Sitting of 14 December 1920

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BRAYE LORD BRAYE had given notice, on the Order for the Third Reading being read, to move to resolve—
That this House refuses to pass a Government of Ireland Bill which does not confer on Ireland a full measure of self-determination.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on inquiry in the House I was informed that the Third Reading of this Bill would probably be taken yesterday afternoon, and further that any Notice that was placed. On the Paper could only be put down after the Report stage had been finished. Therefore as I was not in the House yesterday the Notice that I have put down was too late to be printed for circulation this morning, and has consequently only appeared at the last moment. The Motion is in the form of a Resolution, though it ought merely to be considered as a parting protest against the Bill which has been so long before the House. It is a Bill which has not commended itself in any way to the bulk of the people of this country, and certainly it has not been favourably received in Ireland at all, and I doubt whether the Government themselves are very fond of it. Anyhow, in this House it has certainly had a stormy passage and was nearly wrecked, because although it was carried by a considerable majority on the Second Reading the vote given against it on that occasion was a most substantial protest.
The Bill itself, I think, may after all not have the desired effect, and may in fact be shipwrecked before it passes, or is supposed to pass, into law. It was

95
born dead, and I do not think that any of the Amendments—of which there have been a very great number—can vivify it or make it a practical measure. It is a had Bill, bad in its clauses and bad even in the short title, because it is not a Bill for the government of Ireland, but may make matters worse than they are at the present moment. One clause which is certainly better than the rest abrogates, cancels, and annuls the Act of 1914, and so far gives us more opportunity of legislating for Ireland now than if that Act, which is on the Statute Book, were still hanging fire and had to be put into operation—and it world have had to be put into operation, I believe, at the end of the war. We were informed the other night that the great war had not ended until the Treaty was signed by Turkey, and it is a revelation to many of the people of this country that we are still not at the end of the war. It seems to me that all Bills made at Westminster will never have any real effect in Ireland. They ought to be made in the country for which they are intended.
This is a Bill which falls short of the one thing desired, and that is self-determination, or Home Rule in its strictest and best sense. For many years now we have heard of self-determination. It has confronted us at all times and in all publications until we are almost weary of the word. But this Bill does not offer self-determination in the strict sense—that is to say, the power of managing its own affairs, which is as dear to a nation as it is to an individual. When we contemplate, as I suppose we all do, the word "self-determination" we find that it means a great deal. We can call to mind examples in history of self-determination. It is not generally recollected in this country that there are many instances in which self-determination has actually taken place and has been approved and sanctioned, not to say backed up, by the Government of this country.
There is the case of Belgium, a classic instance of self-determination. Belgium considered itself quite justified in throwing off the yoke of Holland, in those days called the Netherlands. The rule of the King of the Netherlands became intolerable to the Belgians, and for years they agitated for Home Rule or self-determination, separation out and out. They did not get it at once, but they persevered in their efforts and after some fighting—there was
96
recourse to arms although a brief one—they gained their point. What did Great Britain do all those years? Did she brand Belgium as a rebel country? Was it called rebellion? Not at all. It was condoned and sanctioned, and eventually—I think I am correct—it was Great Britain who put the first King of the Belgians on the Throne, therefore entirely approving of self-determination in that case.
If we go a little further back there is another classic, and perhaps more romantic, instance of self-determination in the case of Greece. What did England do then? Having lit the fires of freedom by the rhapsodies of Byron she went further and gave material help, and it resulted in the Greeks gaining absolute self-determination, absolute freedom from the yoke of Turkey. Since that time there has been a Kingdom of Greece, and at the present moment it is very much before the public.
We have classic authority that "history presents a very ample page"; but on that ample page I do not think any chronicles of any nation are so deeply written, and coloured in such blood-red characters, as the chronicles of the treatment of Ireland by this country. It has been one long catalogue of persecution, or, if you will, of misunderstanding one side or the other. Century after century it has been repeated, and it never seems to come to any finality. The worst part of the present crisis is that it presents no more signs of finality than any other Irish crisis which has been recorded. There is a total want of a goal; a total want of absolute finality.
We call it, or we did call it, the Home Rule question, but that is now out of fashion and we call it "the Irish question" simply. But it is well to bear in mind that for many years, when things were just as precarious in the Kingdom of Ireland as they are now, this question was called the Catholic question. In the days of Canning, Peel, and the Duke of Wellington, O'Connell persevered in the most heroic way on his self-imposed mission, and the Duke of Wellington at last yielded and granted emancipation when Ireland was on the brink of civil war. In those days it was always known as the Catholic question, because the Statutes against Catholics were so ferocious and so sanctioned by the general feeling of this country that the matter assumed the characteristics entirely of religious antagonism. if you cast your

97
eye back upon the history of those times you will find that religion, a hatred of Catholicism, which is deep down in the English mind, was the main spring of all political difficulties.
You will say, Why go back to these times; we live now in happier days. Unfortunately that antagonism which was then so patent and so much to the front, though now concealed, is still in existence. It is not brought forward, but it is the main spring still, the secret spring, of a great deal of the political difficulties with which we are faced. We do not perceive it so much in England, but, although it may be shrouded by general indifference here, you have only to go to Ulster to realise the strength of it and the ferocity with which religious views are pushed. It is idle to deny, and I believe even in the House of Commons they would not deny—at all events they would not deny successfully—that at this hour in Belfast the war is against Catholics, and there have been instances in which Catholics have been killed by their opponents. I say Belfast because Ulster is a more dubious expression, and ought not to be confused with Belfast. It may not be generally recollected that Ulster, outside Belfast, is actually half Catholic, and it is in the city or the part in the neighbourhood of Belfast where all this antagonism to which I have alluded flourishes, and is likely to flourish, as far as we can see, for many a long day.
In England we move in a very different atmosphere, and the reason, I suppose, is that there is no longer here any Catholic body to suppress or to persecute. At all events, Catholics have no political power in England. So far as my experience goes I have never detected any political influence exercised by the English Catholics. And the reason is very simple. They are such a very small body, and the existence of penal laws for so many centuries had its effect in the whole of England, except in Lancashire. Which still remains the only Catholic county in England. Even there it can only be so reckoned by a majority in many towns and villages being of the Catholic faith. When you come to consider the wrongs of Ireland it is useful to remember what were the Statutes against Catholics in this country. I know it is the fashion of historians to say that they were not put in force, but there they were on the Statute Book, and though they may not have been put in force with the extreme penalty of the law—that is to say, that after a certain period the English
98
Government did not put Catholics to death and the slaughtering at Tyburn was discontinued—yet the lesser severities remained in full force, and it was only in 1829 that Catholics were allowed to come into the Houses of Parliament. In that year six Catholic Peers subscribed the Roll at that Table, after the exclusion of Catholics for so many centuries.
To recollect these points of history is, I think, useful. They have a bearing on the present unhappy state of affairs. Indeed, to come down to a later date, your Lordships will no doubt recall that the law of England was so severe in that respect that the Sovereign of this country could only be allowed to succeed to the Crown on condition that at the meeting of his first Parliament he would renounce the Catholic religion. That is not all. By the Act of William III he had to renounce and blaspheme and abjure the most sacred and the most august mysteries of the Catholic religion. I did my little best to call the attention of this House to that matter but in vain, because the Tory Ministry of that time, although they distinctly said that this House had no sympathy with such a Statute and would be glad to get rid of it, pointed out that the country would not endure the abolition of it; and so the measure could not be carried through. Very shortly afterwards, however, Mr. Asquith undertook to meet the Irish Members of the House of Commons and to bring in a Bill totally abolishing what was called the Declaration. "Declaration" was a very mild word. It was much more than a Declaration. But whatever it was, Mr. Asquith undertook to bring in a Bill to cancel it. I should like to take this opportunity—an opportunity which has never occurred before, and I dare say will not occur again—publicly to thank Mr. Asquith for his courage on that occasion, and for having carried that measure successfully through the House of Commons. When it came to this House it was easily passed, although even here there were some protests against it. I thank Mr. Asquith in the name of all the Irish Catholics, all the Catholics of Australia and of Canada and also all the Catholics of the United States, where, as your Lordships are aware, they are very numerous and increasing every year.
To come back to this Bill, it is an Ulster Bill. It is framed on the face of it for the benefit of Ulster. If I know anything

99
at all of the matter I am sure that the whole of Ireland is not desirous of partition, and if there is to be any legislation for them they wish to bring it about themselves and not to have any interference from this side of the water. The first step, therefore, would be to abjure all ideas of partitioning Ireland and giving two or more Parliaments. Ireland ought to have one single voice. Let there be a plebiscite in Ireland; let there be a Convention, or a Conference; call it what you like—I should prefer to call it an Emergency Parliament—and let them with one voice say what they want, and let us pledge ourselves to grant them what they want. The decision as to what they want in such circumstances might be different from what is imagined now by extreme partisans. They might wish for a very modified form of Republic. At all events, it is impossible for any one to conjecture what the united voice of Ireland would be if only the people had the opportunity of expressing their wishes on these matters of supreme importance. I thank your Lordships sincerely for having listened to me for a few minutes, but I only move this Resolution for the sake of formality. Really it is intended as a protest against not only this Bill but all Bills which may be brought forward which fail to give the supreme gift to Ireland which scents to me to be demanded by justice—namely, that of self-determination.
LORD HEMPHILL: I hope that the noble Lord who has just moved the rejection of this Bill will go to a Division, because although the numbers may be small of those who support him—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am uncertain whether the noble Lord has really made his Motion.
LORD BRAYE: I move it only as a protest, and not for the purpose of taking a Division, unless I am satisfied that the members of the House would approve of a Division. I was waiting for some indication that the House might wish for a Division. If that is so, I will accede to the wish of the House most readily. Otherwise it would seem to me that I should only be inviting a fresh defeat and damaging my own cause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord still leaves me in doubt. He really must make up his mind.
LORD BRAYE: Very well then, I will make up my mind, and I will move the Resolution.
Amendment moved—
leave out all words after ("That") and insert ("this House refuses to pass a Government of Ireland Bill which does not confer on Ireland a full measure of self-determination").—(Lord Braye.)
LORD HEMPHILL: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has decided to move the rejection of the Bill, because, as I was endeavouring to say, I think that whatever the numbers may be in this House of those who support the rejection of the Bill, the names of noble Lords who record their votes against this Bill will be received with approval and acclamation by the overwhelming majority of Irishmen. We have been told by the Leader of the House that this Bill is part of the policy of the Government with regard to Ireland. I venture to point out to your Lordships that that policy so far has not been particularly successful. Never before has Ireland been in such a state of unrest. Never before have crimes and outrages been committed in that country both by those who are rebels against the English Government and, as is alleged and believed in Ireland, by those who are servants of the Crown. I cannot think that the fact that the military policy, the brutal policy, of the Government in Ireland has failed and does not seem likely in the future to be more successful than it has been in the past, is an encouragement to think that this Bill will have a soothing influence and will settle more or less the Irish question.
It is estimated that there are 22,000,000 Irishmen in the world—in America, in the Colonies, and elsewhere, and a large number of them in England. Out of those 22,000,000 I venture to think there cannot be, at the outside, more than 1,000,000 who support this Bill. There may be another 1,000,000 who are not violent opponents of the Bill, but the vast majority of Irishmen detest the Bill. They disapprove of it for several reasons. They disapprove of it, firstly, because it does not recognise the principle for which Irishmen have always been fighting, and that is that Ireland is a nation and as a nation should have its nationality acknowledged. Secondly, they disapprove of it because it proposes to divide Ireland into two parts, and there has been no division in Ireland either geographically, historically, or in any other

101
way, recognised by the legislature in England. They disapprove of it, thirdly, because it recognises and offers to a minority of the people of Ireland the control of the destinies of Ireland. In the provision of the Bill which provides for a Council for Ireland it gives to Ulster, which represents at most one-sixth of the population of Ireland, an equal voice and an equal vote in determining the future of Ireland.
Upon those three grounds, and upon many others, the Bill is detestable to all Irishmen, or at all events to the great majority of them, and will never be acceptable to or worked. by them. Lord Willoughby de Broke said that this was an English question. So it is. But it is also an Irish question. It is an English question because England cannot afford to have all the Irishmen in the world her enemies, and that is what in effect this Bill will cause; and it will be disastrous to England. It is an Irish question because you cannot settle the government of Ireland without the consent of the Irish people, and this Bill goes right against the consent of the Irish people. It has been said that it is doubtful what the Irish people want, and that the Government appear not to know what the Irish demand is. I think that is more or less camouflage. Surely the Irish demand has always been clear and settled. It has been "The government of Ireland by the Irish people under the Crown of England." It has been put forward by the National Party, and it still exists.
The Prime Minister, in a speech on August 16, in the other House, said that if he could find any responsible people with whom he could negotiate there were certain conditions which he would accept. Those conditions were—
"First of all, that the six counties which represent the North-East of Ulster must be accorded separate treatment. The second is that under no conditions will we assen to any proposal which will involve, directly or indirectly, the secession of Ireland or any part of Ireland from the United Kingdom. The third is—though hardly in a different category I put it separately in order to make it clear—we could not agree to anything that would involve any detraction from the security of these islands and their safety in days of war."
I venture to think that this declaration of the Prime Minister would cover the demand of the great majority in Ireland, and that within those lines it would be possible to devise a Bill which would meet the desires and wishes of the vast majority
102
of the Irish people. It is not so very long ago that the National Party, when they were in existence, would have accepted these terms.
We are told now that Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein policy governs Ireland, but those who know Ireland know that the Sinn Fein policy is not predominant because the Irish people hate Irishmen, nor because there is enmity between the South of Ireland and Ulster. There never has been any great enmity between the different religions in Ireland. That, I know, is a thing which is stated, but it is not true. Sinn Fein has flourished owing to the mis-government of Ireland by English people. It lives and thrives on the present system of Government in Ireland. It did not exist in 1914 to any appreciable extent. It did not exist in 1915, when we had a large demonstration of the Irish National Volunteers under the presidency of the late Mr. John Redmond. It appeared in any number for the first time in the Rebellion of 1916. In those days Sinn Fein was a small force. There were probably not more than 5,000 people concerned in the Rebellion, and taking the whole of Ireland there were not more than 10,000 who desired a Republic. But circumstances have changed, and now all Ireland, or nearly all Ireland, is in favour of a Republic, because they have no alternative. Your system of government has made life in Ireland so intolerable that the people there have, no belief in the British Government, and they have a deadly hatred of British methods and British systems of government. If you had offered them a reasonable prospect of government—if you had offered them the right to govern themselves without unnecessary control, without grandmotherly interference, and without bureaucracy—you would have had the vast mass of the Irish people supporting a measure on those lines. But what have they got? They shave got nothing but an intolerable system of government, and this equally intolerable Bill, which flouts all Irish desires and all Irish interests.
I venture to remind your Lordships that Sinn Fein is a creation of modern times, and that the men who were predominantly Nationalists formerly would come back to that position if they had any reasonable alternative. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said in his speech yesterday that this Bill was supposed to

103
be a boon for Ireland. I say that this Bill is a curse for Ireland—for the South and West of Ireland. It may be a boon for Ulster. It may be, as the noble Marquess said, a supposed boon—very much a supposed boon. I fancy that those noble Lords who have spoken from Ulster, and the Ulster leaders in another place, will no longer rule Ulster once the Ulster Parliament is established. The Ulster Parliament will be the first democratic and labour Parliament in the British Isles, and I think the interests of the present Ulster leaders in the management of Ulster affairs will diminish considerably once that Parliament is established on the lines laid down in this Bill.
The noble Lord who spoke just now said that this was an Ulster Bill. Ulster has been very predominant in the course of this debate. The noble Marquess, Lord Dufferin and Ava, in very soft and dulcet tones and with a very persuasive manner, has persuaded this House to vote for many things for which perhaps your Lordships might not otherwise have voted. At the same time I cannot help thinking that Ulster is very important. We have great belief in the business men of Ulster and their capabilities. But what are a million people? Indeed, the majority in Ulster would be about 650,000. What are such a number compared with the hundreds of millions in the British Empire, or even with the forty odd millions in England. Why should the interests of England, why should the interests of Ireland, be subordinated and sacrificed to the interests of a very small number, however important, and however bravely they fought for certain political principles in England. I think that it is a sacrifice which this country is not called upon to make, and which she would do well to consider before she finally decided upon it.
Apart from the general principles which I have endeavoured to state, I want to direct your Lordships' attention to some of the details of this Bill. Never in the history of legislation has such an expensive system of government been proposed as the government which is proposed in this Bill. Some of your Lordships complain of the taxes that you have to pay. But here in a small country, with a population of 4,500,000—a population not quite so large as that of London—you are going to establish four Legislative Chambers—two
104
Houses of Parliament and two Senates, and a Council for Ireland. Think of the cost of the establishment. Think of the cost of administration. In addition you are going to impose five Courts of Justice—two High Courts, two Courts of Appeal, and a Supreme Court of Appeal. Think of the cost of the salaries of the officers connected with those Courts. Think of the cost to the clients who will have to go through these various processes of appeal. Ulster, important as it is, has not a larger population than that of two of the borough councils of London. What would your Lordships think if it were proposed to establish this expensive administration in London? Some noble Lords opposite accused the Progressive party on the London County Council in former days of megolamania. What is this? It is surely a megolamania of expense in Ireland—poor, unfortunate Ireland, which has to do what she is told. The cost of administration under this system in Ireland will be atrocious. There are countries in Europe with very small populations. There are Holland, Sweden, and Bulgaria. Their cost of administration is less than half the cost of the administration which you propose in this Bill.
I am sorry for having detained your Lordships so long, but this policy which the Government advocates and which the Government carries out is the despair of all Irishmen, the despair of those Irishmen who have loyally supported England in the past, who have served under the English flag, and who wish Ireland to be governed by Irishmen as a free and independent country under the Crown of England.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, before the Question is actually put, I should like to say, in case the two noble Lords who have spoken intend to divide your Lordships—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question has been put, and the House has negatived the Amendment. Perhaps the noble Earl would like to make his observations on the further Question, That the Bill be now read a third time.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: There is some little confusion, but I understand that the Lord Chancellor has not yet put

105
the Question "That the Bill be read a third time," and I desire to explain briefly to your Lordships the course which, if there should be a Division, those of us who act together on this side would propose to take. It is well known that we did not regard the Bill as being fundamentally according either to our advice or our liking. We feel with regard to the substratum of the Bill that in two particulars it does not go far enough to give us any hope that it will be accepted throughout the South and West of Ireland as a settlement. It is, therefore, defective, and that is why we fear that the time which has been occupied by it will be to a large extent wasted.
The second point is one which has been alluded to constantly in these discussions, and I only mention it again in order that our protest and feelings upon it may be remembered. We do not believe in the setting up of a second Parliament. We believe that it would have been possible to meet all the requirements of the North-Eastern part of Ulster by attaching it to Great Britain. We believe that the establishment of that Parliament, especially if it precedes the Southern Parliament, is likely to retard and not to increase the prospects of a settlement. We have made our protest not from any desire to stand in the way of any advantage which may accrue to Ulster, but solely because in the whole of this matter we have been guided by one consideration alone, which is violated fundamentally by the whole principle of the Bill—to obtain some settlement which may in Ireland give us better hopes for the future than we have had reason to cherish in the past, especially in the immediate past.
If we were guided only by those considerations we should feel bound to vote with the noble Lord if he went to a Division. But we cannot help feeling that a great change has been made in the Bill during its progress through this House. In its incidence, at all events, it will be freed from some of the gravest imperfections with which it came here. I stand aghast when I think of what would have been the effect if two single-Chamber Parliaments had been let loose in the North and South of Ireland, each of them with very large minorities; the minority in the one ease would not have been represented at all, and in the other case it would have been necessarily overridden on any
106
important division. The whole principle of our Parliamentary Constitution has been not to ride down minorities but to give them an opportunity of being heard and of swaying by argument the opinions of the majority. That, in the case of the South would have been absolutely impossible. There would have been no members there even to present the case on which the whole prosperity of all those who have made the wealth of Ireland in the South depends. That has been remedied. Your Lordships' House has not only put into the Bill two Second Chambers, which I earnestly trust have come to stay, but has made those two Second Chambers contributory to the Council of Ireland, which has large and important functions most necessary to be transacted, not by men who disagree fundamentally on every point, as will the representatives in the Lower House, but by men of the class that we have endeavoured to put into the Second Chamber, who will be willing to transact business because it is business and have no political ends to serve. Therefore in those respects a great advantage Las been secured.
We have also succeeded in putting out what we regard as the absurd proposal of a Surtax to be levied by persons who would not feel the responsibility for the original and at present most onerous tax placed on everybody in this country to the extremest limit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has found it possible to go in a time of national emergency. Beyond that, we have placed in the Bill some securities against the measure being brought too quickly into operation, both by asking for the opinions of those who represent Ireland on the one side and by providing for a Resolution by both Houses of Parliament on the other as to the establishment of an appointed day which, as I think your Lordships will realise, is the more necessary from the events which have taken place in Ireland even during the passing of the Bill. Those are considerations which make us feel that it is highly desirable that this House should not now take the course of rejecting the Bill.
On behalf of those who strongly urged on the Second Reading the unfortunate position in which the whole of the minority of the South of Ireland are placed, I desire to express the feeling we have that your Lordships on some important provisions have treated the demands we have made with that consideration which has always

107
been given to minorities in this country. I do not believe there is any Assembly in the world which, debating in the midst of the present confusion and unfortunate occurrences, would have given a calmer or more just view upon the whole of the Bill than that which has been afforded in this House in the last few days. That being so, I think it would be disrespectful on our part if we were to go beyond urging on the Government and especially on the Lord Chancellor, who, we know, desires to act with fairness and justice in this matter, how urgent it is that this compromise—for it is a compromise—this attempt to place the Bill in a different situation from that in which it came up to this House without violating its fundamental provisions, should be maintained when it is considered in another place.
Believe me, my Lords, there is not one single provision that we have placed in the Bill that, so far as we know, will not only have the support of those who have to work the Bill from our standpoint but of all other men so far as they are moderate, of whatever class or creed, in the South or West of Ireland. That being so, I earnestly press upon the Lord Chancellor that those matters which are vital, which will certainly be insisted upon if they are sent up again from another place, may be viewed in a spirit of compromise and justice, as well as policy, so that we may be able to obtain a settlement on this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I desire to add a very few words to what has been said by the noble Earl, all the more since the rejection of the measure has been moved, and supported with great earnestness by at any rate one member of your Lordships' House. In the first place I desire to express my appreciation of the fact that His Majesty's Government have not been deflected from their intention of passing this measure by all that has happened, and indeed is happening, in Ireland from the disturbances in that country. I am certain that in pressing forward their political measure as they have done they have taken the right course, and this I believe will be felt by many who are by no means unqualified admirers of the measure itself. I still feel, and nothing that has been said in the course of the debate has altered my opinion, that in instituting a system of two Parliaments in Ireland His Majesty's Government has committed a great blunder. I
108
only hope that it may not prove in the long run to be a fatal blunder. Of course, the reason is obvious. It has been thought necessary to show deference to the uneasiness of the North-East part of Ireland if a single Parliament were instituted in the country.
Your Lordships will remember that in the debate on the Second Reading the noble Viscount, Lord Grey of Fallodon, expressed the opinion that in the past those of us who had been responsible for the introduction of Home Rule measures had not been sufficiently careful of the fears expressed by Ulster regarding the institution of an Irish Parliament. In a sense that I believe is perfectly true. I think we should have done better had we recognised more publicly the existence of that feeling. The reason was not that we were by any means unaware of it. Certainly I cannot charge myself with ever having neglected the necessity of applying proper safeguards in regard to Ulster. But it must be remembered that those who at that time were the spokesmen of that part of Ireland displayed a certain hardness and even arrogance of temper which naturally made those who were responsible for the Bills dwell rather on the other side of the question. I cannot help feeling that had it been possible to reverse the process—instituting one Parliament for Ireland and two subordinate Assemblies to which at any rate for the time being practically the same powers of safeguard could have been given as are enjoyed now by either Parliament taken singly—there would have been a far better chance of the two parts of the country coming together than will be the case now.
One has been somewhat pained in the course of these debates by the impression created that there are at any rate some who speak for Ulster who are disposed to regard the separation of the two parts of Ireland as likely to be permanent. If they admit the possibility of their ever coming together, it is rather in the tone of those opponents of the principle of the League of Nations who admit that it would be an admirable thing if some time or other such a League could be formed and flourish, but that its institution would involve a radical change in human nature as we know it, and therefore we must not be too sanguine about the possibility of anything of the kind.
I could not help being especially struck I with the attitude taken up on the question

109
which we last debated—namely, that of the Judicature. It was only in a very modified form that it was suggested that for the purposes of appeals in Ireland the Courts of the two parts of Ireland should be unified into a single Court of Appeal. Yet my noble friend who spoke for Ulster in that particular regard used almost the tone that you might have expected would be used by a Louisiana planter if it was suggested that cases in which white Americans were concerned should be judged by a Court of negro judges.
Is there, then, really to be no hope of union in the future between the North and the South of Ireland? As originally provided in the Bill I confess I saw very little such hope, but as the Bill has been amended I freely admit that the prospect is distinctly better in that direction, and I therefore hope, like the noble Earl who has just sat down, that when the Amendments which your Lordships have made for that purpose come to be considered His Majesty's Government will look favourably upon them, and that in any case your Lordships' House will adopt a firm, though by no means a provocative, attitude in insisting upon them, if any objection is taken. I notice that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, with the prudence which we should have expected, carefully guarded himself against pledging the Government on this particular point, but on the other hand he did not say anything which would make your Lordships suppose that an agreement on this matter was impossible.
What I feel on the whole business is that the Northern Parliament—or what, I think, ought to be called the North-Eastern Parliament—will represent a very workmanlike job, and that, its operations will be carried out with efficiency and, no doubt, with dispatch. I hope that those who have the guidance of it will remember that there is, even in the six counties, a large majority whose claims, civil and religious, have to be considered, and that the possession of responsibility will, there too, have the beneficial effect which we believe that it almost always has. As regards the future of the Southern Parliament, we have to wait on the results of what His Majesty's Government is striving to do in the pacification of the country—not merely, I mean, by military means, but by the initiation of discussion and conversations. In these last I hope
110
that His Majesty's Government will not be disposed to stand too closely on form. It is quite clear that no Government can have any truck with men who prima facie are criminals. Apart from convicted persons, those against whom there is a strong prima facie case obviously cannot be brought into council, but the mere fact that a man belongs to an organisation of which some members are criminal ought not, I am certain, to debar the Government from entering into communication with him, if useful results seem likely to follow.
We can all recall what happened in the terrible year of 1882. We know then what a desire there was in some minds to associate practically all the Irish Nationalist Members with the criminal organisation which, although on a smaller scale than now, was perpetrating a series of crimes in Ireland. If the advice of some had been followed all the Nationalist Members would have been tarred with the same brush. When the forged letters appeared which. Mr. Parnell was assumed to have written, as we know a great many people almost jumped at the idea of believing that they were genuine in the hope of implicating the Nationalist policy with a sympathy with crime. Fortunately that did not succeed. And one trusts that once more it may be possible to draw a line between those who are really connected with criminal organisations and those others, probably in many cases definitely opposed to crime, but belonging to a party to which this fringe unhappily attaches.
One feels that the hopes for this measure depend in the main upon the temper in which it is worked by those who are responsible for it. Even on this matter one feels that in a Coalition Government, composed as this is, there must be different methods of approach to the question, because one knows what the views of its various members have been in the past. What I hope is that, so far as political wrongs are concerned, there may be an attempt to clean the slate on both sides—that those who speak on the one hand of oppression and on the other hand speak of rebellion may be disposed to forget the past. If that eau be done I hope that this measure, imperfect though, as I have said, I believe it to be in many respects, may at any rate bring about something of a brighter dawn of amity and understanding between the two countries.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, this Bill in its passage through your Lordships' House has been to my mind greatly unproved in one or two points, but more especially in the creation of Senates and in the composition of the Council. The creation of Senates has given some security, and the composition of the Council does, I think, leave a very faint vestige, but still a vestige, of hope that unity may possibly come about some time. I think that is a great improvement because, as the Bill came up to this House, there was not to my mind the smallest possibility of union ever taking place. There remains the difficulty in the Council of the equality of representation of the two Parliaments. That, I think, is one of the few federal spots in the Bill. I wish the Bill had been federal all through, but it is federal only in spots, and that, I suppose, is one of them, and is derived from the Constitution of the United States. Equal representation for great and small is perfectly right in that case, with a great number of States, and I do not believe it would have been objectionable in the case of Ireland if the Bill had set up Provincial Legislatures. I do not think it would be as objectionable as it is if Northern Ireland consisted of the whole Province of Ulster, but you have carved out of the old historic Province of Ulster a sort of water-tight compartment, a creed tight compartment, in which opinion is very fixed on fundamental points; for instance, as to a Parliament for Ireland very fixed and very inflexible. It is obvious that giving equality of representation on the Council to the six counties practically enables those six counties, if they choose, to make union impossible for ever. As a matter of fact, except in so far as private Bill procedure is concerned, it seems to me that those six counties can practically put the Council out of action and prevent its functioning at all. That is a very strong objection which still remains.
We have been told in this House, and notably by the noble Earl who leads the House, that if this Bill passes the fate of Ireland would be in her own hands. Most unfortunately that is not the case at all; Irishmen will not have the destiny of Ireland in their own hands. The destinies of Ireland will be practically in the hands of a minority of about one-fifth in the North-East corner of Ireland. I do not know why, but His Majesty's Government appear to have created a sort
112
of axiom in political science that minorities must rule. I am all in favour of the rights of minorities and I have no objection to Ulster, or the six counties of Ulster, having a perfectly free choice and exercising self-determination to that extent, but when through the Council you place the whole destinies of Ireland in the hands of a minority it seems to me to be carrying the rights of minorities a great deal too far.
I allude to this because it brings me to the point I want to make—a point on which I suppose I am rather singular in this House—that is, in looking upon the financial arrangements, the fiscal and financial control, as the one vital point in this or any other Bill. We were told by the Lord Chancellor that if this Bill passes Irishmen will have an opportunity of showing that they are fit for self-government. Irishmen in the North-East enclave will show that they are fit for self-government. Of course, they are fit for it. I have the greatest respect for their business and governing capacities. They accept the Bill. They have all they want in the Bill; there is nothing that they deem essential that is not to be found in the Bill. They will work it, and work it very well. But what about Southern Ireland and the great majority of the people? They do not want the Bill. They are not satisfied with the Bill; there is nothing in it that they want, and everything that they deem essential to enable them to work self-government properly is lacking.
What will happen? Northern Ireland will work the Bill very well, and Southern Ireland, being utterly dissatisfied, not having anything that it thinks necessary to do so. will not work the Bill—cannot work the Bill—and we shall then be told that the people in the North-East are capable of exercising self-government but that the people in the South are not. That is not fair; it is not just, and it is putting the great majority of the people of Ireland in a false and invidious position. The only possibility of righting this is to give the great majority of the people of Ireland the concession that they think is absolutely necessary to enable them to work this or any other Bill giving a measure of self-government. We all know, your Lordships know, and the Government know perfectly well, what they deem essential, and that is the control of their own income

113
and expenditure. Why it has not been put into the Bill passes my comprehension. It makes no difference whatever to Northern Ireland. They can do what they like with the powers which are given them. Why this power has not been put into the Bill, why even now we have had no indication from the Government that at some time or other it can be added, I do not know. There is nothing in the grant of full fiscal and financial control that the Government have ever said cannot be given. They have never ruled it out. On the contrary, they have said over and over again that some time or other, under some conditions, it will be granted. Why not grant it now? The Government apparently ask and want to know whether, if it was granted, it would be accepted. The noble Earl the Leader of the House asked me in the Second Reading debate whether if full fiscal control was put into the Bill the people of Ireland would accept it. I cannot say; no one can say; the Members of Parliament elected at the last General Election cannot say. You cannot have public opinion expressing itself on that point until you have put some definite concrete proposal before the people that they feel sure they can have if they accept it. I believe they would accept it; I am perfectly convinced that they would.
What I really desire to say is that neither this measure nor any measure of self-government can be successfully worked by Southern Ireland until this necessary concession is given. The only possibility of union lies in the two Parliaments of Northern and Southern Ireland working their own districts well. Then they would come to find it to their mutual convenience and advantage to come together and amalgamate. That can never be until you give Southern Ireland what they deem essential to enable them to work a measure of Biome Rule—and it is not given in this Bill. I could not support the Amendment, but I am bound to say that I am convinced that this Bill, with its intention of bringing about unity and its hope of effecting peace and a settlement in Ireland, has not the remotest chance of fulfilling that object.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think it will be respectful to those who have addressed your Lordships at this stage of the Bill that I should make a few observations upon the subjects which
114
those speeches have raised. Lord Dunraven has admitted, as Lord Crewe did, that in his view the inhabitants of the North of Ireland will efficiently work the Parliamentary institutions which this Bill commits to their hands. This admission, freely and publicly made, of one of the two sections in Ireland whose differences and animosities have caused so much anxiety and embarrassment to successive British Governments, seems to me to supply a very considerable justification for the proposals which are the subject-matter of the Bill. We shall, indeed, have dealt with one of the embarrassing elements, and it will be for us to discover, by experience and the teachings of this Bill, whether it is as impossible to deal with the South as Lord Dunraven appears to apprehend.
I did not understand why Lord Dunraven said that the South cannot accept this Bill. I could understand anybody saying that the South will not accept it. That is a tenable and arguable view, but that they cannot accept a Bill which gives them on material points as much as, or more than, the 1914 Bill (which they did accept) and which, as the admission is made, will be accepted and can be efficiently worked by the North, is a proposition which I fail to understand. Lord Dunraven will forgive me if I do not discuss in detail the other arguments used in his interesting speech, because I think none of them, though no doubt treated with freshness of matter, differed from the points which the noble Earl made in his speech on the Second Reading.
A very important speech was made by Lord Crewe. I welcomed from him the expression of his opinion that the Government were well-advised, even confronted with the horrors of which we read to-day, in persevering with their scheme and attempting to carry it through all stages until it passes to the Statute Book. I think, too, Lord Crewe went further in the direction we have recommended than I remember him to have done at any earlier stage in the debates. The noble Marquess made a number of highly interesting observations, and among them he regretted that it was not found possible to set up one Parliament for all Ireland, with two subordinate bodies, one in the North and one in the South, each exercising powers comparable to those given to the separate Parliaments by this Bill. Under exising

115
conditions there would not be the slightest hope of obtaining the consent of those who live in the North to any such proposal. The time is not ripe for a proposal to establish one Parliament, and I do not believe that anyone, whether he comes from the North or from the South, would allege as his opinion that any such proposal brought forward at this stage would have the slightest chance of acceptance. If that is true, the suggested alternative does not help us.
Again and again, in the intolerably long speech that I made on the Second Reading, I attempted to insist that this is a question of alternatives and alternatives only. Nearly everybody is agreed on this, except a small section whose opinions were voiced by Lord Willoughby de Broke, that something must be done having regard to the situation. A Parliamentary debater once said that when a man alleged that something must be done the observation was almost always the preface to doing something extremely foolish. No doubt many illustrations could be brought forward not lacking in prime facie plausibility. At the same time, it is necessary to point out that there are occasions in which action is imperative, and in which it is not a legitimate argument against any particular suggestion unless you are in a position to come forward and say, "Here is an alternative and I will show you that it is satisfactory."
Having listened to the whole of the debates, and given the best attention I can to every contention put forward, I claim that no alternative has been advanced which possessed the slightest chance of acceptance, and which was not open to nearly all the objections to which the Government proposals are exposed, and which was not open also to objections to which the Government proposals are not exposed. If I establish this claim T go far in the direction in which I desire to progress—that this scheme deserves a trial, and that your Lordships have been wise in the attention which has been given to the proposals in this House. Let the Bill leave this House not in a spirit of gloomy despair, but rather giving some ray of hope that the attempt, which I believe to be ingenious and which I know to have been sincerely made, may prove to be more fruitful of result than many of its critics to-day are disposed to think.
116
Lord Midleton, in an interesting speech which was the culmination of a series of memorable contributions to our debates, asked me—not indeed in terms, but by implication—whether I could tell him what were the prospects in another place of the Amendments introduced in this House by your Lordships. He used the expression "compromise," but he knows that it was necessary, in the position which I occupy, that I should carefully guard myself in the language I used in relation to successive Amendments. It is not conceivable to me that there are not some among the important Amendments which have been carried in this House which will be received, whether with enthusiasm or not, in another place, and I am very conscious—I hope no one will think the contrary—that there was very much indeed to be said for the Amendment which has been carried in this House to provide Senates for the North and the South of Ireland. Of course, I was conscious during the whole of that debate of the difficulty in which we found ourselves by the fact that undoubtedly it was not only at one time the intention of the Government, but the expressed intention of the Government, to produce proposals for Second Chambers. The difficulties of that task, as I have said, prevented us carrying out what I agree was a pledge, and every one knows the hopeless position in which a Government finds itself which must begin a discussion by admitting that it is unable, from whatever misfortune or series of misfortunes, to carry out a promise.
Your Lordships, bolder or more ingenious than we were who composed that Committee, have suggested a Constitution for Second Chambers both for the North and for the South. I should be less than candid if I did not make it plain that, just as I entertained, when this or similar proposals were discussed by us on this Committee, the gravest doubts not as to the desirability of there being a Second Chamber but as to the defensibility of these particular suggestions, so I confess I entertain those doubts to-day, but I think your Lordships by passing this Amendment have made it very difficult for the Government to refuse either to accept Amendments of this kind or to produce suggestions with a similar object which may appear to them the more reasonable, or to suggest Amendments by way of improvement in the proposals which this House has introduced into the

117
Bill. Some of the other more important. Amendments stand in rather a different position. I will not enter upon them at this stage, because sonic contain much that is good while others contain what is more open to criticism. Your Lordships will probably be content if I assure the House that the care and patience which has been brought to bear upon the discussion of this Bill is entirely appreciated by the Government, and that the deepest consideration will be given to every suggestion which is contained in the Amendments.
I may add a final word, and that is in reference to the predictions which have been made to-day and at every stage in the history of this Bill as to the probability or almost certainty of its complete failure in the South of Ireland, I should not be dealing openly with the House if I pretended that even the Government itself approached the future with complete sanguineness. It must not be imagined that we are any more blind than noble Lords to what is going on before our eyes and to the temper and stubbornness which are being created and increased each day and each week in Ireland. But even to those of your Lordships who know Ireland so much better than I do I would point out that by long admission, by universal recognition of writers and poets and historians who have known Ireland and the Irish character, it is recognised that there is something that is incalculable in the Irish character; that no man can ever predict with certainty how Irishmen will behave in any particular situation. I myself, for instance, in the course of the debate in Committee threw out a suggestion, speaking quite seriously, that if the Irish were consulted as to the form of Second Chamber which they would have, on the hypothesis that there was to be some form of Second Chamber, and if you put in one ballot box all the men of science, of business, and of learning, and in the other ballot box the Irish Peers, there was not the slightest doubt as to which way the suffrages of the voters would go.
The danger of making a definite prediction could not be better illustrated than the account given to me by Field-Marshal Lord French of that memorable day on which the Procession of Victory, starting front his residence, marched three miles into the heart of Dublin. It was a procession comparable to though smaller
118
than the procession which took place in London, and which was witnessed with emotion by very many of your Lordships. It was a procession from three to four miles long, and it proceeded through roads as crowded by masses of people as were the roads and thoroughfares in London. Lord French told me that when the procession left his residence neither he nor the officers of his staff nor any of his civilian advisers had the slightest knowledge whether they would be received with enthusiasm or with bullets, but that when they began to pass where the press and concourse of people first became great it so happened that a few children were standing there and when they saw the scenes of martial panoply, the horses, the uniforms, the guns, the children began to cheer. Lord French told me that from that moment the fate of the procession was determined. The cheer from those childish voices was taken up by those who stood around them. And so it spread; it thundered and roared for three miles down the line of the whole procession and as a spontaneous and even passionate expression of loyalty it was not surpassed anywhere in these isles. When, therefore, any of your Lordships may be inclined to feel unduly pessimistic, I would ask you to remember on how many occasions Ireland has done what those who knew her best said that in no circumstances would Ireland ever do.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 73:
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in Clause 73, to leave out subsection (3)—namely—
"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."
The noble Marquess said: The Amendment in my name is only a drafting Amendment. In consequence of the Amendment moved by Lord Midleton it is necessary to make provision for setting up the Council even before the appointed day. The effect of the Amendment of my noble friend is that if before the appointed day the Lord Lieutenant is authorised to set up government by Committee, familiarly known as Crown Colony government, that Committee will have all the powers, as I read the Bill, of the Parliament of the South of Ireland, and therefore it will be quite possible to set up the Council.

119
Consequently the subsection in the Amendment which I was fortunate enough to insert in Committee will no longer be apt, and I move that, it be struck out.
Amendment moved—
Clause 73, page 58, lines 27 to 29, leave out subsection (3).—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The object of the noble Marquess was explained in the few observations which he made, and I have no objection at all to leaving out the subsection. The repugnancy which I think exists between Lord Midleton's Amendment (Clause 72) and Lord Salisbury's Amendment, will be rendered less but not altogether removed, but it is a repugnancy which I think may be dealt with without any great difficulty, and I should be glad to explain to the noble Marquess in detail, if it will interest him, the grounds which lead me to that conclusion. As, however, I had proposed to leave out the subsection in any event, it is not worth saying more about it at this stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, and I shall be very glad to hear what he has to say. I think in any event this subsection will have to come out.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Your Lordships will recall that two or three years ago we had a considerable debate when the Health Ministry was set up, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will remember that we had a struggle then as to whether there should be two Under-Secretaries or one. The noble Marquess beat us on that occasion, as he was sure to do, and he was deaf to a blandishment. of mine that if we had a second Under-Secretary he would be in the House of Lords. In the fulness of time Lord Astor came to the House of Lords, and so, as we say elsewhere, Lord Salisbury "won both ways." He not only succeeded in depriving the Ministry of a second Under-Secretary, but he got the Under-Secretary in this House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: An excellent one, too.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I gladly echo that remark of the noble Marquess, and I equally regret with the noble Marquess Lord Astor's absence. Being part and parcel of that Ministry, he would have had much greater facility in dealing with this complicated measure than I can have. Therefore I ask for the kindly patience of your Lordships.
This Bill is a very different Bill from that which was introduced into the House of Commons some time ago. It has been much attacked. The main line of attack has been that it will add additional burdens to the Exchequer and to the rates. I can only say in regard to that line of attack, if it is honest—and, of course, the attack is honest—that it is really owing to misapprehension respecting the provisions of this Bill. I have no doubt whatever that I shall be able to show your Lordships that in the first place no charge at all is made upon the Exchequer, and that clause after clause is drawn with the intention of saving or lightening the burden of the rates. Perhaps as I conclude I may enumerate those clauses which appear to bear on this portion of the subject.
As your Lordships may have observed, the Bill is in two parts. One deals mainly with housing, and the other with miscellaneous provisions. Clause 1 relates to compulsory hiring of houses by the local authorities. Your Lordships know perfectly well the shortage of houses. It has been impossible to build fast enough, and anxiety has been expressed not only on behalf of the Government but also on behalf of your Lordships, and, worst of all, on behalf of those who were particularly concerned. And, indeed, there have been some disastrous consequences in some places. Reports from all over the country show how many desirable houses of the kind are standing empty owing to owners refusing to let in the hope of selling the leasehold or freehold at an extravagant price to those who would pay such a price because of the shortage. Already there have been some disturbances, and local authorities are very anxious to have the power to hire houses.
Therefore Clause 1 enables a local authority compulsorily to hire such houses if they have not been occupied for three months immediately preceding the Order,

121
provided that they shall not be rated at more than £60 or £50 in the country. The terms of letting are not to go beyond June 23, 1923, which is the date at which the Rent Restriction Act comes to an end. I may point out that this power is not to extend to houses that have been acquired for the Public Service or for statutory services, or to new houses built since June, 1919, nor to houses which are used for the housing of those employed in agriculture, although they may be temporarily vacant for part of the year. The rent is to be fixed by the local authority, and if no agreement is reached there is to be a reference to arbitration under the Lands Clauses (Acquisition) Act, 1919. Here I may perhaps remind the house of a Committee of which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was chairman, in regard to the Rent Restriction Act. Those who have perused the evidence given to that Committee will see that a number of wit-necesses favoured this proposal. No Order is to have effect until confirmed by the Minister.
As to Clause 2 and I hope your Lordships will consider that this provision is essential—you will remember that much importance was attached in your Lordships' House to the fact that it was extremely desirable to encourage private enterprise in building houses; indeed, I believe I am correct in stating that in one of the Bills that was passed in July a hint was given, I think by a noble Lord sitting opposite, that something should be done in this direction. The result was that in the Additional Powers Act passed last December provision was made for £15,000,000 for subsidising private enterprise. That money had to be spent within one year. But this intention it was found impossible to carry out owing to a variety of circumstances, so that this clause now proposes that the time in which that money can be expended shall be extended to two years. I would emphasise that no increased sum whatever is asked for in the aggregate. The clause simply enables the intention of Parliament to be carried out with regard to the subsidies for private enterprise of which full advantage could not be taken in one year. The number of houses for which grants are now due exceeds 20,000 and as the provision becomes more widely known the number rapidly increases. I think it is a matter of general assent that private enterprise should not be checked. I
122
may remark here that this provision tends in the direction of economy, for it costs less for the Treasury to pay this subsidy of £260 rather than be responsible for any cost exceeding what would be provided by the levy of a penny rate. There is this further safeguard, that every Regulation made by the Minister has to be laid before the two Houses of Parliament.
Clause 3 gives power to a local authority to prohibit what is known as luxury building, but this is subject to an appeal to an independent tribunal. There are machinery sub-clauses, but I wish to draw the particular attention of your Lordships to subclause (3). This is a power to enable a local authority to prohibit construction in cases where the contractor seeks to seduce away labour from small house building in favour of less necessary or luxury building by special advantages such as bonuses or rates of pay in excess of the recognised rate. This is supported by employers, and is pressed for by the Resettlement Committee of the Building Trades Council. This seduction has occurred in many cases and has seriously impeded building. There are other machinery sub-clauses with which at tins moment I need not trouble your Lordships.
Clause 4 gives the local authority power to carry out a housing scheme outside its own area. The powers it possesses at present can only be exercised within its own area. Houses are being built in accordance with schemes by local authorities. The duty of providing sewerage or a water supply is by law laid on the actual district authority within whose area the houses are being built, and this has to be done, of course, before the houses are assessed and income is derivable from them. But that district authority cannot finance such undertakings, and it is proposed that the local authority carrying out the housing scheme shall have power under the clause to enable the district authority to meet the expenses, which cannot now be done, and the account will be adjusted thereafter when the properties are assessed.
I ask your Lordships' attention to paragraph (b) of the same clause, which deals with the payment of interest out of capital. I desire to say frankly and at once that the Government have not willingly put this provision into the Bill. I equally acknowledge that it is open to criticism if not objection, and nothing but the urgent circumstances of the case war-

123
rant it. Your Lordships know that it is not a novel power. It has been sanctioned already by Parliament where the urgency of such cases has been recognised, and I believe I am correct in stating that in regard to Railway Bills it is to be found in what are known as the Model Clauses. I have a number of cases before me or I can find them should your Lordships wish for a reference. If those cases were urgent I submit that the case of housing is not less urgent, and I hope your Lordships may agree. I call attention also to the safeguard, and it is a real safeguard because the proviso to subsection (2) lays down that in any order of the Minister referring to such loans the payment of interest from capital shall be provisional and shall not have effect, therefore, until confirmed by Parliament.
Coming now to Part II, I will only trouble your Lordships with three or four of the principal clauses. Clause 8 deals with the treatment for incipient mental disorder. This clause has created, naturally, considerable comment, and the principal criticisms I believe to be two—first, interference with the Lunacy Laws; and, secondly, in regard to the liberty of the individual. Regarding the interference with the Lunacy Laws your Lordships will find it is distinctly laid down in subsection (6) that nothing in this Act shall affect any power exerciseable with respect to lunatics by the Lord Chancellor or the Commissioners in Lunacy or by the Judge or Masters in Lunacy.
Then in reference to the liberty of the subject, I hope to show that this objection is adequately met by safeguards. At present those suffering from any stage of mental disorder cannot be admitted to a home of any kind, and very severe penalties can be inflicted upon anybody taking them in, without being certified as lunatics. There are a large number of incipient cases known, I believe, to be temporary in character, and it is computed that about 60 per cent. are cases that may recover. Expert opinion favours the idea that their recovery is only to be hoped for if there is entire dissociation from the machinery of the Lunacy Acts, and it is proposed in this clause that such cases as those—on the border line, if I may so call them—shall be treated in homes without certification, subject again to safeguards. The real object of this clause is to endeavour to deal more efficiently, more judiciously,
124
and I think it is not unfair to say more justly, with this kind of case.
There are two particular classes of cases which I think will command your Lordships' sympathy. One is in regard to women, and I do not think I need particularise them further than to say that they are cases in which it is generally hoped that the great majority will recover. They are very sad cases, and it seems hard to label them as having been in a lunatic asylum or to give them the taint of its atmosphere, and likely enough or certainly it is considered that their recovery is delayed if it may not be prevented by their detention. The other case I know will meet with no less sympathy and goodwill from your Lordships, and that is of men suffering from shell shock or the results of shell shock. Here again we have been told that some 60 per cent. should recover, but, though certified—and certified they must be—there is no power to admit them to anywhere else than the lunatic asylum or the insane wards of Poor Law infirmaries, and your Lordships will agree that these men deserve better of us than that. In these cases, as with others, existence in such surroundings as are found in these asylums, however well conducted—and well conducted they are known to be—postpones recovery, to say the least of it, and I think your Lordships will agree that something should be done to ameliorate the condition of those who have done so much for us.
As regards the safeguards for individual liberty, the maximum term of treatment is to be six months; the patient is not to be detained if notice to leave is given in writing, and in dangerous cases the superintendent of the home must have forty-eight hours' notice so as to be able to communicate with the patient's friends. The institution must be approved by the Minister; no person is to be admitted without his consent in writing and a doctor's certificate stating that the treatment is likely to be beneficial; and the reception of each patient is to be reported to the Minister within twenty-four hours. The approved institution is to be periodically inspected by officers appointed for that purpose by the Minister. Regulations may be made by the Minister to carry this clause into effect, and any such regulations must be posted in the institution and approved by Parliament. That is to say, they must lie on the Table of both Houses

125
for twenty-one days and are subject to a Resolution approving them. This plan is not new either. I understand that it has been successfully worked with admirable results in Scotland for over fifty years. The proposals have the strong, and I believe unanimous, support of the Medico-Psychological Association, and I am sure they will command your sympathy and I hope you will acquiesce in them.
Now I come to Clause 9, known as the Hospital Clause, which has been much changed since the Bill was first introduced. I do not propose to explore the pecuniary conditions of the voluntary hospitals as that question has been relegated to the inquiries of the Committee. But even now I know that this is a clause which is of general interest. Taking the country as a whole I believe there are 45,000 voluntary beds and 94,000 beds in Poor Law infirmaries. While the 45,000 beds of the voluntary hospitals have long lists of people waiting to occupy them, of the 94,000 beds of the Poor Law infirmaries there are 30,000 beds which are left vacant up to the Report of October last. The object in view is to relieve the acute shortage by making the vacant beds in the Poor Law infirmaries available to the general public. They are not used by them at present because their hospitality can only be extended to those who are destitute. It is not proposed to confer this power upon Poor Law authorities, because treatment by them would carry with it the taint of pauperism, and the declared policy of the Government is to make the county councils and county borough councils the hospital authorities for their respective areas.
Sub-clause (1) enables a county council to acquire on terms approved by the Minister any existing Poor Law hospital or infirmary within its area and maintain it as a hospital, and to establish and maintain, or aid in so doing, an ambulance service for dealing with cases within or without their area. The next sub-clause (2) enables, in default of agreement, the Minister to order a transfer, but this is to be done by Provisional Order necessitating, of course, the confirmation of Parliament. Then follow minor matters of machinery, such as Joint Committees, arrangements for paying patients, and so on.
Clause 10 has to do with clinical thermometers, on which there has been some correspondence, and indeed one can hardly approach this particular clause Without
126
a smile. Under D.O.R.A. the Minister of Munitions, in the interest of the wounded forces of the Crown, could forbid the use of untested clinical thermometers. I said just now that one could not approach the matter without a smile, because I have heard so often of the enormous Department to be set up—a Director, a sub-Director, clerks, buildings, apparatus, and all the rest of it—which would cost a very large sum of money. I will come to that in a moment. The Minister of Munitions did this under D.O.R.A. during the war, but D.O.R.A. will presently lapse, and therefore if this is to be compulsory legislation is necessary. But before the war clinical thermometers could be tested on application at the National Physical Laboratory at Kew. Arrangements were there made during the war, and it was proposed to continue them. This clause is supported by the Association representing all the manufacturers, and whereas I believe the number of defective thermometers some years ago was about 40 per cent., now I understand it to have come down to 2 per cent. Here are some figures which are up to date. The weekly test is 30,000, and up to October 31 last there were 1,600,000 tested. The pre-war charge to manufacturers was 1s. per thermometer for testing; the present charge to the manufacturers of thermometers is 3d., which covers all the expenses of what are termed the overhead charges. When the compulsory system began the defective number was, I understand, 5 per cent.; now with a more stringent test it is 2 per cent. The German thermometers when tested were defective to the extent of about 30 per cent., and those of the best British firms are now defective 5 per cent. I venture to think this is rather an interesting statement, and in view of what has been said about these various establishments, and the cost, and all the rest of it, what is the fact? What is the staff? Not one single office-boy. The cost to the Exchequer and the rates or any other cost to the public is not one single farthing. Clause 15 elongates, if I may use the term, the borrowing period, and therefore eases the rates. The county councils were required to repay loans in thirty years; that is now extended to sixty years.
I think I have said enough on the clauses to interest your Lordships at any rate in the Bill, and hope that you may take a favourable view of it. The Bill is to be extended to Ireland, and all that is

127
required to make the Bill operative is an Irish application clause which substitutes the appropriate Irish reference for the English reference—for example, "The Local Government Board for Ireland" in place of "The Minister for Health." The application of the Bill to Ireland has been carefully considered by the Irish Local Government Board, and has been prepared in accordance with their recommendations. I understand that so far as Ireland is concerned the Bill is absolutely non-controversial.
I said that I would enumerate some of the clauses to show they case the rates, or, at any rate, do not increase them. Clauses 6, 7, 11, 15, and 19 all case the rates. As I have said before, there is no extra charge to the Exchequer. I believe the only charge, excepting a small charge which may be a very useful one in regard to providing ambulances for these hospitals which will thereby make distances shorter and make the hospitals more useful, is a charge in Clause 19. Your Lordships know that half the Saving Certificates by the Budget were to go to housing, and the charges which are made are merely for the housing authorities to give them power to contribute towards certain expenses. The cost last year to the Treasury I believe did not exceed £7,000.
That is my case for the Bill. I observe that my noble friend Lord Strachie has a hostile Motion, and that he proposes that the Bill should be postponed or read a second time in two months. Seeing the position of the session and the work of Parliament, I can only treat that as a Motion for rejection, and I shall ask your Lordships to support me in the Lobby. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move That the Bill be read 2a this day two months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure we have all listened with the greatest interest to the very clear and lucid explanation of a very complicated Bill, indeed a Bill which is so complicated and contains so many different measures that one might say it is a Bill that ought really to represent four or five different Acts of Parliament instead of being put into one general omnibus Bill as in this case.
I was very much struck at the absence of one statement in the speech of my noble friend. He did not at all refer to the way in which this Bill has been rushed through the House of Commons without any consideration at all. It might have been thought that he would give us time here for the due consideration of it. I should like to remind the House that this Bill was read a second time in the House of Commons after a very long, not to say acrimonious, debate. So much so that the Minister in charge of the Bill, Dr. Addison, had to promise to drop fourteen clauses when it was sent to Committee, though in fact when it went up into Committee he dropped only six clauses out of the Bill. No doubt those were some of the most contentious clauses.
Then, after the Bill had been considered in Committee, not at very great length—and there again the proceedings were somewhat hurried—the Bill came down to the House of Commons for consideration on Report. The Government again gave no proper time for consideration of the Bill. They simply rushed it through, resisting practically every Amendment of substance, and it was passed in an all-night sitting, the House adjourning at a quarter to seven in the morning on the day after the Report stage had begun. Those who have sat in the other place know quite well that during an all-night sitting it is no question of considering the Amendments of a Bill, but only of voting in the Division lobby, supporting the party to which you belong. On the Third Reading also there was practically no discussion. I think, therefore, I may fairly claim that there was no due consideration of this Bill in another place.
Those reasons alone, I think, would justify this House in saying that the Bill either ought to be rejected or postponed for further consideration till there is an opportunity for this House to go into the details of the Bill, which are very complicated. I will not attempt to deal with the clauses in detail but will only refer to sonic of the principal clauses to which objection might be taken. Clause 1, as described by my noble friend, seems a comparatively innocuous clause; it is, he said, only to provide further housing facilities for those who are unable to get houses, and it applies only to houses of a rateable value of £50 or £40. When the Bill was introduced into the House of

129
Commons it was a much lower rateable value—I think £26 was the amount in the country and £36 in the towns. That was altered in the House on Report. If it is right in principle to take empty houses for housing the working classes or others I cannot see why you should have any limit at all. If it is right to take the house of a man rated at £50 why should it not be equally right to take the house of a man rated at a £100? I never like these distinctions, which seem to mean that you will deal more harshly with those who are better endowed than with those who live in poorer houses. Of course, it will be said that the number of houses is very small indeed, partly owing to this limitation, and partly because no new houses may be taken—even houses which have been built and are standing vacant awaiting a profitable sale because nobody at that particular time wishes to buy them.
Then there is the provision relating to bona fide occupation. That is explained to mean not merely occupation by the man himself but merely by the fact that a caretaker was put in and a few sticks of furniture left in it. I am rather doubtful whether it is going to be of much use. Again, the local authorities are going to be encouraged to spend money upon vacant houses, It is true they are not allowed to reconstruct, but the definition of reconstruction was given in the House by a Minister. The definition was this.—"Reconstruction means to alter the character of a house by addition to it or by such alteration, so that the character of the house is not changed." What will be the result of that? I think the House should bear in mind that the local authorities who are going to be invited to take these houses will have to spend money upon them in alterations, which are sure to be necessary; they are to be allowed to spend money on drainage, sanitation, painting, general repairs, and slating and tiling of roofs. That will show your Lordships that a very large amount of money can be spent by the local authorities on houses which they are to occupy only for two and a-half years. Of course, I may be told that the local authority will be able to recoup itself when it gives up these houses, but that is not so certain. They will have to go to arbitration about it, and very likely it will be said that the local authority spent too much on doing these things, for we very well know that when a local authority undertakes work
130
of any kind, whether it is housing or anything else, it always spends a great deal more money than the private person does.
There is also objection to Clause 3. That is the clause which amends the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919. It empowers the local authority to prohibit the construction of any works or buildings if the construction of houses in their area, is being delayed owing to deficiency of labour due to the payment of higher remuneration than that recognised by the employers and trade unions in that area. What can the object of that be? It seems a curious state of things that a man in these days is not allowed to sell his labour to the best possible advantage. If a man is able to get better work upon other buildings than those which the local authority are erecting why should not he be allowed to do so? it is forbidding people to work a little harder or to work a little longer hours. Of course, I know it will be said that if they did so it would be against trade union doctrine, and the Government are always favouring the trade unions, except in the case of coal production, where the Government have actually arranged that the wages are to be higher in proportion as the amount of coal produced rises. But it should be exactly the same as regards houses. If you say that men are not to be allowed to work on buildings for longer hours and higher wages you prevent those buildings being put up as quickly as possible. There is a case in point to show how this works—the case of the great corporation of Manchester. There during 18 months under the Housing Act they have only built 86 houses, while in a much shorter time a few private contractors and builders have actually built 79 houses. The reason was simply that in the second case the houses were built by private enterprise, and the builders received a subsidy of £260. I believe a great many more buildings would have been erected if the subsidy had been used much more generally, instead of the local authorities being urged to put up these houses.
Clause 9 is also a very debatable clause and is very much opposed by large bodies such as the Poor Law Union—the great association which represents 588 unions out of something like 640 in the whole country. They are very anxious that due consideration should be given to this

131
clause, which cannot be given under the present conditions. What is the proposal in that clause? It is to give power to the county councils to acquire, either by agreement or, in default of agreement, with the leave of the Minister—which no doubt would be given in the majority of cases—hospitals and infirmaries belonging to the boards of guardians. They are to be allowed to reconstruct and to make additions, and it would also be necessary for them to have a staff of officials for the hospitals and infirmaries. But it is impossible to think that in any great county the county councils themselves could give that individual attention to these institutions which can at the present time be given by the guardians, who are on the spot. My noble friend said just now that this would place no charge on the Exchequer or on the local rates, but he did not tell us how that would be avoided. It is not our general experience in the country, and if he sat on any local body, such as a county council, he would realise that all these duties that are put on local authorities by the Government simply mean an increase of the local rates, which are rising continuously.
I should like the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill to explain, supposing county councils are ready to take over these hospitals and infirmaries which I rather doubt in the majority of cases what will happen to those boards of guardians whose workhouses and infirmaries are taken over. I understand that they are not relieved of their statutory obligation to look after the nursing of the sick poor, and if their present buildings are taken over they will have to erect other buildings in order to perform this duty. The object of making this alteration is that there shall be no taint of the Poor Law, but if you send paupers into the hospitals and infirmaries of the county councils you will be doing that which is said was undesirable. If the statutory obligation remains, and it is still the duty of boards of guardians to look after the nursing and care of sick paupers, it will be necessary for them still to have infirmaries and hospitals.
The noble Viscount said that no expense would fall on the Exchequer. I believe the county councils have said that if they are asked to take over these infirmaries and hospitals they would expect a grant from the Exchequer in order that no cost should fall on local rates. The noble
132
Viscount made some observations with regard to clinical thermometers. I think the clause dealing with them is a very foolish one indeed, and is well described by The Times of to-day as—
"an example of legislative fussiness, for 30,000 of these instruments are tested every week at Kew without any Parliamentary injunction at all."
If such a large number are being tested every day is it really necessary to interfere with the work? Why should not the Government allow the present conditions to remain? It will not do any harm.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: It is done under the Defence of the Realm Act which will lapse, and if it is to go on it must be legislated for.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Viscount has forgotten that before the Defence of the Realm Act existed clinical thermometers were tested at Kew. I do not know why he has interrupted me. It is only now that you are making a provision insisting upon it. It is grandmotherly legislation. The Government are constantly saying "You must do this and you must do that." I do not know whether the noble Viscount gave any explanation of Clause 18, a very important clause indeed dealing with the purchase and appropriation of land. I was unfortunately called out of the House for a moment. As I read the clause, it gives power to local authorities to buy land for one purpose and use it for another. That to my mind is very objectionable indeed, and so far Parliament has been particularly careful when giving power to local authorities to buy land for any particular purpose to say that they must not use it for some other purpose. You can see how easy it would be under a pretence of wanting the land for one purpose to acquire it compulsorily and use it for some purpose which was never intended. County councils will be able to use these compulsory powers for some purpose entirely unconnected with the Bill, and I think this House should look carefully into this matter and see that those whose lands are taken by compulsion are properly protected. Land should be taken for some specific object which has been recognised by Parliament, and when taken not used for some other object.
I do not think the noble Viscount explained at all the clause which applies the Bill to Ireland. I am not surprised.

133
I have been trying to understand it but have been unable to do so. At the same time I was much consoled when reading the debate in another place to find that Sir Edward Carson had been equally unable to understand it himself. The only thing I can make out of it is that it still maintains the subsidy to be paid by this country to Ireland for building houses; that is, £260 per house. It seems rather remarkable, when we have just been dealing in this House with a Bill giving Ireland power to manage her own affairs and her fiscal policy to a large extent, we in this country should still have to make a contribution to Ireland for building houses. It does not seem at all reasonable.
I object to this Bill and move its rejection, because consider it has never received adequate consideration in another place. It seems that the same procedure may be adopted in your Lordships' House and that we shall have no real opportunity of considering it. No one can pretend that adequate consideration can be given to a Bill of this character with the enormous amount of business now before your Lordships. For all practical purposes it cannot be taken this week at all, and next week there will not be very much time, and I suggest that the Government should consent to a long postponement in order that there may be an opportunity of considering it very fully and carefully.
Amendment moved
Leave out ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day two months").—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will go on with his protest against this measure because it seems to me almost an insult to Parliament to bring up such a Bill at this period of the session when it is impossible to give it proper consideration in Committee. With regard to Clause 9 I should like to say that county councils have never asked for this power in any way. They object strongly to all these various measures being hurled upon them from Government Departments all of which mean expense. It is all very well to say that these measures will hardly cost anything. When county councils get measures to administer it places them in the hands of the bureaucrats; we do not know where we are, and most of the cost falls on the rates.
In the old days local authorities had to deal with the Local Government Board
134
and, speaking from my own experience, always found that Department most anxious to help in our administrative work and also anxious to have efficiency and economy. They never urged that extra burdens should be put on the rates. There is also this other strong point, that all the various provisions in this Bill must mean an increase of bureaucratic staffs. We are getting tired of bureaucratic staffs, and I am a little surprised that the Government do not see the "handwriting on the wall." The public is tired, thoroughly and justly tired, of all this new taxation and new rates when we really want the country gradually to recover itself. What the country looks for is a drastic reduction of all the various staffs in the Government Departments. This Bill means an increase of those staffs and on that ground alone I think your Lordships will deserve the gratitude of the country, and the gratitude of the taxpayers and ratepayers, if you reject it at once.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I do not know how the acquisition of the infirmaries by county councils is going to work. The noble Viscount told us that out of 94,000 beds in Poor Law infirmaries some 30,000 are vacant. That is, one in three. I can imagine a few infirmaries being entirely empty. They could be taken over easily, but where they are already partly occupied and two-thirds of the beds are full what is going to be arranged about the patients now in them who are Poor Law patients? How is it to be arranged for the county patients to be put in the same infirmary as the Poor Law patients? Who is going to administer the hospital infirmaries in these circumstances; the Poor Law authorities or the county authorities? If the Poor Law authorities are to hand over their patients to the county authorities, surely that must mean an increase in the staffs of county medical officers. The noble Lord, in his speech, did not deal with that point, and it would be very advantageous to the House if we understood how the thing is to be worked. It seems to me to be rather complicated. I suppose the noble Lord will say, as regards his claim that no increased charge would be made on the rates, that the Poor Law authorities already levy a rate and that nothing more is to be done, even if it is done by the County Council, but I should be very surprised if the county

135
medical officers do not ask for an increase in staffs as soon as they are charged with 30,000 patients in the country. I think it is almost certain that they will require increases.
I will say only one word as regards the commencement of the Bill. It is more, I think, of that abominable housing legislation which has led the Government and the country into all the inconveniences and blunders and unfairness, and, in fact, tyranny, which have been imposed on real property owners since the first introduction of these measures during the war. My honest opinion is that if it had been left to supply and demand, and if house-owners had been allowed to put up their rents conveniently in accordance with the increased cost of repairs and rates, we should now be in a more comfortable position as regards housing than we are. It is too late now to attempt to interfere with legislation of this kind. It has to go on, I suppose, but nearly every day, when one sees the interference that is taking place as regards housing matters, and the perplexity of Courts of Law as to what the law means and what it allows, the more one is convinced that the country has been on the whole perfectly right in leaving as much as possible to private enterprise.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I am glad to see the Leader of the House in his place, because I rise to make an appeal to him to help us in the position in which we find ourselves. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, had intended to intervene ill this debate, but another public engagement has called him elsewhere. He asked me to say on his behalf that while he and many of those of us who sit on this side are not unfriendly to the Bill and are not anxious in any way to consider it in a hostile spirit but desire to help the Government to improve the Bill so far as we possibly can, yet we feel that at the present moment it is unfair upon this House that it should be called upon to try to pass this Bill through all its stages before Christmas. The Bill is not only complex, as Lord Harris has indicated, but it is very important, and it is inconceivable that the Government regard it as one incapable of serious and substantial improvement. It is with the view of giving noble Lords a fair and full opportunity of improving the Bill and making it as workable as possible that I appeal to the noble Earl the Leader of the
Lord Harris.
136
House that if we give the Bill a Second Reading before Christmas the further stages may be postponed until we resume. I presume that there is no intention of the Government endeavouring to complete the whole of its programme before Christmas Day, which, after all, falls next week, and I think the interval might be well spent if we resume our discussions early in January with a view to passing the Bill through all its stages at a subsequent period.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this debate, but I should like to say that the part of the Bill to which I object most—perhaps it is not a very great point, but it is a defect in the Bill—is that portion which prevents workmen getting the best wages they can obtain. I am one of those who think that Parliament has no right to restrict a man in the amount he can earn. Unfortunately, there is too much legislation in that respect now, and everybody is tied down to maximum prices. I should have thought that the question of men being taken away from building cottages and other work would have been better dealt with by making builders obtain a licence to show that the work on which his men were engaged was not of a luxury character and not work which could be postponed.
Having said these few words with regard to that clause, I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to give us a little more explanation with reference to Poor Law infirmaries and hospitals. Lord Harris has referred to that subject, and I think we ought to have more explanation. Personally, I should hate to stand in any way against the relief of people who are sick and ill, and if we postponed the Bill and there was a question of large numbers of people requiring medical and surgical aid which they could not obtain owing to the delay in the passage of the Bill, I should be very sorry. I do not quite understand the position as explained by the noble Lord. Apparently, some 30,000 beds are vacant in Poor Law infirmaries. I confess that it appears quite natural and wise, and also in the best interests of economy, that those 30,000 beds, if not wanted for the poor people, should be used for people who are above the line of pauperism. I cannot quite understand from the Bill that you will remove what the noble Lord calls "the taint of pauperism." I believe there is a

137
great disinclination among a certain number of people to go to Poor Law infirmaries for medical relief, but will you get over that in this Bill? Who will keep the hospitals going when they are taken over by the county councils? Charges will have to be met, but the patients using the hospitals which were Poor Law infirmaries will not be able to pay enough, to make them self-supporting, and the money for keeping these infirmaries which are turned into hospitals will have to come out of the pockets of the ratepayer or the taxpayer. It appears to me that the taint of relief from the State will remain. Therefore, before any Division is taken on the subject, I should like to hear some further explanation of the matter, and also of how the difficulty is to be got over, because Lord Harris said that probably 30,000 vacant beds are scattered about a large number of Poor Law infirmaries and that there are not many infirmaries which you can take over bodily and turn into hospitals under the county council.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think that my noble friend the Leader of the House will see that your Lordships are placed in very considerable difficulty by this Bill. It is an omnibus Bill, as has been remarked by a great number of your Lordships. I very much regret that the provisions of the Bill have been introduced in that form, because some of them are good, and I should be rather sorry if an adverse fate befell them. Others are doubtful, and I might almost say that they are objectionable: yet we are asked at this stage of the session to deal in full detail with this omnibus Bill, which was not properly discussed in the House of Commons, and in fact was discussed under the greatest difficulty. I am sure that all of your Lordships who have listened to the debate are satisfied that the Bill cannot go through in its present form. There is so much objection taken to several of the clauses of the Bill that if we are to be allowed to consider it at all they would have to be amended to such an extent as would be quite impossible before Christmas. It is really out of the question.
My noble friend Lord Gainford has suggested that the future proceedings on the Bill, after the Second Beading, should be postponed. I do not know whether that would be a suitable proposal. I am rather doubtful whether it is the best
138
way of dealing with it. I should like the Government to drop all the parts of the Bill which may be called of a controversial character, and only carry through those on which there is general agreement. I do not know if there is general agreement, but I am going to suggest that upon one or two clauses there is general agreement. I really think, in spite of the strictures of Lord Harris, that there is a good deal to be said for Clause I of the Bill. I know something of the subject, and I must say that I think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was justified in saying that very great difficulty arises owing to the public feeling about empty houses. The strain is so tremendous in parts of England, and especially in parts of London, and the feeling which has developed in the minds of the public as they pass houses which are empty and realise the awful strain to which they are put, are such that it is rather difficult for us to ignore them.
I happen to know of a case in Liverpool which I may quote to your Lordships. There was house in Liverpool which was in such a condition that it was dangerous and had to be pulled down. The first difficulty was that there was no power to turn the tenant out under the Rent Restrictions Act, although the house might be tumbling about Iris ears. Perhaps the fact that the house might tumble about his ears helped to persuade the tenant, but at any rate at last he was persuaded to go out of the house and the house was pulled down. No other place could be found for him. He looked all over Liverpool, and it was not possible to find any place; finally he hired a small van pulled up in a little dirty yard outside his house, and in that van he lives now, and he has no other accommodation except a few rags hanging upon a pole, which he makes into a sort of tent where he has his meals. That is in one of the great cities of England at this moment, and there appears to be no remedy for it, for I personally went into the matter.
LORD HARRIS: That is not the case of an empty house.
THE MARQUCESS OF SALISBURY: No, it is not indeed; but it shows the enormous strain, and I think that where conditions of that kind prevail, and there should be empty houses, it will create it feeling which cannot be ignored. Therefore I should be sorry if the first, clause in the Bill had

139
to be postponed. So also with regard to the second clause, for although I know the difficulty of administering the Housing Act, yet as you have seen fit to approve of the subsidy to private enterprise it seems a pity to cut it short, which would be the result if we failed to pass that clause.
I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will recognise that I have approached this Bill in as impartial a spirit as I can. But when I come to the other principal clauses of the Bill I must say that they appear to me, if I may say so, to be most improperly pressed upon your Lordships' attention this period of the year. I take, for example, the treatment of incipient mental disorder. I think there is a good deal to be said for the clause, but it raises most difficult questions which require to be treated with the greatest care because of the great difference of opinion which exists as to how these questions of lunacy should be touched. We are all of us most particular in safeguarding the liberty of the subject, and although I know that there are safeguards, and that those safeguards may be sufficient, yet one also knows that unless those safeguards are very carefully scrutinised great injustice may be done, and I do not think there is any possibility of giving them that scrutiny at this time of the year. The clause might Survive that scrutiny, but I cannot answer for it, and after the criticisms which have been levelled against the clause I think that the Government would be most unwise to press it now.
I think that even a stronger line can be taken about the clause which forbids a workman earning the wages which he wishes to earn. I am not defending luxury buildings where they compete unduly with the housing of the working classes, but it seems an objectionable way of dealing with the matter to forbid a workman earning whatever wages he can. It ought to be approached from a totally different angle, and this appears to be an objectionable clause, and one which will require immense care at your Lordships' hands.
I do not want to detain your Lordships, but I must say a word about the Poor Law infirmaries. That presents a most remarkable feature of the Bill. In the first place there was a pledge, or something like a pledge, by the Minister of Health that he would not introduce a compulsory clement into that clause. I do not want to accuse him of a breach of faith, but it does give
140
rise to considerable criticism that he should have changed his mind in that respect. The next thing is that neither the Poor Law authorities, from whom these infirmaries are to be taken, nor the county councils, to whom they are to be given, have been consulted. Is that not an astonishing thing? I know that it is so, because I have seen the Poor Law authorities, and they tell me that they have repeatedly asked for an interview with the Minister, and we are told by Lord Galway that the county councils are not prepared at all to take over the infirmaries, or at least have not pronounced upon the matter. Taking them over and working them as general hospitals supported by the rates will make an enormous difference in the whole future of the voluntary hospitals. They will become directly competing bodies, and you want to do that at the very moment that you have a Committee sitting to inquire what shall be the financial future of these voluntary hospitals. The policies are not consistent. The Committee, as your Lordships know, is not an obstructive Committee. It is a Committee which has been appointed in order to arrive at a conclusion with that due despatch which is absolutely requisite in the emergency, and in the middle of the consideration of that Committee, before they have had time to deliberate Or to produce a Report, to project a totally new proposal which upsets all the conditions of the problem is obviously not defensible. I am sure that your Lordships would not wish that Clause 9 should pass in such circumstances.
I could say a good deal more upon it, but I do not wish to detain your Lordships. The clause is quite incomplete as it stands. For example, there is no protection for the poor in it. I mean that when these infirmaries which have been built for the poor are transferred to the county council there is no provision by which the poorer members of the community should have preference in the treatment which is to be accorded. The poor might in fact be crowded out of these very buildings which were built for the poor and for no one else. Your Lordships will see how rough the clause is as it stands. There is no provision for the new medical staff, and there is not sufficient provision to force people who can pay to pay. There is also, what my noble friend Lord Harris has just called your Lordships' attention to, the inevitable expense wheels will fall upon the ratepayers

141
by the change. All this makes a case so strong that I am quite certain we cannot deal with Clause 9 in the week before Christmas in an omnibus Bill. Therefore I would suggest to my noble friend the Leader of the House, who I am sure will recognise that I have approached this subject in a thoroughly business-like spirit, that the Government would do wall to postpone the other stages of the Bill until after Christmas, or, if the other plan be preferable, that the Government should drop all the contentious clauses and only pass those upon which there is general agreement. If that were done I think there would be no difficulty in the matter. If my noble friend would indicate which course he thought it right to pursue I am certain that your Lordships would co-operate to help the Government.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I do not propose to speak—indeed, having heard so little of the discussion I am not competent to speak—on the merits of the Bill. Nor would any one expect me to do so, because the point on which I have been asked to express an opinion is one of procedure. The point was first raised by my noble friend Lord Gainford, who, speaking not only for himself but for the Leader of the Opposition (who is unfortunately absent at the moment), defined his attitude as that of general friendliness to the Bill and of anxiety to help in its progress. He concluded with a suggestion to which I will presently refer.
Then followed my noble friend Lord Salisbury, whose attitude was also friendly but distinctly more critical, and he made a rather different suggestion. His suggestion is one which, I may say at the start, I should be very reluctant to adopt. His suggestion was that, regarding the Bill as a measure of a controversial character—I think he described it as an omnibus or hotch-potch Bill, which from one point of view it certainly is—we should ask your Lordships' assent only to those parts which are not controversial and drop the rest altogether, reviving them at some later stage. I should be reluctant to accept that proposal, for the reason that there may be certain differences of opinion as to what are the controversial points of the Bill. The points about which the noble Marquess may desire to excite controversy may not be identical with those which are viewed
142
in a similar spirit by others. I should also hesitate as a general principle to accept the position that it is part of the function of a Government responsible for introducing a Bill that has controversial elements, when the measure comes to your Lordships, at the first sitting at which it is taken, to ask the House to carry into law only those portions of their Bill about which there is no dispute, and indefinitely to postpone the rest. That would be a dangerous precedent to set up.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In the week before Christmas?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Therefore I should be indisposed to accept the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Salisbury. What was the suggestion of Lord Gainford? As I understand it, it is this. He and his friends are quite disposed to give us a Second Reading of the Bill this evening—
LORD GAINFORD: I can speak only for myself.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble Lord spoke also, I understood, for the noble Marquess who is absent.
LORD GAINFORD: May I say that what the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition asked me to state was that, had he been present, he would have desired to protest against the further stages of this Bill being forced through at the present period of the session.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am happy to say that the noble Lord did not stop at that. Indeed, after endorsing the sentiments of his Leader he put the contrary suggestion that we might fairly ask the House to take the Second Reading to-night if we would postpone the Committee stage to a later date. That proposal rested, of course, upon the hypothesis that it would be impossible for your Lordships to complete the business of the session before Christmas. Yesterday I spoke somewhat hopefully in the opposite sense, but afterwards I listened to the remarks of the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who said that there was very small chance indeed of our hopes being fulfilled, and that the difficulty of getting

143
through the whole of our programme before Christmas would be found in practice to be insurmountable. I think that quite likely that is the case. In these circumstances what I have to decide now is whether to press your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill to-night and take the Committee stage next week, or—
LORD SHEFFIELD: Oh, no.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am stating the alternatives. I am not commending one rather than the other. The alternatives would be of taking the Second Reading to-night and asking you to take the Committee stage next week, or taking the Committee stage when we meet again after the Christmas adjournment. That, I understand, to be the proposal of the noble Lord namely, that, when we meet in the latter part of the year we should, having got the Second Reading to-night, put this Bill down for Committee. I think that is a quite reasonable proposal, firstly because of the difficulty of crowding too much into the interval between now and Christmas; and, secondly, because it is only fair that your Lordships, in the light of what lets been said to-night—and I have no doubt there are other speeches to be made should have time in which to consider the various points of view. I think it is only fair, too, I from the point of view of the Government. We should like to know very much what are the views of your Lordships, so many of whom, like Lord Salisbury, are thoroughly well qualified to deal with this matter. We would like time to consider what are the controversial points and what modifications may be needed. The noble Marquess made what he called and what I agree was a very business-like and practical speech, and such, I am sure, will be the character of the other speeches to which we are to listen. I am therefore quite disposed myself to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, and to ask your Lordships, to be good enough to give us a Second Reading tonight, and to postpone the Committee stage for the present. I hope that I Shall Satisfy Lord Sheffield by so doing. Then we can set the Committee stage down at an early day when we meet again after the Christmas adjournment in the latter part of the present year.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, this only shows the difficulty that we get into by having so much business pressed upon us at this period of the session. We really are in a state of some perplexity. We do not quite understand the position in which we stand, and if my noble friend Lord Strachie goes to a Division I shall vote with him. But I should like to have a clear issue so that we might know upon what we are voting.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only speak again with the leave of your Lordships. I should like to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House exactly what he proposes. I know that the intention of the Government is that the House shall meet again on December 28.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The date is not absolutely fixed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid that most of your Lordships view that prospect with anything but enthusiasm.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Probably the noble Earl would have made himself almost the most popular man in this House if he had said that the House would not meet until at least a week later than that. I hope he will even consider that, but that, of course, is a detail. If we are going to consider, as we probably shall have to consider, the later stages of the Agriculture Bill and the stages of this Bill, the latter end of the session after Christmas will not be a very brief period. I hope that the Government have faced what that means. It may upset a good many of their calculations if we have a really prolonged sitting after Christmas before the Prorogation, which will inevitably happen if we are to consider this Bill as well as the Agriculture Bill.
I still think that the plan which I ventured to suggest to the Government as the right one—to pass what is really essential in this Bill and to drop the rest—would be much the more businesslike proposal. And though I quite agree with my noble friend the Leader of the House, if I may venture to say so, that no Government can be expected to cut out all the controversial parts of their Bills merely on the suggestion of independent Peers, and that

145
it would be as a general rule an unreasonable proposal, it is not an unreasonable proposal in the week before Christmas. That is the real essence of it. We have got to the period of the year when a long controversial discussion before the Prorogation is almost without precedent.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I do not know what the noble Marquess means by "dropping the clauses which are the most controversial." Does he mean that the Government are to lose all the clauses with which he does not agree?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No—which the House criticises.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I know. But have seen something of the procedure of this House, and I think the noble Earl made a distinct proposal. He said he would hang the Bill up and give the House time to consider it before the Committee stage. But the noble Marquess intervened again and said that he did not understand what the noble Earl meant, and then went back to his own proposal which is, after all, almost like pheasants asking to decide about foxes and foxes asking to decide about rabbits. Then he went on to say that his was the more reasonable proposal—namely, that the agreed clauses which nobody wants to discuss should remain where they are and that everything else should be dropped. I Want to know where it is to be dropped to? Is it that the Government are to lose their Bill? The clauses which interest the noble Marquess are controversial clauses, and those are the ones that he wants to see out of the way. Presumably those which interest the Government are also controversial clauses because they deal with things which the Government think ought to be done. I do not know which of the two is right, but I must say that I cannot understand the Government only letting clauses go through that everybody agrees to and knocking everything else out of a Bill of first-class importance and so losing their Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think that my noble friend who has just spoken or indeed my noble friend the Leader of the House quite appreciate the true position. This is a Bill which emanates
146
from the Department of the Government in which the public have the least confidence, a Department that has made itself profoundly unpopular in the course of the last few years. My noble friend assents to that; it is a Bill in the most extraordinary form. My noble friend the Leader of the House and myself have been in politics now for over thirty years, and I doubt if such a Bill has ever been introduced by a Government in either House of Parliament before. He called it a hotchpotch or omnibus Bill. Neither of those descriptions really suits the whole case. This very controversial and very inartistic Bill is produced to this House less than ten days before Christmas. It is the combination of these extraordinary circumstances that puts the onus on the Government of giving that attentive and courteous consideration to our criticism which my noble friend has already given. I want to ask him to bear patiently with the human weaknesses of those who sit in his House. He will make himself even more popular than he is if he will listen to what my noble friend behind me has said, and not ask us to meet on the 28th of December, but to meet a week later. I think that will make a great difference to the way in which his proposals are accepted by the House. I would also ask him to consider carefully and to consult us if he can as to the order of business when we do meet. We shall then be in some stage or other of the Agriculture Bill, and we shall have this Bill and other business, and the order in which it is taken is a matter of great importance to us all.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I feel strongly that this is a very controversial Bill. It introduces a large number of perfectly new principles; it gives new powers and does not merely extend them. And when we are told that it is not fair for the Government to be asked to drop what they consider an important Bill, I say it is not fair for the Government to bring in an important Bill and ram it through the House of Commons by an all-night sitting with no opportunity for discussion. and then ask us at the very close of the session to deal with these important proposals.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD SHEFFLELD: For my own part I much prefer that the Bill should be

147
thrown out and stand over for due consideration in the leisure of a new session of Parliament. Next I should prefer what the noble Marquess suggested, that an endeavour should be made to find out which clauses the House would agree to and which would raise very serious discussion, and then let the Government get the clauses which are agreed to generally and drop the others. At any rate if the Government have the vague hope of getting the whole Bill through subject to discussion, I say it is unreasonable to ask us to meet between Christmas Day and the New Year. You would only get a skeleton House, and many noble Lords would not come up. The Government could rely on the presence of certain people they can always rely on, and there would not be the fair and independent discussion to which the House is entitled. If we reassembled about the 4th or 6th of January noble Lords might be induced to be present and there would be a fair discussion. The noble Earl the Leader of the House did not refer at all to meeting later in January, but, twice in his speeches mentioned the week after Christmas. I think that is an unreasonable and intolerable proposal to put before the House. I therefore hope that, unless we have an assurance that at the very least there will be no meeting till January, we shall all vote for the rejection of the Bill.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I can only speak again by the courtesy of the House. There is one point as to which there is absolutely no controversy at all, and that is that it is undesirable to have to meet in the week after Christmas. No person in the position of Leader of this House can afford to lose
any opportunity of adding to a popularity which is at any time somewhat dubious; and gladly as I would add to the modest laurels I possess if I could accommodate the House in this matter, perhaps the House will recognise that this is a question which affects another House of Parliament as well as our own, because of course they will be sitting simultaneously. It is therefore out of my power to give any binding assurance on the matter, but I will take the opportunity of presenting to my colleague the Leader of the House of Commons the sentiments which animate your Lordships. From the point of view of a holiday, nobody would he better pleased then myself to have a rather longer one than I had anticipated in my remarks of yesterday.
Only one other observation. I thought I had, in reply to my noble friend Lard Gainford, gone some way towards meeting the suggestion of the Opposition, and the only reward I receive is an immediate intimation on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, that he is going to ask the House to divide with a view of rejecting the Bill on Second Reading. Of course, he night have taken that Division anyhow, but the suggestion is now made that my proposal, or rather Lord Gainford's proposal, is in the circumstances so unwelcome that the only alternative is to throw out the Bill. I can hardly think that your Lordships will adopt that advice, and I invite the House to give the Bill a Second Reading now, relying on the assurances I gave somewhat earlier in the afternoon.
On Question, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Islington, L.

Cave, V.

Killanin, L.

Hood, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Abereorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Milner, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Peel, V.

Montagu of Beaulien, L.

Aneaster, E.

Ormathwaite, L.

Bradford, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valenlia.)

Queenborough, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Clwyd, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Chichester, E.

Cochrance of Cults, L.

Rathercedan, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Cole brooke, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Dartmonth, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Riddell, L.

Lucan, E.

Dawson of Penn, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Gainford, L.

Southwark, L.

Onslow, E.

Harris, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Hylton, L.

Teynham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Allendale, V.

Lawrence, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lovat, L.

Bath, M.

Bryce, V.

Merthyr, L.

Camden, M.

Devonport, V.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)[Teller.]

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Mostyn, L.

Linlishgow, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Abingdon, E.

Askwith, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Beauchamp, E.

Avebury, L.

Penrhyn, L.

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

Bellew, L.

Redesdale, L.

Bledisloe, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Boston, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield)

Ilchester, E.

Chalmers, L.

Iveagh, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Jersey, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Lindsay, E.

Deramore, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Lindsey, E.

Ebury, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Lovelace, E.

Eeskine, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Midleton, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Morton, E.

Hindlip, L.

Wyfold, L.

Westmeath, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Wynford, L.

Wicklow, E.

Lamington, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

WOMEN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Restrictions on the employment of women, young persons, and children in industrial undertakings.
(6) This section, so far as it relates to employment in coal mines, metalliferous mines and quarries, and factories and workshops, shall have effect as if it, formed part of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Acts, 1872 and 1875, and the Factory and Workshops Acts, 1901 to 1911, respectively; and the provisions of those Acts relating to registers to be kept thereunder shall apply to the registers required to be kept under this Act.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (6), after "Coal Mines Act, 1911," to insert "and the Acts amending that Act." The noble Lord said: This is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 29, after ("1911") insert ("and the Acts amending that Act").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There are a number of Amendments to this clause which are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 5, after ("factory") Insert ("or workshop")
Clause 2, page 1, line 6, after ("factories") insert ("or workshops")
Clause 2, page 1, line 7, after ("factory") insert ("or workshop") and after ("factories") insert ("or workshops")
Clause 2, page 1, line 10, after ("workshop") insert ("or group of factories or workshops")
Clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out ("or") and insert ("concerned or the")
Clause 2, page 1, line 18, after ("concerned") insert ("as the case may be").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, at the beginning of the second paragraph of the proviso, to insert "Particulars of." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to enable the Home Office to economise in printing, stationery and so forth, by publishing a description of the general effect of an Order, instead of its ipsissima verba. It is a useful provision, because it enables the Home Office to give

151
the general public and persons affected a better idea of the effect of an Order by such a description rather than by giving the exact words.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 29, at beginning insert ("Particulars of").—(Thu Earl of Onslow.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There is a further drafting Amendment to this Clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, leave out from ("section") to ("shall") in line 37.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CRIMINAL INJURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed.

LITTLE LONGSTONE CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

REGISTRAR GENERAL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, by the Lord Clerk Register Act, 1879, Section 5, a Deputy Clerk Register was appointed at a salary of £1,200 a year, and by Section 7 of the same Act the Deputy Clerk Register performs the office of Registrar General without additional salary. It is now proposed to set up a separate office of Registrar General, at a salary of £850 a year, rising to £1,000 a year. This will not involve any additional call on the taxpayer, as the office of Deputy Clerk Register will not be filled up, but the work of that office will be distributed among various other offices.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

GOLD AND SILVER (EXPORT, CONTROL, ETC) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.