament will not have sufficient members elected to it who would take the Oath of Allegiance to form a Parliament and thereupon the order has to be given either for dissolution of that Parliament or for the postponement of the issue of a Proclamation for summoning a new Parliament. During that time, before either a new Parliament or any other Parliament is appointed, the whole of the Government of Ireland has to be handed over to a committee. The committee is to have the powers of the Government of Ireland (it is Southern Ireland that I am speaking of for the moment) and over that committee there is to be appointed another committee with other members added to it—a fertile source of possible changes, according to what the Government of Great Britain might be; of which second committee the first committee are all to be members—causing a condition of affairs where, whatever may be the case in an ordinary Crown Colony, you might easily have an executive committee at great issue with the governing committee which was above it.
And if these committees do not get on with the business of the government of the country then an Order in Council may again make any modifications that it chooses, as if it was an Act of Parliament. Further, whether it is the Northern or the Southern Parliament the last subsection of the clause says that when any Proclamation is issued for summoning a new Parliament this section shall apply as if it had been the case of a first election and the first summoning of Parliament. Such a position allows you to have, according to what might be the political movements for the time being, an alternation of Parliaments or legislative committees or executive committees dealing with either Northern

1095
or Southern Ireland. It does not follow at all that in the future, or even in the immediate years, a Northern Parliament would necessarily return a sufficient number of members who will take the Oath of Allegiance in order to constitute a Parliament on a second election. There would be an in-and-out system existing, and you would have this Government, one of the worst kinds of Government in a dislocated area that you can conceive, by committees. It may be the system which appertains to certain Crown Colonies, but it is very difficult to see how in the state of affairs which exists in Ireland at the present day you could have these rapid changes from one to another, or the possibility of these committees being packed or the committees exercising any jurisdiction without any real power behind them. In fact, the Parliament of the United Kingdom would be handing over the whole of the authority that it at present exercises to be carried out by legislative and executive committees. That kind of system would scarcely be one which would be an acceptable form of Government.
The principle upon which I have drafted my Amendment has been that it is impossible, unless you get a better consent to the Government, for Ireland to have any peace in the future. You are proposing to impose, at least upon Southern Ireland, a system to which at present she says she is not prepared to consent. It is said that Northern Ireland has expressed by its present representatives and by the letter of a private individual to the noble and learned Lord that she agrees to her Northern Parliament. But there has been no proof by the rank and file that they agree either in the North or in the South to any of the proposals of this Bill. It was intimated by at least two noble Lords in the course of the debate that they were prepared to accept this Bill for the North because they might have a worse Bill under some future Government of either the Liberal or the Labour Party. I am sure that the Labour Party at least—of which these noble Lords seem to be so afraid, but in which I do not nearly have the same lack of confidence—would never propose to put upon either division of Ireland a Bill without the better consent of those who are going to have it.
The Labour Party at the present moment is advocating, by a Mission that has been sent to Ireland, some attempt at
1096
consent of the rank and file. Whether they are successful or not, that is at least the principle upon which they are going. The Labour Party, too, here has urged that a Constituent Assembly should be summoned by which the opinion of the rank and file in Ireland could be taken, and they have not only done so through this country but they have obtained the consent of the principal unions of Ireland to the same course. Whether that is a feasible course or not I am not arguing, but I am saying that those who are the principal people in the Labour movement would not, either in politics or from their own experience, attempt to carry out Rules, Orders, or Acts of Parliament in this way without at least having the further consent of the governed to what is being done.
It seems as if the mental attitude of the Irish people to this Bill has not been sufficiently estimated. Over and over again it has been shown with nations as with children that if you employ force you do not lead them nearly as far as you do when you make a bargain with them, or try to induce them along a certain way. The Irish people throughout their whole history have shown that they are not amenable to force. But they have been led, and their views have been changed, and they have accepted anything that is given with generosity. I maintain that this clause is unnecessary for the purpose of suspension. A simpler and easier method would have done without setting up this awkward machinery. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 70.—(Lord Askwith.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If it would be convenient to the Marquess of Salisbury, I regard this Amendment as paving the way to his later Amendment on Clause 71, and unless he is in any way inconvenienced I should be glad to hear what he has to say.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am entirely in your Lordships' hands, and desire to study the convenience of noble Lords and the Lord Chancellor. The real reason why I gave way rather than move the Amendment to delete Clause 70 was that I was aware that many of the arguments the noble Lord would use in pointing out the insufficiency of Clause 70, however well intentioned the clause, would

1097
trench upon a good many of the arguments which would ultimately be of importance when we come to deal with the later Amendment. I recognise the desire of the Lord Chancellor and I will do my best. Your Lordships will realise that Clause 70 is the only thing which stands between the Government and the full-blown appearance of a Parliament in Dublin immediately on the passing of the Bill. There is, of course, the appointed day, and a slight margin on one side Or the other, but, broadly speaking, within very narrow limits, this clause is the only thing which stands between the Government and the appearance of a Parliament in Dublin.
I do not think your Lordships will want me to argue that at the present moment the position in Southern Ireland is such that the establishment of a Parliament there would be absurd. I am not arguing the big question for the moment. I was looking at the present condition of Ireland, and no one can pretend that it is a suitable place for a Parliament and for a Government, both of which must necessarily be hostile to Great Britain. Your Lordships will have observed that the reign of disorder continues. I know that the Leader of the House, when he spoke on the Second Reading, was a little hit shocked that I had used the argument of the disorders in Ireland as a reason against the Bill in its present form. But surely l was well justified in doing so. No one out of a lunatic asylum can think that a Parliament ought to be established there are things stand at the moment. Yet the only thing the Government have provided in order to protect us from such a disaster is Clause 70.
I think I am right in saying that this clause—the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong—was not introduced until a late stage of the Bill in another place. It was evidently an afterthought and one arrived at in considerable hurry, judging from its appearance. I think the Government, on second thoughts, will realise that it is quite insufficient. I am not contesting the good intentions of the clause. What is hoped, I suppose, is that either Ireland will genuinely accept the Bill, or else that half the members of the Southern Parliament will refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance, so that it will be possible to govern Ireland by means of this Committee until such time as she is of better mind. There is no justification whatever for arriving at that conclusion.
1098
I pointed out on the Second Reading that the whole of this superstructure upon the Oath of Allegiance is altogether too heavy for it to bear. The Oath of Allegiance means perhaps a good deal to your Lordships, but I do not think it means a great deal in Ireland. I indicated on the Second Reading what I believe to be true —that the solicitors practising in Ireland, all those solicitors who practice before the Sinn Fein Courts at this moment, and all the magistrates, including the Mayors and borough magistrates, have taken the Oath of Allegiance. For example, the late Lord Mayor of Cork, of whom I do not wish to speak with any disrespect, though his opinions were very extreme, had taken the Oath of Allegiance. To say that that Oath is likely to be any solid protection, or a ground for believing either that South Ireland accepts the Bill or that she is sufficiently well affected to work it properly, is to build, as I think, on the sand. There are many detailed criticisms of the clause on which I do not want to dwell, because the big objections seem to me by themselves (if I may say so, with great respect to the Lord Chancellor) conclusive.
But the whole business of saying that the thing must depend on the certificate of the Speaker is an unsatisfactory proposal. Supposing the Oath of Allegiance does act as a bar—take the view of the Government that it is going to be a useful protection—then there will probably be hardly any members and I doubt whether there will be a Speaker. Let us suppose that the members are elected but hesitate to take the Oath of Allegiance. Then it depends on the certificate of the Speaker. We do not know who the Speaker is going to be. Have we any grounds for thinking that he will render a perfectly genuine Certificate? I do not want to say a disrespectful word of the Irish people, for whom in many respects I have very great regard, but I should not think that accuracy was their strongest point, or that they would hesitate, in order to achieve a useful political result, to strain to some extent the actual facts of the case. It all depends upon the certificate—upon there being members there, upon there being a Speaker, and then upon his making an accurate certificate.
Then it all depends upon whether the oath, even if they have taken it, is any real protection. And let me say this. Let us suppose that the oath is taken more

1099
or less sincerely, what does it really amount to? It means an Oath of Allegiance to His Majesty the King. I can conceive a very extreme politician in Ireland absolutely determined to wreck this Bill when it becomes an Act, and I can conceive his saying that he desires to bear true allegiance to the King "according to law"; that is to say, until the law is altered. Therefore —the noble and learned Lord does not quite agree with that?
LORD PHILLIMORE: I think the oath is "allegiance to the King, his heirs and successors according to law."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: At any rate an Irish member, such as I am suggesting in Dublin, will not be bound by technicalities at all; he will not look upon it with the accuracy of the noble and learned Lord, and I feel quite convinced that if the whole of this protection rests upon the Oath of Allegiance it is resting upon a very slender basis. Let me take another part of Clause 70. It is not even necessarily going to be enforced, because it all depends upon the discretion of the Government. I am not desiring to call in question the bona fides of the Government in the least, nor do I want to say anything which is polemical. I do not think, however, that anybody will think that the Government policy in Ireland has been a conspicuous success. No one could pretend it for a moment. It has evidencly been the most unsuccessful effort of policy ever known, and one cannot have great reliance upon the discretion of the Government, who have to determine whether the substitute form of government which they provide in Clause 70 is to go on or not. It all depends upon the word "may," and that appears to me to be a great blemish in the Bill.
Finally, suppose the Government are determined to enforce the clause, and supposing there is no change of Government, for of course there might be a change and a new Government might not be at all prepared to enforce the clause. Assuming all that to be as favourable to the Government case as it can be, then the new state of things is brought into force. What is the new state of things? It is government by committee. I do not think that is a very satisfactory form of government. It is government of a purely arbitrary character. I ask your Lordships to remember that the true genesis of this Bill is, I believe, a desire to please—and I have
1100
some respect for the motive—public opinion in the Dominions and in the United States of America. I do not agree with allowing that motive to have the weight which the Government have allowed it to have, but undoubtedly it is strong in weight. I ask your Lordships what view public opinion in the Dominions and in the United States is likely to take of government by committee—of government of an absolutely arbitrary character carried on for a long period. You cannot exaggerate the kind of accusations that would be brought against such a form of Government, and probably with good grounds. That Committee is likely to make a good many mistakes. One cannot observe what goes on in Ireland without being convinced that administrative mistakes flourish in that country, and there is no doubt that this Committee will make great mistakes. Then, conceive the volume of public opinion which will be created against it not only in Ireland, but in England and throughout the Empire, and in the United States. It is a very bad form of government for the purpose which, I believe, the Government have in view—namely, the conciliating of opinion.
Lastly, I wonder what the position of our own Parliament here is expected to be under that state of things? Is it expected that the House of Commons and ourselves should remain quite uninterested in what is going on in Ireland, while it is being governed by this arbitrary Committee? Is it not quite certain that every act of that Committee which is of a strong or drastic character will be challenged on the floor of Parliament, and will be resisted by the Government on the ground that we have nothing to do with what goes on in Ireland. A condition of ambiguity, of friction and of irritation will be created that will be very detrimental to good government and to proper procedure in both Houses of Parliament.. These appear to me sufficient reasons for saying that Clause 70, inserted in the Bill at the last moment evidently in a hurry, without adequate thought, is not a well-conceived clause, and not a proper remedy for the disease.
I hesitate on grounds of Order from going in detail into those clauses which are upon the Paper following this, and which to some extent are a substitute for it. I do not know how far your Lordships would wish me to go into them, but

1101
I may say that there are two things which appear to be absolutely essential. The first is that there shall be some guarantee retained in the hands of this Parliament—retained, that is to say, in the hands of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords—that no such system shall be put in force in Ireland until Ireland is fit to receive it. That is, until the murders, outrages, and the defiance of the King's Government and the rights and liberties of our fellow-subjects in Ireland are laid at rest. As soon as Parliament is satisfied of that, then it might be suitable to bring the Act into force. That appears to be the first remedy.
The other precaution which seems to me to be essential is that a system should not be forced upon an unwilling Ireland. I do not want to argue that at length because it will arise upon my noble friend's Amendment, but it is clear, from what the Government: lave said themselves over and over again in these debates, that they want to avoid forcing a system on Ireland which Ireland does not want. That should be applied not merely to such questions as the Second Chamber or a system of judiciary, but should be applied universally. It is a sound principle that you should not force upon a reluctant Ireland what she does not want. If you do that you have no claim upon her that she shall work it. Those appear to be the essential elements of the precautions that you ought to take. I do not say that the elimination of Clause 70 is essential in order that these other two safeguards shall be introduced, but it seems to me to be proper that it should be eliminated. It does not fit very well, and it is for that reason that I ventured to give notice to move the omission of the clause. My noble friend has moved its deletion, and I hope that the Government will consent to the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think when the noble Marquess said that he hoped the Government would assent to this Amendment, he did so in the spirit of the Roman, who said Spero magis quam expecto. It must have been quite inconceivable to the noble Marquess that we should accept this Amendment because, although he may not have envisaged this contingency, it may even be that your Lordships will not be prepared to accept the Amendment which follows that of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite agree.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We are all bound to accept the decision of the House. It seems to me to be exceedingly improper that the House is to pronounce in a moment upon the noble Marquess's Amendment and may not accept the Amendment to Clause 70 but may reject it. If we accepted this proposal on that hypothesis we should not have the slightest protection in case of the contingencies with which Clause 70 deals. I cannot think that any one would take the view that we should dispense with what I still think is the validity of Clause 70 until we have reached a conclusion upon the other.
I am not entitled of course, to complain in the slightest of the length of the elaborate speeches in which these matters have been discussed, because the topic is most important, but I confess I had hoped, with the elasticity which your Lordships occasionally allow in these matters, we might have heard a recommendation of the noble Marquess's proposal which would have enabled us to deal with this particular Amendment with an exact knowledge of its terms and scope. The noble Marquess, more indulgent to us to-night than he sometimes is, said that he did not wish to make a strong attack on the Government but would content himself with saying that it was at least obvious that their policy in Ireland had not been a success. There is a sense in which everybody must agree with that. It is the same kind of accuracy with which one might have stated at certain periods in the war that it was most conspicuous that the policy of the Government in defeating the Germans had not been a success.
If I might deal in any tone of criticism at all with the attitude of the noble Marquess in relation to this matter, I sometimes think that when he fires the arrows of his criticisms he forgets that after all we have been confronted with a task of quite extraordinary difficulty, of almost unprecedented difficulty so far as I know. If he were ever to say "You have failed in this I am quite confident that if I had had to deal with the problems I could have solved them," I should have listened to him confess, in a wholly different temper. The noble Marquess, who is one of the most modest of men, has never said so, and I do not believe in his heart that he believes it. I am making no further claim for the Government in this respect than that we have been confronted for the first time in

1103
all history by men who have been wicked and cowardly enough, banded in large numbers, to claim the right of warfare, while performing the acts of massacre with no uniform and with murder stalking behind the hedge. When the armies with which we were dealing numbered not tens of thousands but much more than tens of thousands, in all the military operations with which I am acquainted in my study of such matters, I know of no such problem that has ever perplexed or confronted any Government before in its life history. I claim that, slow as the progress may be, slow as the progress has been in other great struggles in which this country has been engaged, progress none the less is being slowly and certainly made. I make no other observations on what the noble Marquess said on this point.
When we come to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, it is preparatory of course to the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Marquess or which originally stood in his name. The whole difference between the two is this. It is quite true that at a late stage in the Parliamentary history of the proposals the House of Commons decided that it was a sufficient security for dealing with this matter to provide that if the Lord Lieutenant certified that the number of members of the House of either Southern or Northern Ireland was less than half the total numbers, or if less than half took the Oath of Allegiance, the consequences which are familiar to everybody here and which have been explained by the noble Lords would ensue. Lord Salisbury prefers, as an alternative to that, that a Resolution should be passed by both Houses of Parliament. The matter is one open to argument, but I am on the whole inclined to think that the course which we recommend is the preferable one. The noble Marquess says that, as far as the certificate of election by the Lord Lieutenant is concerned, there is nothing to be said—we should have the certificate of the Lord Lieutenant, and that, on the face of it, is of course unimpeachable. But then the noble Marquess finds fault with the provision that half the members should take the Oath of Allegiance, and I remember that in his speech on the Second Reading he dissented from the view which I had—I confess in a very hesitating way, because these matters are very speculative —put forward. I had said that my study of the history of the Sinn Feiners and of
1104
their behaviour (I am excluding altogether for the moment what I call the murder gang, the "gunmen") was such as to lead me to the conclusion that they would not deliberately falsely take the Oath of Allegiance. No one is entitled to dogmatise on such a matter, neither Lord Salisbury nor myself, and he would be entitled to say that cases are appropriate where risks may be run, and to that I assent.
But let us see whether the probabilities are not immensely on the side of the view which I expressed on the Second Reading. Every one of those Sinn Feiners, if he would have taken the Oath of Allegiance could, of course, have presented himself at the House of Commons here. There may have been other reasons. Some observers say they would not come to the House of Commons because, if they did, that would involve a recognition of the House of Commons and to that they would not assent. I do not think that can be the true view, because it involved a sufficient recognition of the reality of the House of Commons when they made themselves parties to and victors in the election for membership of the House of Commons. There can be no consistency in the view which drew a distinction between sitting in the House of Commons and electing themselves to the House of Commons. And I believe that the real reason is that they were not prepared to take the Oath of Allegiance.
The noble Marquess says every man is prepared to take the Oath of Allegiance, and that the Lord Mayor of Cork took it. I have not the slightest reason to suppose that the Lord Mayor of Cork took the Oath of Allegiance. No oath, so far as I am aware, is required from any Lord Mayor unless he enters upon his magisterial duties. But I am told that it is very uncommon for Lord Mayors to take the Oath of Allegiance; very few do. And if I were a person who ever entered into wagers I should be prepared to risk a considerable sum that the Lord Mayor of Cork, who supplied him with a very important argument in his speech, never took the Oath of Allegiance at all. Then the noble Marquess said that all the solicitors of Ireland took the Oath of Allegiance. I do not know at first-hand knowledge what the solicitors of Ireland do, but I am unaware that the solicitors of England do. I have some knowledge of these things, and I never heard of such an oath. And the noble

1105
Lord, Lord Shandon, who has great knowledge of Ireland, I believe confirms my view.
LORD SHANDON: I am not aware of it. I have signed the certificate of admission, and they never took the oath before me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It may emerge that the noble Marquess is right and I am wrong, but at present it appears that he is wrong and I am right
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have no knowledge on the subject.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not sure whether it is wise to make these observations the basis of Parliamentary argument unless one has such knowledge. Even if true that the attorneys and others in Ireland took the oath, they took the oath under quite different circumstances from these. They took the oath and became solicitors, some of them many many years ago, and they took it in no relation to the position arising now. The suggestion is that these people are going to take the oath of allegiance and the moment they qualify by so taking are going to break it publicly. I think it is unwise to put forward that view very confidently.
I think the House will forgive me if I deal in anticipation with the alternative suggestion given by Lord Salisbury. The proposal of the Government is that you shall have two methods of deciding whether or not this Parliament is prepared to discharge its functions. I think that gives you a fair prospect that a Parliament so made would afford the nucleus of a Southern Parliament and others following their example would associate themselves with them. But there is not much difference really between the two views. The noble Marquess says: "I will have an additional voucher and security" There is this great objection, I think, to Lord Salisbury's proposal, that you cannot bring them into existence in a week, a month, or three months. The whole circumstances may be changed, they are changing now like a kaleidoscope before our eyes, and have been in the course of the last six months and the last twelve months. Who knows, when once this Resolution has been taken by the two Houses, whether by the time it could be made. operative some
1106
change of this kind would not have taken place? We have now in our own hands in this Bill a very considerable security. This Bill if we choose to postpone, if the circumstances in Ireland make it wise to postpone it, can be postponed until the month of April, 1922. That is a very considerable margin. A great deal will have happened by the month of April, 1922.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You cannot tell at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No one can tell anything. That is the trouble; but if you allowed that to prevent you introducing Acts of Parliament—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I explain? I have not, of course, described my Amendment. There would be no difficulty in bringing the Act into force. The Government would have to ask the House of Commons and the House of Lords and the Resolution would be passed. The power of determining whether the Act should come into force would vest in Parliament, where it ought to vest, and not in the act of an executive government; secondly, it would depend not upon the chance of whether a certain number of men would take the oath of allegiance, but upon the conviction of your Lordships and another place that Ireland was in a proper condition to exercise these great privileges.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It begs the whole question when the noble Marquess says that it rests in the hands of Parliament, where it ought to rest. The whole point is whether you ought to get that right suspended, or whether you ought once for all when passing this Bill to define clearly the conditions upon which the oath is taken. I confess the Government adhere to their own view, but at any rate all of us surely must be agreed that until we have assented to the Amendment of Lord Salisbury we could not possibly get rid of Clause 70. I have heard no argument in favour of that view. The security of Clause 70 is of vital necessity unless and until we prefer some proposal such as that which Lord Salisbury brings forward. I propose to resist this Amendment for striking out the only clause that gives us security, and listen to Lord Salisbury make his proposal on Clause 71.
LORD KILLANIN: Before we pass from this Amendment, which I understand to be the Amendment before the House—namely, the elimination of Clause 70—I should like to confirm the view of the Lord Chancellor with regard to Sinn Feiners in Ireland who occupy positions which entitle them to become magistrates if they so wish. It is my experience in the West of Ireland that Chairmen of county councils and urban councils, who are entitled to become magistrates, do not attempt to do so or take the oath of allegiance, for this reason amongst others, that they are acting as magistrates in their own courts.
I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor whether this clause contemplates the possibility of only one of the Parliaments in Ireland coming into being? If only one Parliament comes into being there will then be no Council of Ireland, no Senate, or its equivalent.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not agree.
LORD KILLANIN: The Council of Ireland is to be composed of ten members from each of the two Parliaments, and one of the Parliaments does not exist.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord will look at Clause 70, subsection (1), paragraph (a), he will see that that case is provided for.
LORD KILLANIN: Is the Lord Chancellor referring to powers that are to be? Certain powers were given to the Council, if it came into being, and as I read the original clause the powers which would be exercised by the Council would be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant and his committee. The powers I take it refer to railways and fisheries.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The clause says "for the exercise in the meantime of the powers of the Government of Southern Ireland." That is perfectly unlimited language; you cannot use wider language.
LORD KILLANIN: The powers are one matter. There are what are described as Private Bill legislation, and legislation with reference to agriculture and fisheries.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Fisheries and railways belong to the Council.
LORD KILLANIN: There will be no such body as the Council of Ireland in existence. A great deal of stress has been laid on the fact—and by no one more energetically than the Lord Chancellor— that an essential part of the Bill coming into operation was the existence of the Council of Ireland. Does the Lord Chancellor look forward to the unity that would arise from the Council of Ireland, the harmonious action that would take place between the two Parliaments, the intercourse that would take place between them? He is contemplating a situation which naturally would be impossible. There could be no harmonious action at all or any of that intercourse, for the simple reason that there would be only one Parliament in existence. He is, therefore, contemplating a situation in which there will be no Council of Ireland. All the talk about the Council of Ireland as a centre of unity goes by the board under this clause. When we come to a positive proposal—I understand Lord Askwith is to move an Amendment—I want to draw attention to the fact that this Council of Ireland will have ceased to be. That is one reason why I hope to show—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Lord allow me? It may clarify the matter. I think I can make it plain in two or three sentences. The Council of Ireland, as a body which discharges the functions immediately committed to that Council, other than those of preparing the road to unity, will come into existence at once and will discharge its functions in relation to railways and so forth. The Council of Ireland, as a body possessing moral force in the direction of attaining unity, will not, and cannot, come into existence—
LORD KILLANIN: Composed of two Parliaments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: —because on one side it will be deprived of moral weight.
On Question, whether Clause 70 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 51.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 71:
Commencement of Act and appointed day.
71.—(1) This Act shall, except as expressly provided, come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day for the purposes of this Act shall be the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this et is passed, or still other day not more than seven months earlier or later, as may be fixed by Order of His Majesty in Council either generally or with reference to any particular provision of this Act, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act, but the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland shall be summoned to meet not later than four months after the said Tuesday, and the appointed day for holding elections for the House of Commons of Southern and Northern Ireland shall be fixed accordingly:
Provided that the appointed day as respects the transfer of any service may, at the joint request of the Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, be fixed at a date later than seven months after the said Tuesday and that the appointed day as respects the provisions relat
1110
ing to the representation of Ireland in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom shall be a day not earlier than the day on which the Parliament of the United Kingdom is next dissolved after the passing of this Act.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall affect the administration of any service before the day appointed for the transfer of that service from the Government of the United Kingdom.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Having regard to the decision which your Lordships, in accents so unmistakeable, have just reached I propose, so far as this House is concerned, if the noble Marquess is agreeable, to accept his Amendment to this clause. We must have some safeguards, and in those circumstances I accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In the circumstances I will not trouble your Lordships' House with any observations. Otherwise I would have explained to you the beauty of these proposals.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am quite sure that if the noble Marquess had done so we might then have had two Bills.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move, at the beginning of subsection (1), to leave out from "the appointed day" where those words first occur, to the end of subsection (1), and to insert the new subsections standing in my name—viz:
"(2) With the intent that the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland shall not he established until the Parliament of the United Kingdom is satisfied that the authority of His Majesty the King in Southern Ireland and in Northern Ireland respectively, and the protection in their rights and liberties of all persons in Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland respectively are fully assured and that otherwise it is expedient that the said Parliaments, or either of them should be established in Ireland, the appointed day for the purposes of this Act shall be such day as regards Southern Ireland and such day as regards Northern Ireland as may be respectively fixed by a resolution or resolutions as the ease may passed by both Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and by such resolution different days may be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act in its application to the part of Ireland affected by the resolution.
"(3) Until the Parliaments of both Southern and Northern Ireland have been established, the provisions of this Act with respect to the Council of Ireland shall not have effect.
"(4) In the event of the appointed day being fixed for Southern Ireland only, or for Northern Ireland only, or being fixed at different times by different resolutions under this section, His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such modifications in the provisions of this Act in its application to the part of Ireland affected by a resolution under this section as may appear to His Majesty to be necessary for giving effect to the said provisions in such part, and such Order may contain such other consequential, incidental and supplemental provisions as may appear necessary for the purposes of the Order, and any such Order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be varied by any subsequent Order in Council.
"(5) Before any Order under this section is submitted to His Majesty in Council a draft thereof shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either of those Houses within thirty days on which that House has sat next after any such draft is laid before it against such draft or any part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken on the draft or the part thereof to which the address relates; but this provision shall be without prejudice to the making of a new draft."
I might explain that in subsection (3), instead of "the Council of Ireland" it should, I suppose, now be the "Irish Senate."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 72:
Definitions.
72. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "salary" includes remuneration, allowances, and emoluments:
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in the definition of "salary," after "remuneration," to insert "bonus." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember that in Clause 52 all existing Irish officers serve in an established capacity, and are retained in their employment and continue to receive the same salaries, gratuities and pensions. I move this Amendment to insure that they shall get what is called the war bonus which, as in the case of many similar officers in this country, is nowadays really a part of their ordinary salary. I am asked by the Surveyors Institution and by similar bodies of professional men in Ireland to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 2, after ("remuneration") insert ("bonus").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Clause 53 (1) secures to all transferred officers salaries not less than those they would have received had the Act not passed into law. It is laid down in the Act in specific terms that all transferred officers shall receive the bonus fixed according to the existing practice of the British Civil Service, even though that practice may be inapplicable to the Irish system. At the present moment the bonus to which Lord Bledisloe refers is based on the cost of living, as calculated from time to time according to the well-established system of the Ministry of Labour, and it is revised every three or four months. The safeguard against the injustice of which imagine Lord Bledisloe is afraid is I think sufficiently covered in the Third subsection of Clause 53 which gives all transferred officers the right to retire if they think fit with their full pensions. I should therefore suggest that the bonus ought not to be included in the salary as the point is now covered by Clause 52, subsection (3).
LORD BLEDISLOE: The noble Earl has rather mistaken the intention of this Amendment. It was not intended to refer to the pension that they would get on retirement. It refers to their present-day

1113
salaries and is to make quite certain that they have included the war bonus as part of their salaries. I am not sure that the Bill does not meet the point but I have been asked to put it. It is not a very important concession, but it would make the minds of these professional gentlemen much easier if it were made.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I thought the pint was already met under Clause 53.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not desire to press the point if the noble Earl thinks it is met.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert—
"The expression `technical officer includes any officer who entered the Civil Service of the Crown in an established capacity after attaining the age of twenty-two years and who was required by the Civil Service Commissioners to have had previous professional experience."
The noble Lord said: This is a much more important Amendment. As the noble Earl told me that he was not sure as to the meaning of the expression "technical officer," this adumbrates a further Amendment which I put down to the Fifth Schedule to this effect—that for the purpose of calculating the superannuation allowance or grataity payable to a technical officer there shall be added to his years of service a further five years in addition to any which may be added under Para. 2 (a) of Part A of the Rules.
The unfairness which is likely to occur is due to the fact that a considerable number of these established officers are professional men who have had a very long professional training and are now something like forty to fifty years of age, and of whom it is quite impossible to conceive that they could get fresh employment either in England or Ireland when once they retire from their present occupation. I am asked to say that a considerable number of these gentlemen are employed as surveyors and also as medical officers and are of English origin. Because they are of English origin it is suggested that they will find their position somewhat intolerable in Southern Ireland and will be compelled to retire. According to the present scale they will receive as a retiring pension a sum which is wholly inadequate
1114
to properly support themselves. So that I am asked on behalf of the professional organisations both in Ireland and England to suggest to your Lordships that this ought to be weighted with a five years period to enable them to get a rather larger and more adequate pension upon their retirement. I do not want to labour it and if the noble Earl sees the point without my saying any more I will leave it. I should like to mention that the persons I have in mind include architects and engineers as well as surveyors and medical officers all those men who have had a long professional training, and whose duties are not confined to clerical work.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 29, at end insert the said definition.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This Amendment evidently refers to the last one on the Paper, and seems to anticipate or rather to prepare for it. That Amendment on page 11 adds five years to the years already earned by these gentlemen called "technical officers." In the first place I do not know who "technical officers" are. Lord Bledisloe says they are architects and medical officers. But it is really quite an arbitrary phrase, and I do not think it means anything specific. They are certainly not appointed as technical officers but as architectural advisers or medical officers, or whatever it may be. The expression "technical officers" is quite out of place, I submit. The object of the clause is to secure to every official who is displaced the right to the full pension which he has already earned. Lord Bledisloe wishes to add to that a compensation of five years. I think it contravenes what is a wise principle, that the existing rights should be maintained intact. If five years be given to this arbitrary class of pensioned officers I do not see why an extra five years should not be given to everybody else. And I would further point out (which is material, of course) that this Amendment increases the compensation payable by the Treasury, and must, therefore, be a distinct charge upon the United Kingdom Votes.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am not prepared to press the Amendment at this stage; but I should like to bring it up in another form on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 agreed to
Clause 73 agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had on the Paper an Amendment, after Clause 73, to insert the following new clause—
74.—(1) The foregoing provisions of this Act shall not come into operation unless within one year after the passing of this Act, the provisions therein contained shall have been accepted respectively by a majority of the members returned by constituencies in Southern Ireland, and by a majority of the members returned by constituencies in Northern Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and such acceptance as aforesaid shall have been signified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom by the said accepting members respectively and reported by him to that House for record in the proceedings of that House.
(2) In order that the Parliamentary electors in Ireland may have an opportunity of choosing members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom with special reference to the power of acceptance of the provisions of this Act as in this section provided it shall be lawful for His Majesty as soon as conveniently may be, after the passing of this Act, if he thinks fit, to declare the seats of all the members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the present Parliament of the United Kingdom to be vacant in order that writs shall be issued for the purpose of holding an election of members to serve in the present Parliament for constituencies in Ireland.
The noble Lord said: I do no know whether the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment after what has occurred.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This is an alternative scheme to Lord Salisbury's scheme, which we have just accepted.
LORD ASKWITH: No, it is additional to it, and carries it out. It was a question whether there should be a proposal for the acceptance of the Bill by the representatives of Ireland—by the Northern Parliament or the Southern Parliament, or by both Parliaments. I chose the alternative of both Parliaments, in order to bring into being these Parliaments in Ireland, on the ground of the absolute importance, if possible, of avoiding the partition of Ireland, and also of endeavouring to obtain some unity of consent, in order that there might not be a borderline of discontent which would be continually a source of friction between the two divisions of the country. At present this Charter that you are putting before the Irish people has not been seen by them. They do not know what its contents are. They have had no opportunity of really studying it, and until it leaves this House they will have had no
1116
opportunity of really gauging the effects of this Bill. It may be that, when they have had an opportunity of doing it, and if some propaganda could be brought out to show the good points of this Bill, they might accept, or, at any rate, they might come forward with suggestions for alterations in those parts of the Bill which they do not like, and—although one could scarcely hope for it, yet possibly the truce which has been spoken of in later days might give chance for some discussion on different points, and lead to a better consent of the Irish people.
It is at the present moment a Bill imposed upon the Irish people, and some of the points they have most at heart have not been given to them. But if a discussion could arise upon some such question as Excise and Customs, which must be the subject of negotiations which must involve most difficult questions of accounts, finance, and arrangement between country and country, then experts upon these matters might show how difficult it might be for a complete separation to take place upon these subjects. At the present moment they regard our attitude on this matter as not allowing them sufficient control of their own affairs, and as trying to keep up the mercantile condition of affairs which existed in the 18th century. That is not the way to have a successful Ireland and to have peace between the two countries. We want Ireland to be successful, to be rich, if she possibly can be, not by the Rules which are made here to prevent, capital going into the country, and the development of the country by such capital flowing in either from America or elsewhere. If you generously give this Charter to the Irish people then I am sure when they have examined this Bill better, they will be able to accept what is good in it, and possibly to come forward and make suggestions about what they really seriously do not like. That is a chance, which as certain as I stand here, ought not to be thrown away, and it would be the best thing for this House to suggest that it should be given an opportunity of coining into existence.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 73, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Askwith.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is an Amendment which under no circumstances here or elsewhere could the Government possibly accept, nor will they accept.

1117
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, moved a perfectly intelligible alternative to the scheme of the Government, and I gave the reasons for indicating that I thought the Government scheme preferable to that of Lord Salisbury. Your Lordships, with a very small majority, took a different view. As far as this House is concerned I readily acquiesced, because the noble Marquess's scheme is a well thought-out. Scheme not inconsistent with the fundamental object of the proposal. The proposal of Lord Askwith is an intolerable proposal in relation to the point which we regard as fundamental, and if this Amendment were carried and were persevered in it would deprive us of the point on which throughout we have laid stress—the importance of seeing in the North of Ireland a Parliament at work, we believe with the universal assent of the people in Ulster it will soon be found to be at work. And here the noble Lord conies and makes a proposal, not satisfied with the safeguards introduced into the Bill by Lord Salisbury, that "the foregoing provisions of this Act shall not conic into operation"—including even Lord Salisbury's Amendment postponing the Act for a year. The real truth is, it never was intended to be a supplementary Amendment to Lord Salisbury's; it was intended as an alternative Amendment to Lord Salisbury's. The effect is to ignore the whole of Lord Salisbury's Amendment. The noble Lord makes the proposal that "The foregoing provisions of this Act shall not come into operation unless within one year after the passing of this Act the provisions therein contained shall have been accepted respectively by a majority of the members returned by constituencies in Southern Ireland, and by a majority of the members returned by constituencies in Northern Ireland." There have been occasions when we have differed, but throughout the Second Reading and Committee stage of this Bill the attitude of your Lordships has been that of those who did not wish to destroy the Bill in its main outlines, and I, for one, do not believe that your Lordships will add this to the Amendment of Lord Salisbury, which it destroys.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord takes that line. I want the House to look at, this quite plainly in the face. Over and over again during these days the noble
1118
and learned Lord and other members of the Government have pressed upon us how important it is, in order to work a system of this kind, to carry the consent of the Irish people. They have said it over and over again. The noble and learned Lord did it, of course, in his own very pleasing way, but he made it a very important argument in the ease of a Second Chamber. He said, Why should von impose a Second Chamber if Ireland does not want it.? One would imagine that he would feel himself bound by that line of argument which he himself has used. It was exactly the same thing when we came to deal with the judiciary. He said, "Do not do what the Irish people do not want." Your Lordships agreed with the noble and learned Lord in that respect and did not do what the Irish people do not want.
Now we come to the Parliament itself. What is really suggested by this Bill is that a Parliament, which not a soul in Southern Ireland wants, should be forced upon it, and it is not merely that that is by itself an absolute negation of all democratic government, but it is that it has no chance of success. How can it succeed? What claim have you upon it? When the Bill passes and the Parliament is established in Southern Ireland, supposing your Lordships thought that the condition of order was sufficient under the Amendment which has just been agreed to, to allow it to come into operation, what chance is there that it will succeed? There is no chance whatever; and no chance that they will work it with any desire to make it succeed. If you say "Surely you are going to try and work the Bill now it is passed," they will say, "No, we do not want it. We told you we did not want it, yet you have pressed it upon us." What possible claim have you upon the people of Ireland? What you are asking of the loyalists of Ireland is this: "We propose to put you under new masters. You used to be under the United Kingdom. Your new masters are not very palatable to you." You have not even the benefit of their word that they will work it. You are throwing these loyalists to the wolves without having that control and that expectation which, having put it to the Irish people, and their having accepted it, would give you a right to expect. Surely that is wrong. Looking at it as a matter of pure argument, the first thing you ought to do is to pass something which the Irish people will accept. There does not appear to be

1119
anything less which will be of use, and the Amendment is one directed to that end. It is a very liberal Amendment. No doubt the Lord Chancellor might say that there are certain details 1,e would like to alter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I said nothing of the kind. I said that the whole of it was a wrecking Amendment, destructive of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is hardly argument; that is denunciation. I do not wish to misrepresent the Lord Chancellor. I said that he might wish to alter certain details, and I am certain that Lord Askwith would be delighted to meet his wishes.
THE LORD CHANCELLORindicated dissent.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He will not have the olive branch which I offer him most respectfully. I was afraid he would not. But this is a liberal Amendment and provides not merely that Irish members of the House of Commons should be consulted but that there should be means afforded to the Government for consulting Irish Members. Could anything be more democratic and liberal than that? Here is a system provided under which there could be a little referendum of the people of Ireland. Does the Lord Chancellor think that is ridiculous?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Marquess appeals to me, I will tell him that when he speaks of a "little referendum" it involves both parties in Ireland in a unanimous agreement, and that I made it clear on the Second Reading and ever since that the Government had determined as far as we are concerned to give Ulster an opportunity of having her own Parliament. That was developed at every stage in the debate, opposed most vigorously by noble Lords opposite, and now the noble Marquess, in an almost empty House, is attempting to wreck the whole of the Bill although he did not vote against the Second Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the Lord Chancellor should approach the subject on its merits. No denunciation of my wickedness should really prevail with your Lordships. I suggest that to consult the people of Ireland before you impose a new Constitution upon them as
1120
an eminently democratic method. As to all Ireland being included that is a matter for argument, but on the broad principle I submit that you ought to consult the people of Ireland before you impose upon them a new Constitution. It is your only chance of success.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess says that I have given him denunciation instead of argument. I will ask the indulgence of your Lordships to make a brief observation on this point. The proposal of Lord Askwith is entirely different, in one sense, from that of the noble Marquess which has been carried. What Lord Askwith's Amendment says is that whatever the North of Ireland wants it shall not have a separate Parliament until the South of Ireland has also assented. Those of your Lordships who listened to my observations on the Second Reading will remember the stress I laid, whether we were right or wrong, upon the opportunity given to the North of showing to the whole world, to the Colonies and to America, that Irishmen were capable of governing themselves, and the debate centred in great part on the reasonableness of that proposal. Now, almost at the close of the Committee stage, it is proposed with the approval of the noble Marquess, that this immense change, destructive of the whole special quality of the Bill, should be introduced.
I hope the noble Marquess will forgive me for saying that this is not the first time on which, on a grave occasion, he has given dangerous advice to this House. I remember that he gave advice, which he must afterwards have regretted, in the case of Miss Douglas-Pennant, and now, on an occasion much graver, he is taking the responsibility—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What advice did I give about Miss Douglas-Pennant?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I say that this is not the first occasion—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What advice did I give about Miss Douglas-Pennant?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess gave advice which influenced this House to order that most unfortunate Inquiry.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Lord strangely forgets. He ought to know that I did not advise that course, and that I did not vote in consequence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I myself heard the speech of the noble Marquess, and I think many noble Lords present here now also beard it. I do not, of course, carry the reference in my head, but I will undertake to give it to him to-morrow. I remember his speech. At any rate, the effect of this Amendment is perfectly plain. It would completely destroy the vote given on Second Reading.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am unfortunate in that I have not heard all that passed in the rather rapid conversation over the Table, but I think there is a considerable amount of force in what the noble and learned Lord has said, that at this hour and in rather a small House we should not make so large a change as this. As he points out it would give the South a veto over the North. This is too large a change to make in the circumstances in which we are placed, and much less prejudice would be caused at any rate if this particular proposal were postponed until Report stage when it can be discussed in a larger House and noble Lords will have more time in which to consider it. Therefore, I suggest that we should not now go to a Division upon it.
LORD KILLANIN: I understand we are not going to adjourn the matter. The noble and learned lord has laid a great deal of stress on what he calls the wrecking character of this Amendment. I do not sympathise with that view. This is the first opportunity we have had of dealing with the situation where it is contemplated there will only be one Parliament in existence in Ireland. Many of us have every intention of bringing it before the House. While I do not want to wreck the Bill, I am one of those who hold very strongly that one Parliament should not come into being in Ireland unless the other does. I am not against the two, but I say that either both Parliaments should come into being or neither. I say that both should be born together or neither should be born.
I say this for two reasons, and one is the reason I have just put before the House—namely, that if there is only one Parlia-
1122
ment there cannot be any Council of Ireand and therefore all the hopes and wishes we have so often expressed in this House about the good which would result from members of these two Houses of Parliament coming together and working harmoniously go by the board, and you have no possibility of bringing the Irish people together and creating that unity which I understood was the main object of the Bill. Then there is another reason. If you have a Parliament in one part of Ireland, which is the Government's proposal, the rest of Ireland is to be governed, as I understand, as a Crown Colony. Is that going to work? Would it not be well to avoid that situation? I want to avoid that situation. Would it not lead to disturbance and irritation in the rest of Ireland, and also in the North, where there is a strong Catholic and Nationalist minority?
It may be said, Why should you not allow the Parliament in the North of Ireland to come into being if it wishes to? But the Parliament of the North of Ireland does not want to come into being if there is no Parliament in Dublin. The whole point of the speeches of Sir Edward Carson and Lord Armaghdale is that they do not want to conic under a Parliament in Dublin. There was a Motion in this House that if a Parliament was established in Dublin Ulster should be left under the Parliament of the United Kingdom. They resisted that. But if there is no Parliament in Dublin, then Ulster need have no fear. You cannot come under the harrow if there is no harrow. For that reason I submit we are doing no injustice to the six counties to suggest that they should not come into being till the rest of Ireland is willing also to come into being.
I do not entirely agree with Lord Askwith's Amendment. For instance, as to the date. I think it is too short; and it is not the way I would do it. My one object being to get the two Parliaments into being at the same time, my view would be this, and I will just place it before the Government in case they are able to give it consideration. If either of the Parliaments does not function after the Bill becomes law Ireland shall remain under the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but this Act may be brought into operation whenever a majority of the representatives from each of the areas of the two Parliaments ask for it, and on elections being held, a majority

1123
willing to function is returned to each Parliament. That leaves the Act ready to be brought into operation, and not wrecked. It is not imposed upon Ireland by the Imperial Parliament at any time, but if at any time a majority of the two peoples in the different parts of Ireland wish it to

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Bangor, V.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

De Vesci, V.

Greville, L.

Hutchinson, V.(E. Donoughmore.)

Harlech, L.

Aberdeen, and Temair M.

Hemphill, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Holm Patrick, L.

Salisbury, M.

Askwith, L. [Teller.]

Killanin, L. [Teller.]

Barrymore, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Drogheda, E.

Bellew, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Grey, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Iveagh, E.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Kingston, E.

Crofton, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Lanesborough, E.

Decies, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Mayo, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart)

Ormonde, L. [M. Ormonde.)

Midleton, E.

Dynevor, L.

Pentland, L.

Stanhope, E.

Ebury, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Wicklow, E.

Farnham, L.

Shandon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandwich, E.

Deramore, L.

Selborne, E.

Desborough, L.

Wellington, D.

Strafford, E.

Erskine, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Hylton, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Lamington, L.

Bradford, E.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Lawrence, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Esher, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Devon, E.

Falmouth, V.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

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

Hood, V.

Ormathwaite, L.

Peel, V.

Phillimore, L.

Howe, E.

Abinger, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Lindsay, E.

Addington, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Lovelace, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Redesdale, L.

Lucan, E.

Avebury, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Lytton, E.

Balfour, L.

Rotherham, L,

Malmesbury, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

St. Levan, L.

Morton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Southwark, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Roden, E.

de Mauley, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)>

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 74:
Short title and repeal.
74.— (1) This Act may be cited as the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
(2) The Government of Ireland Act, 1914, is hereby repealed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved at the end of subsection (2), after "repealed," to insert "as from the passing of this Act." The noble Marquess said: This is purely consequential upon my other Amendment.
be brought into operation, it shall be brought into operation.
On Question, whether the proposed new clause shall be inserted after Clause73?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 59.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 38, after ("repealed") insert ("as from the passing of this Act")— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to insert the following as the First Schedule.

FIRST SCHEDULE.
  COMPOSITION OF SENATE FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND.

    PART I.
    Offices entitling holders to be Senators;

    The Lord Chancellor of Ireland;

    The Lord Mayor of Dublin;

    The Lord Mayor of Cork.

PART II.
Nominated Senators.

Bodies.

Number of Senators.

The Representatives of Commerce (including Banking), Labour, and the Scientific and Learned Professions to be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant.

17

PART III.

  ELECTED SENATORS.
  Elected by the method of Proportional Representation.

  Bodies.

  No. of Senators.

  Mode of Election.

  The Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church holding Sees in Southern Ireland.

  4

  By the Archbishop and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church holding Sees in Southern Ireland.

  The Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Ireland holding Sees in Southern Ireland.

  2

  By the Archbishop and Bishops of the Church of Ireland holding Sees in Southern Ireland.

  Peers who are taxpayers, and have residences in Southern Ireland.

  16

  By the Peers who are taxpayers and have residences in Southern Ireland.

  Members of His Majesty's Privy Council in Ireland of not less than two years standing who are taxpayers and have residences in Southern Ireland.

  8

  By the Members of His Majesty's Privy Council in Ireland who are taxpayers and have residences in Southern Ireland.

  Leinster

  4

  14

  By the Members of County Councils voting together as Provinces.

  Munster

  4

  Connaught

  4

  Co. Donegal

  2

  Co. Monaghan

  Co. Cavan

  The noble Lord said: In the development of the scheme of two Senates for Northern and Southern Ireland I now come to the Amendment which deals with the composition of those bodies, and so far as the Senate of Southern Ireland is concerned I am afraid I may find falling upon my head all the vials of the democratic wrath of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. It is not very difficult, of course, to attack a chamber which
  1126
  cannot claim a direct mandate from the electors, but I would ask your Lordships to remember in any criticism which the noble and learned Lord may make, that every remark which relates to this chamber which is proposed to be created, would tell with tenfold force if it were directed against the House in which we sit and of which the noble and learned Lord is such a distinguished ornament.
  I propose now to develop the scheme I for the composition of the Senate of Southern Ireland. It seems to me there are two things which we have to consider and two only. In the first place, will it be such a chamber when it is set up as will provide a reasonable safeguard for the Southern Unionists? In the second place, is it such a chamber as will satisfy moderate opinion in Ireland, or, on the other hand, will it so excite public opinion that it will by the force of that public opinion be driven out of existence before it has been long in being.
  If I explained how it came into existence I should have to refer to the Irish Convention. Of course its genesis was in the Irish Convention. So much has been said about the points on which the Irish Convention was in disagreement that I think we all overlook the many points on which men who held such different views came into agreement. I should like to call the attention of the House to one special point for a moment and that is the Report made by a sub-committee of that Convention on Land Purchase. That was considered so good for the Government that without any remarks as to whether it is approved by Sinn Fein they proposed at once to pass it into law almost in the identical form in which it was recommended. I must explain that soon after the Convention met they set up a Grand Committee, which was to consider the form of Constitution for Ireland and to report. That Grand Committee again delegated the duties to a sub-committee, the well-known subcommittee of nine. It requested one of its members, the Bishop if Raphoe, who was the leader of the most extreme Nationalist Party in the Convention, to frame a scheme for their consideration. This Bishop prepared that scheme, which was as follows: That the Irish Parliament should consist of the King, an Irish House of Lords, and an Irish House of Commons, and that the constitution of the House of Lords should consist of the Lord Chancellor,

  1127
  Bishops and Archbishops, Lord Mayors, and thirty-nine temporal Lords That was considered by the sub-committee of nine, who made certain changes in it, which were principally in the direction of the reduction of the number of temporal Peers and the substitution of others for them.
  The members of the sub-committee represented every party in Ireland. There were three representatives of Ulster— Mr. Barrie, the leader of the Ulster party, Lord Londonderry, and Mr. Pollock, who is well known in Ulster. Lord Midleton represented the Southern Unionists, there were four representatives of Nationalist Ireland— the late Mr. Redmond, Mr. Devlin, the Bishop of Raphoe and Mr. Murphy; and there was a representative of Sinn Fein in Mr. Russell. It must not be forgotten that for part of the Convention there were two Sinn Feiners on that body. I may claim that the Report was approved by representatives of every party in Ireland, and therefore it comes before your Lordships with greater force on that account. I think I may say that such a scheme would probably meet with the approval of all parties in Ireland at the present time, and at any rate, even if it does not do so, there will be an opportunity for the Nationalist Members in the House of Commons, who try very hard to get into touch with all parties, even Sinn Feiners in Ireland, to express their dissatisfaction with it. I should be very much surprised if they did so, and if, on the contrary, they did not say that we have tried in this scheme to be as moderate as possible and to give representation to all interests in Ireland.
  As to the question whether it will provide sufficient safeguards for us, it is of course a modicum as far as safeguards are concerned, but, if we are satisfied with it, I think that ought to satisfy the House. The noble and learned Lord suggested that perhaps some additional safeguards might be necessary, if it were to be really successful. If he offers them to us I do not know whether they would be refused. I have avoided going into particulars as to the composition of the Senate. Of course, if any objection is offered to any of the members whom I have suggested it should be composed of I should be ready to defend it seriatim. There is an Amendment also with regard to the Northern Senate, but perhaps, as that comes a little later, it would be better to deal with it at the proper time.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 60, insert the said First Schedule.— (Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the decision of the House as it stands at present is that there should be a Senate for Southern Ireland I cannot usefully consume much time in discussing the particular suggestion contained in the Schedule. It is the scheme formulated under quite different circumstances by the Irish Convention when it m` as hoped that there would be a unity all over Ireland, and that that unity, that general desire to reach a scheme, might support the tissue of obsolete artificialities which form the substance of the proposal. We live, I suppose, under very modern conditions. We have in this country and in Ireland the most democratic suffrage that has ever been known, one of the most democratic that exists in the world, and the new Parliament, when it comes into existence, ex hypothesi will inherit great problems, great bitternesses, great industrial crises. It is gravely supposed that a Parliament so elected, which perhaps in the first month or two months of its existence passes a Bill by an overwhelming majority, fresh from the constituencies, is to be corrected and put in its place by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the Lord Mayor of Cork, the representatives of Commerce (including Banking), Labour, and of the scientific and learned professions to be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant. I venture to think that we have reached days in which the decisions of the representatives of modern constituencies are not likely to submit to be corrected by the representatives of the scientific and learned professions to be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: May I point out to the noble and learned Lord that they have only power to postpone legislation for a year; there must be a joint sitting after that. I have purposely not gone into too great detail because of the lateness of the hour. I could have elaborated the scheme very much.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord was very clear, as he always is. He was very brief and very considerate of our time. I understand perfectly, of course. The point I am attempting to make is that in my judgment no one is going to concede any such power to a body so constituted.

  1129
  If it came from themselves, yes; but imposed on them from without, no.
  Then the noble Lord reinforced the representatives of scientific and learned professions by the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church holding sees in Southern Ireland (who are to be elected by themselves), the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Ireland holding sees in South Ireland, Peers who are taxpayers and have residences in Southern Ireland, and members of the Privy Council. Supposing such an assembly was imposed by Parliament upon the Southern Parliament., I cannot believe that it would possess a vestige of authority. I, for one, do not believe that even this period of one year's delay would be acquiesced in, nor in relation to such an argument am I sure it ought to be. We made great complaint, and I think rightly, whet our powers under tile terms of the Parliament Act were limited to the delay with which we are all familiar; but, after all, we in this House represent a very old tradition in this country, and if you went to any party in. South Ireland and said to them "Would you rather enjoy the debates of such scientific and learned gentlemen as the Lord Lieutenant recommends, seasoned by the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church and. the Church of Ireland, or would you rather have the old Irish Peers in the House of Lords" I have not the slightest doubt which they would choose. I do not think there is any section of opinion in the South of Ireland that would not say the same. They would rather be governed by gentlemen who are Irishmen— that, of course, is vital and elementary— than go and listen to scientific gentlemen and Archbishops and Bishops discussing the questions of Ireland. This is a singularly unpromising proposal, and not even such lightness as might be imparted by the representatives of commerce (including banking) would relieve the proceedings of this assembly from an extreme degree of gloom.
  When I come to consider the missionary efforts of my noble friend when applied to the North of Ireland, it seems to me the results are even more sterile and unpromising. The noble Lord promised me he would consult the representatives of Ulster. I do not know whether he has had the opportunity, and I do not know how far they found themselves able to
  1130
  co-operate. The noble Lord was a little vague, but let us see what his proposal is. This is his proposal—

  SECOND SCHEDULE.
    COMPOSION OF SENATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND.

      PART I.
      Offices entitling holders to be Senators:

      The herd Mayor of Belfast;

      The Mayor of Londonderry.

    PART II

      ELECTED SENATORS.
      Twenty-four Senators to be elected by the members of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland in such manner as that House may determine.
      I must assume that the object of putting down the Amendment was to supply the minority in Northern Ireland with some precious guarantee that their interests would not be neglected. That was the object of the Amendment to create a Senate for Southern Ireland. But I would invite the noble Lord to consider what is the value of the guarantee given by the safeguard that twenty-four Senators will be elected by the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, which will be overwhelmingly of the Unionist persuasion.
      LORD ORA NAI ORE AND BROWNE: Thirty to twenty-two are the numbers calculated.
      THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is more sanguine than we are. Is a Second Chamber wanted in the North of Ireland when the figures are so evenly balanced? In the House of Commons a minority which is of the same numerical strength could take good care of itself. I doubt whether the noble Lord has the support of any one for his scheme. Does any noble Lord from Ulster, or any representative of Ulster in the House of Commons, make himself responsible for the proposal? I should be glad if the noble Lord would say how far he is hunting in couples with Lord Shandon. The noble Lord put forward a proposal, very intelligible on its merits, that there should be a Senate in Southern Ireland and, growing more and more interested in his constitution making, undertook the work of framing a Second Chamber for Northern Ireland. Now we have the complete scheme, but in the middle of it Lord Shandon intervened with an Amendment to substitute a Joint

      1131
      Senate for the Council. We are now face to face with this position. Whereas the functions of the Council were railways and Private Bill legislation, and fundamentally the task of attempting to secure union, it was a body which drew fresh representative strength from the Parliaments. Owing to the joint effect of Lord Shandon's Amendment and Lord Oranmore and Browne's Amendment the two Senates, ninety in number, Bishops, Archbishops, scientific men, literary men, are immediately to address themselves to the question of the railways, employment, hours of labour— the Irish railways will be refreshed by a fertility of advice such as they have never enjoyed before.
      I am not going to divide against these proposals. It was the Abbé Sieyé who wrote many volumes on Second Chambers and spent many years trying to find a constitution which could not be criticised His ultimate conclusion was that they were all either useless or mischievious, and he gave his reasons in an epigram which noble Lords will remember. More happily than the Abbé and infinitely more expeditious, the noble Lord has evolved in a few days and enunciated in a few minutes a scheme giving two Second Chambers to the two Parliaments neither of which would take either if they were consulted at this moment.
      THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: Lord Oranmore and Browne has kindly drawn up two Second Chambers— one for Southern and one for Northern Ireland. He can speak for Southern Ireland; I wish to say a word with regard to Northern Ireland. We are most indebted to the noble Lord for the trouble he has taken; we thoroughly appreciate his efforts, but we do not pay the slightest attention to them
      THE EARL OF MIDLETON: The Lord Chancellor knows that in this matter we are in the direst difficulty. The Government have been unable to find a way out, and he is now cold watering the way we have found and on which the whole of Ireland would have agreed two years ago in circumstances which he is pleased to say have wholly altered. They have not altered. Sinn Fein was then taking a dominant position in large parts of Ireland because the Government had abandoned the attempt to restrain them.
      1132
      The point which we have to decide is this, Is there a better Second Chamber to be found, or one more consonant with the feelings of the people of Ireland? The noble and learned Lord laughed at two sections at which no man in Ireland will laugh. The first was the inclusion of the Roman Catholic Bishops, a most important item in the Assembly and one which is consonant with the practice of this House, where illustrious Prelates have always sat, and with the feelings and sentiments of the people of Ireland. Not only do I stand to that, but I repudiate the hilarity of tile noble and learned Lord at the inclusion of members of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. In the second place he laughed at the learned professions. If there is one subject in Ireland on which it is most necessary to have representation in the Upper House it is that of health and problems connected with it, on which the Government are spending many millions of pounds, and we desire the Lord-Lieutenant to have the opportunity to put in some of the eminent men who will have no chance of being elected under the franchise put forward by the Government. This Schedule, which he considers so fantastic, was thrashed out by a Committee. It was taken before the whole Convention and it obtained the assent of every class of representative. I think it is eminently calculated to carry out the purpose for which it is intended.
      I have only one other remark to make. It will be recollected that Parliamentary a (lairs are not always carried by votes; they are carried to a large extent by argument, and as those for whom I speak, who are so largely represented here to-day and who have done so much by argument in these debates to obtain concessions, will not have the opportunity of putting forward their opinions in any way in the Lower House, it is more important that they should be represented in the Senate. As regards what has been said from Ulster my noble friend put down an Ulster Second Chamber in a form which he believed would be most agreeable to the Ulster representatives and I have every reason to believe that even at this moment they are consulting as to whether they can find a better alternative. If they can I am sure my noble friend will be ready to accept it on Report. I hope your Lordships will accept the Senate as proposed.
      On Question, Amendment agreed to.
      Second Schedule:
      LORD ORANMO RE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMO RE AND BROWNE moved to insert the following as the Second Schedule—

  SECOND SCHEDULE.
    COMPOSITION OF SENATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND.

      PART I.
      Offices entitling holders to be Senators:
      The Lord Mayor of Belfast;
      The Mayor of Londonderry.

    PART II

      ELECTED SENATORS.
      Twenty-four Senators to be elected by the members of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland in such manner as that House may determine.
      The noble Lord said: I understand that the noble and learned Lord does not think this Schedule is satisfactory. I differ from the noble Duke who has left the House, but I have had support from certain Ulster sources and I will say no more about it.
      Amendment moved—
      Paw 61, insert the said Second Schedule.(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
      On Question, Amendment agreed to.
      Third Schedule:
      LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEmoved to insert the following as the Third Schedule—

  THIRD SCHEDULE.
  PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE NOMINATION ELECTON AND TERM OF OFFICE PTCE OF SENATORS.
  1. His Majesty may by Orders in council make such provisions as may appear necessary or proper with respect to the election of senators, and particular with respect to the making and keeping of lists of persons belonging to the Bodies named in the third part of the First Schedule, the issue of writ s, the triodes of service and the returns to be made to swell writs.
  2.— (a) The term of office of every elected member of the Senate of Northern Ireland shall be eight years.
  (b) With respect to the members of the Senate of Southern Ireland the term of office of every nominated senator, and of every elected senator (other than senators elected by members of County Councils) shall be ten years, and the term of office of a senator elected by members of county council, shall be three years.
  (c) The term of office of a senator shall not be affected by a dissolution of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland.
  (d) Sators shall retire at the end of their term of office and their seats Shall be filled by new elections.
  3. If the place of an elected senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of office by death, resignation, or incapacity, the Lord Lieutenant shall cause a writ or write to be issued
  1134
  for the election by the body by whom such senator was elected of a senator in his place, and if the place of a nominated senator so becomes vacant, the Lord Lieutenant shall nominate a new senator in his place, but any senator so elected or nominated to fill a casual vacancy, shall hold office only so long as the senator in whose stead he is elected or nominated would have held office.
  The noble Lord said: This has been referred to before. I had to move an Amendment with reference to it at an earlier stage of the Bill, and I then said that the substantive part of it would be dealt with in the schedules. I therefore beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Insect the said Third Schedule.— (Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD:This is, so to speak, consequential upon Amendments already made, but the Schedule certainly requires very careful attention, and so far as I can seethe Schedule will not work, as it is drafted. This particular Schedule may require considerable amendment to make it work.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: To make it work— is that in reference to the Senate for Southern Ireland or with reference to the Joint Senate?
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: With reference to the Southern Senate. It may be necessary in this schedule to put in provisions to make it a workable instrument.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Perhaps that can be done on Report, or else perhaps the Government know what they suggest.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: We will talk to you about it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment standing in my name to the Fourth Schedule is drafting.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 67, leave out line 19, and insert ("the officers employed in his office").— (The Lord chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Schedules agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On the Motion that the House do resume I should like to say this with reference to this Bill. Many Amendments have been made which cannot cohere with the main scheme of the Bill, but do not even cohere with one another, and we are all concerned that the Bill should leave the House in a workmanlike condition, properly expressing the view of the House. I should be very glad for those noble Lords who have taken a prominent part in amending the Bill to see the draftsman and take his advice on the very difficult points so that the whole scheme when it leaves this House shall be creditable to us, whether it expresses the views of all of us or not.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think we should be very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the very generous way in which he has spoken of our Amendments. We shall be glad to take the opportunity of consulting the draftsman. I should like to ask when it is proposed to take the Report stage.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: As your Lordships are aware, to-morrow and Wednesday the Agricultural Bill will be taken. Very large amendments have been made in the Government of Ireland Bill, and the sooner they can be sent to another place for consideration the more convenient it will be for everybody. We are therefore anxious to take the Report stage as soon as may be after the Second Reading of the Agricultural Bill, and if the House will agree I suggest we should begin the Report stage on Thursday, or as soon after as possible.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I suggest Monday as a better day.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I should like to state a fact with which I am afraid Lord Salisbury is not acquainted. A Bill of considerable importance connected with dyes is going shortly to be introduced into the House of Commons and will come to your Lordships before very long. The Committee stage of the Agricultural Bill under those conditions would follow the Home Rule Bill Report and Third Reading, in order that the Home Rule Bill might go down to the other House before the conclusion here of the Committee stage on the Agricultural Bill. I suggest, therefore, for
  1136
  your Lordships' comment that on the conclusion of the Second Reading of the Agricultural Bill we should begin the Report stage of this Bill— namely, on Thursday, and continue it if necessary on Friday the 10th, concluding it on the Monday (this day week).
  THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I hardly think we shall require so long a time for the Report and Third Reading. I think the Report stage might be concluded in a day, but there is so much drafting and if we are not able to complete the Report on Thursday we may have to ask for an adjournment till Monday.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is a great mistake to try and take the Report stage on Thursday. The noble and learned Lord has said with truth that the Bill has undergone a great many changes, and I know from long experience how very difficult it is to adjust the drafting. It requires a lot of care and consolidation. I think the Government will only make a mess of it—if they will excuse me using so colloquial a phrase—if they ask us to take the Report stage so early as Thursday.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Will the Committee of the Agricultural Bill not be taken before Tuesday?
  THE EAT OF CRAWFORD: That is contingent on what happens with regard to the Irish Bill. In regard to what Lord Midleton said, if your Lordships would care to treat the Third Reading as little more than formal, as not requiring any more than a few brief speeches, perhaps we could get through the whole of the stages of the Bill on Monday of next week. We could then have a whole day for Report on the assumption that Third Reading would only require a few speeches.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Monday and Tuesday? That would be in the interests of the Government. I do not think it would be wise to take the Report and Third Reading on the same day. We shall have some difficulty in adjusting the Bill on Report, and then we ought to have a further opportunity of adjustment on Third Reading. To take both stages on the same day is not the way to do business.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is difficult to lay down a programme; a week in advance, as your Lordships are aware. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that we took ample time to consider the Bill before its Second Reading after it had arrived here, and there is a not unnatural desire that we should not have to adjourn two or three days over Christmas and come back immediately after. If we can get the Report stage concluded on Monday and the Third Reading, if not on Monday night at any rate on Tuesday, we could probably fit that in, although I confess it is driving oil the ultimate stage of the Agriculture Bill very late, which will be to our own mutual inconvenience later on, I am afraid. I cannot say any more now. I only throw that out for your Lordships consideration.
  The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday, Bill to be printed as amended.

  MARRIED WOMEN (MAINTENACE) BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to is o read 3aon Thursday next.

  MARRIED WOMENS PROPERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order of the Day for tile I louse to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  (The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  Donations inter virum et uxorem to be irrevocable.
  5. Donations inter virum et uxorem shall be irrevocable by the donors: Provided that—

  (a) this enactment shall not take effect as regards donations made or granted before the passing of this Act until the expiry of one year from and after that date;

  (b) this enactment shall not prejudice the rights of creditors of the donor of any such donation in virtue of the provisions of the Act of the Parliament of Scotland, 1621, Cap. 18; and

  1138

  (c) ally donation completed within a year and day Ii4ore the sequestration of the estates of the donor under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act, 1913, or any amending statute, shall be revocable at the instance of the creditors of such donor.

  The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR had an Amendment on the Pa per to delete paragraph (b). The noble and learned Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name on the Pa per is merely drafting, and I formally move.
  Amendment moved—
  Clause 5, page, 2, lines 23 to 26, leave out paragraph (b).— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendment to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended.

  WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOY M ENT IN IN,LEND PROCESSES) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a third time, perhaps I may be permitted to reply to a question asked by my noble friend Lord Askwith, on the Second Reading. He asked whether any steps had been taken towards the appointment of an Advisory Committee to act in an auxiliary capacity to the Health Department of the International Labour Conference. In reply I would say that no such Committee has yet been appointed. The Health Department itself recently came into being and it is for that Department, of course, to take any action with a view to appointing any committee such as that referred to by my noble friend.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD ASKWITH: It is very regrettable that this Committee should not be appointed and I hope that will be clone before the next Conference meets at Geneva.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  CRIM INAL LNJURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, this Bill applies to all classes of claims in respect of criminal injuries in Ireland, and it amends the existing enactment in the direction of making it easier for the Government to insure that those claims are duly paid.
  Clause 1 enacts that money awarded as compensation for criminal injuries shall be treated as a debt due by the Council and payable by the Council on terms. It accordingly becomes the duty of the Treasurer to hand over out of the moneys in his hands such sums as have been accordingly awarded. The treasurer has to be a banker, and the whole of the revenue is attached in order to secure that this compensation for criminal injuries is duly paid. Subsection (2) permits payments to be made by instalments. Subsection (3) is a repeal subsection, but the matter is replaced by Subsection (1) of this particular clause.
  Clause 2 gives power to the Lord Lieutenant to intercept on behalf of the Compensation Fund grants which may be payable to the local authorities under three headings— either from Parliamentary grants or from local taxation account, or from the fund administered by any Government Department. A later subsection gives discretion to the Lord Lieutenant to prescribe the manner in which deductions and payments are to be made, and in line 20, page 3, gives any such order the force of an Act of Parliament. Clause 3 deals with the attachment of the rates, Clause 4 provides that interest at 5 per cent. should be payable, and the rest of the clauses of the Bill are of a technical and consequential character. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Crawford.)
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Does Clause 3 mean that the whole of the rates that are levied can be attached for malicious injury?
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes; all moneys from Parliamentary grants or from rates can be intercepted at the sources.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  AGRICULTURE BILL.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to move that it be an instruction to the Board of Agriculture and the Scottish Office to set out and have printed for the use of this House the various sections of Acts of Parliament referred to in Clause 31 of the Agriculture Bill in the form in which they will appear if the said clause passes in the form in which it is printed in the Bill.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that we in Scotland who are interested in land have not been fairly treated with regard to this Bill. Personally, I think it is entirely an English Bill, which is being applied to Scotland, and so far as I can see it will altogether destroy our system of leases, under which we have prospered for a good many years. I wish I could find some way of understanding the Bill, but in the case of the interpretation clause, for example, it seems to me that it is legislation by reference gone absolutely wild. I think that any one guilty of such a mess as is in this clause should be put up with his back to a wall and shot, because the amount of trouble which is given is absolutely incalculable. There are one and a-half to two pages of application, and one of the subsections is in these words— it
  The expressions "the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908," and "the Act of 1908," mean the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, and references to sections twenty-one and forty-two of the first-mentioned Act shall be construed as references to sections twenty and twenty-nine respectively of the said Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act:
  And in another subsection I find—
  Section twenty-three of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, shall apply to Scotland with the substitution of small holdings under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, for small holdings as defined by the Small Holders and Allotments Act, 1907, and any reference in this Act to the said section twenty-three shall be construed as a. reference to the said section a so applied:
  There is also a Schedule with what are called minor alterations. I believe some of them are of extreme importance. Look at the note at the bottom of the Schedule—
  In the application of this Schedule to Scotland, the references to sections fifteen, twenty-three, and thirty-one of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, shall not apply; for the references to sections sixteen and forty-eight of that Act there shall be substituted references to sections fourteen and thirty-five respectively of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908; and subsection (1) of section thirteen of the Agricultural Holdings

  1141
  (Seotland) Act, 1908, shall be amended by the insertion after the word "hereto," of the words, "or in aspect of compensation for disturbance" and by I he insertion after the words "or any part thereof," wherever occurring, of the words "and of the expense of executing and registering the same."
  How is any ordinary man to understand what is meant by that? Though this Bill is applied to the whole land of Scotland not one word of explanation was given to us when the Motion for the Second Reading was made. It seems to me absolutely un fair, and I make the Motion which I have put down on the Paper in the hope that some of us at least may be able to understand the position before we are expected to discuss the Bill
  Moved, That it be an instruction to the Board of Agriculture and the Scottish Office to set out and have printed for the use of this House the various sections of Acts of Parliament referred to in Clause 31 of the Agriculture Bill in the form in which they will appear if the said clause passes in the form in which it is printed in the Bill.— (Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORDS STANMORE: My Lords, the Secretary for Scotland will be very glad to meet the wishes of my noble friend as far as he can. I would suggest that my noble friend should confer with me as to the scope and nature of the statement that he desires.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I cannot see what conference I can give. I want to know what will be the effect of all these large alterations. I am absolutely at a loss to understand them. The only people who can understand them are the Board of Agriculture and the Scottish Office.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps the noble Lord (Lord Stanmore) would prepare a Memorandum.
  LORD STANMORE: The noble and learned Lord suggests that I should procure a Memorandum from the Scottish Board of Agriculture.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEICH: A Memorandum is not the statute under which the lawyers, when Bills are passed into Acts of Parliament, will have to interpret them. I want to know the exact text of the clauses which we shall have to interpret, and I have no means of ascertaining it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord move?
  LORD BALFOUR OP BURLEIGH: Yes, I move.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and. ordered accordingly.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS)BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HYLTON: My Lords, this is an annual Bill, of which I beg to move the Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Hylton.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a. Committee negatived: Bill to be read 3aon Thursday next.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
    PIER AND HARDOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL
    Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Bill with the details of which I need not trouble your Lordships at this hour, the proposals being such that they would be much better discussed, if necessary, when we reach the Committee stage.
  Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  LITTLE LONGSTONE CONCRECATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read la;to be printed; and to be read 2aon Thursday next.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In moving that the House do now adjourn, I suggest that on Wednesday next we should meet at three o'clock.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past twelve o'clock midnight.