Sitting of 28 June 1920

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords],—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and which the Chairman of Ways and Means had directed to originate in the House of Lords, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Life Association of Scotland Bill [Lords].
Royal Bank of Scotland Bill [Lords].
Rochester, Chatham, and Gillingham Gas Bill,
Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Newtownards Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Eastbourne Waterworks Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.
London Electric Railway Companies (Fares, &c.) Bill (by Order).
Third Reading deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.
Durham County Water Board Bill [Lords] (by Order).
Weardale and Consett Water Bill [Lords] (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Read the Third time, and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill (by Order).
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BIRKENHEAD EXTENSION) BILL [Lords].
Ordered, That Mr. Trevelyan Thomson be discharged from the Select Committee on the Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Birkenhead Extension) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That Mr. Remer be added to the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  COAL SUPPLIES (LONDON).
  3. Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the coal that is being delivered in London still contains large quantities of slate and slack for which consumers are charged the same price as coal; whether any warning has been given to the distributors that proceedings will be taken against them in consequence; and, if not, on what grounds do the Government permit such trading on the part of the suppliers?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): My hon. and gallant Friend is, no doubt, aware that arrangements came into force on 7th June for the departmental de-control and decentralisation of the inland distribution of coal. The retail distribution is now in the hands of the trade itself, and consumers having complaints to make regarding the quality of the coal supplied to them should take such steps as they would have adopted prior to the commencement of the control of coal.
  Sir F. HALL: Are the public to understand that their pockets may be picked by these coal distribution, or is the Government going to take steps to see that the goods for which they pay are delivered?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: They are in the same position now as they were in before the control was instituted.
  Sir F. HALL: That is all very well, but—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Inskip.
  Sir F. HALL: May I ask—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should adopt a proper tone.
  Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. Does the Government not recognise the importance of this matter? Are they going to leave it just as it is, so that people will get all this slack and stuff in their coal?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. That is an argument.
  Sir F. HALL: Surely they are expected to get recognition in this House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a further argument.

  POTASH.
  5. Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will say what were the quantities of muriate of potash, both 80 per cent. and 90–95 per cent., and sulphate of potash, out of the German potash contract, which were exported to the United States of America from the United Kingdom, Hamburg, and Rotterdam, respectively, with the consent of the Potash Distribution Committee; and what were the prices fixed by that Committee for the various grades of such material exported to the United States?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Horne): Out of the quantities of muriate of potash received under the German potash contract, 4,000 tons of 80 per cent. muriate and 2,500 tons of 90–95 per cent. were exported from Hamburg to the United States with the consent of the Potash Distribution Committee, the prices fixed by the Committee being £17 10s. and £19 10s. per ton, respectively, f.o.b. Hamburg. There were no shipments from the United Kingdom or Rotterdam. No sulphate of potash received under the contract has been exported to the United States of America.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    SILK (IMPORTS INTO FRANCE).
    6. Mr. HURDasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the details of the new decree governing the importation of silk goods into France?
    Sir R. HORNE: So far as I am aware, the new decree which it was proposed to issue in place of that of 23rd April has not yet been promulgated, and I have no information as to how silk goods will be treated, except that I have been given reason to hope that silk mourning crêpe will not be included in the new list of prohibited goods.

    MERCHANDISE MARKS.
    7. Mr. HURDasked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce legislation based on the Report of the Merchandise Marks Committee?
    Sir R. HORNE: The Committee's Report is under consideration, and I am not at present in a position to make any announcement upon it.
    Mr. STURROCK: Shall we have an opportunity of discussing the Report in this House?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am not perfectly certain as to what my hon. Friend means by discussing the Report, but if there are any measures proposed by the Government arising out of the Report, the House will have an opportunity of discussing them.

    WIRELESS TELEGRAPH OPERATORS (STRIKE).
    8. Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is a Regulation of the Board of Trade that all steamers leaving British ports should carry wireless telegraph operators; whether during the recent strike this Regulation was suspended; did the suspension apply both to passenger and cargo steamers; and will he state the reason why his Department suspended the Regulation?
    10. Mr. MYERSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that during the dispute between the Wireless Operators' Association and the Marconi Company instructions were given by the Board of Trade to waive the safety-of-lives Regulation passed by two international conventions, the Defence of the Realm Act, and the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1919, and permit vessels to leave port without wireless operators on board during the continuance of the strike; whether this action received his sanction; whether he is aware that the s.s. "Minnidosa" left Liverpool for Canada with over 1,000 souls on board without certified wireless operators on board; and whether, having regard to the safety of the lives of the passengers and crew of ocean-going steamers, he will take steps to see that the regulations are properly carried out in future and that his department will not in future interfere on the side of the employer when a labour dispute is in progress?
    Sir R. HORNE: A regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act was passed during the War to the effect that British sea-going ships of 1,600 tons gross and
    6
    upwards shall be provided with wireless telegraph operators, that Regulation is still in force. It was not suspended during the recent strike, but shipowners were informed that if a wireless operator could not be obtained from any source the owner who sent his ship to sea without a wireless operator would not be prosecuted, the condition being made, in the case of a passenger steamer, that the attention of intending passengers should be called to the fact that wireless would be out of action during the voyage. It is to be kept in mind that the dispute then existing was not one between the shipowners and the wireless operators, but between the operators and the wireless companies.
    The reason for the action taken by me was that while wireless is a valuable additional assistance in calling help if a ship is in danger, it is not essential to the seaworthiness of a ship or the safety of those on board, and I took the view that in these circumstances to hold up the shipping of this country with the effect of inflicting untold hardship on the whole community which is dependent upon overseas supplies would be unjustifiable.
    As regards the case of the "Minnedosa" to which the hon. Member for the Spen Valley refers, this vessel left Liverpool on 17th June with a wireless operator on board.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What is the present situation with regard to this strike? Is the Department of the right hon. Gentleman attempting to adjudicate or negotiate between the parties?
    Sir R. HORNE: That does not arise out of the question, but my hon. and gallant Friend may know that there is at the present moment an arrangement for a period during which negotiations are taking place. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that it is not the business of my Department to adjudicate.
    Mr. PALMER: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that wireless is merely a luxury, and is not a primary element of safety in the navigation of ships?
    Sir R. HORNE: Obviously, it is not a primary element of safety, because it has only come into vogue recently, and sailors have been sailing the seas for many generations.

    PLUMAGE BILL.
    9. Mr. KILEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the letter of the Minister Plenipotentiary of Venezuela complaining of the misrepresentations put forward by the promoters of the Plumage Bill; is he aware that if the Bill in question is passed it will mean the destruction of a large volume of trade and the dismissal of a considerable number of people engaged in the industry; and is he prepared to consider the advisability of setting up an impartial committee to collect definite and reliable data as to the allegations of cruelty, and to make recommendations for stopping such practices if they exist?
    Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am aware that the opponents of the Plumage Bill take the view expressed in the second part of the question, but I am inclined to think that their prognostications of its probable effect on trade and employment are exaggerated. The House of Commons has accepted the principles of the Bill by a large majority, and, in all the circumstances, I do not feel justified in incurring the expense which would be involved in an elaborate inquiry into the conditions in which plumage is collected throughout the world.
    Mr. KILEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman not accept the statement of the objectors to the Bill, and is that the reason why he will not make inquiry to test their accuracy?
    Sir R. HORNE: No. My right hon. Friend must realise that the House of Commons has passed the Second Reading of this Bill. To that extent the question has been judged by the House.
    Mr. BRIANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the value of the imports of plumage into this country from Venezuela?
    Sir R. HORNE: I could scarcely be asked at a moment's notice to give an answer to a question of that kind.

  TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAY SERVANTS (SUPERANNUATION).
    11. Mr. DENNIS HERBERTasked the Minister of Transport whether any appli-
    8
    cation has been made to the Ministry of Transport by the railway companies, or any of them, for consent to, or approval of, any proposals for increased allowances to superannuated railway servants since the Resolution of this House of 2nd March last?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): I have received no such proposals up to the present, except suggestions that the whole cost of increasing pensions should be borne by the State, which I do not consider to be a proposal within the meaning of the question.
    Mr. HERBERT: In the interests of his Department, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to let the superannuated railway servants understand that it is not the Government which is holding up these schemes, as appears to be indicated by the directors of the companies?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I shall be very glad to do that in any way possible, and if my hon. Friend can assist me by telling me how I can bring it to the notice of the superannuated railway servants I shall be glad.
    Major BARNETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dissatisfaction and distress caused to the superannuated railway servants by the failure to give effect to the resolution carried unanimously in this House four months ago?
    Sir E. GEDDES: Yes, I understand that there is disappointment, but I have no means by which I can advance the matter otherwise than by bringing it to the notice of the companies.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (TEST FOR DRIVERS).
    12. Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether any expert examination and test of drivers of heavy public service and utility vehicles is required outside the Metropolitain area; and, if not, will he take steps in any future amendment of the Motor Car Acts to ensure that the drivers of all motor vehicles shall undergo such a test before being granted a licence to drive?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I am not aware that any expert examination and test of drivers of heavy motor vehicles is conducted outside the Metropolitan area. The proposal in the second part of the

    9
    question presents obvious difficulties, but I am awaiting a Report by the Departmental Committee dealing with this among other subjects.
    Viscount CURZON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to a very serious accident to one of these heavy vehicles, and will he investigate the matter with reference to the question on the Paper?
    Sir E. GEDDES: No; my attention has not been drawn to it.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is there any necessity for a periodic examination as to the reliability of the brakes of these vehicles?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I should like notice of that question.

    RETURN TICKETS (INTER-AVAILABILITY).
    14. Sir A. BIRDasked the Minister of Transport if he has arrived at any agreement with the London and North Western Railway and Great Western Railway Compaies for the continuance of inter-availability of return tickets between London, Birmingham and Wolverhampton?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The question of inter-availability of ordinary return tickets is still under consideration by the railway companies, and I am unable to make a definite statement at present.
    Sir A. BIRD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the position of the season-ticket holders who pay 12 months ahead?
    Sir E. GEDDES: Certainly.
    Sir F. HALL: As this question as to the inter-availability of return tickets has been under discussion for a considerable period, can the right hon. Gentleman say when a definite reply is likely to be given?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I have answered that question on several occasions before.

    IRISH RAILWAYS (SUBSIDY).
    15. Mr. LYNNasked the Minister of Transport what was the amount of the subsidy paid to Irish railways during the financial year 1919–20; and whether he can state the estimated amount for the current financial year?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The estimated amount payable under the railway agreement to the Irish railways in respect of, but not during, the financial year 1919–20 is £1,836,000. This estimate does not take into account certain deferred liabilities accruing in the year but not yet ascertainable. An estimate of the position in the current year is being prepared in the light of recent increases in expenditure, but I am unable to state any figures at present.
    Mr. LYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether subsidies are being paid to those railway companies which refuse to carry soldiers and policemen?
    Sir E. GEDDES: All railways in Ireland are treated on the same basis, but the Irish railways have not been as self supporting as the English railways in the past.
    Mr. LYNN: Is that any reason why public funds should be paid to companies which refuse to carry soldiers and police?
    Sir E. GEDDES: It is not the railway companies that refuse, but the men.

    ASCOT RACES (SPECIAL TRAINS).
    16. Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the number of special race trains run by the railway companies to Ascot during the race week; whether any or all of these trains were run at ordinary fares; and, if not, what excess over ordinary rates was charged to passengers?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The number of special trains run on the London and South Western Railway to and from Ascot during the race week was:

    To Ascot

    …

    …

    187

    From Ascot

    …

    …

    170

    On 24 trains the ordinary fares were charged—the special fares charged on the remainder ranged from 25 to 33 per cent. above the ordinary present day rates.
    Mr. HOGGE: If it is possible to give this increase of trains for these special purposes, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman make it his business to see that there is an increased train service for ordinary people coming up to town and going back at night?
    Major BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the workmen's

    11
    trains on Tyneside the conditions of crowding are so great as to be a positive danger to life?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a long way from Ascot?
    Sir E. GEDDES: As far as I know, within the ability of the companies to run regular services they are meeting, as adequately as possible, the needs of the general travelling public. In this case, in order to get increased revenue, a large number of special trains were run at increased fares.

    FARES AND RATES (INCREASE).
    17. Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet referred to his advisory committee on rates the question of further increasing the railway fares and rates on account of further increased labour charges; if so, will he state the reference which has been given to the committee; whether he has asked them to report by a given date; and, if so, can he state what the date is?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I am preparing a White Paper to show the estimated revenue and expenditure of the railway companies, and am shortly referring the matter to the Rates Advisory Committee. The terms of this reference will be published.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the increase in fares, if any, is to take place?
    Sir E. GEDDES: As soon as possible after the Rates Advisory Committee have advised. It is a matter for them as to when they give that advice. I have asked them to do so as soon as possible.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing these increased fares and rates?
    Sir E. GEDDES: That question was put to the Leader of the House quite recently, and he gave an answer. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put the question to him again.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
    18. Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Transport whether requisitions for the use of motor vehicles from other Govern-
    12
    ment Departments specify the use to which such vehicles will be put; and what method is adopted to see that the use of these vehicles is not abused?
    Sir E. GEDDES: Requisitions for the use of motor vehicles state the name of the official for which the vehicle is required, but do not usually give particulars as to journeys unless long journeys are involved. A Report is made by the Ministry to the Accounting Officer of the Department concerned in all cases in which there appears to be any element of doubt as to whether the use of the vehicle falls strictly within the Treasury Regulations.

    CALEDONIAN RAILWAY COMPANY.
    19. Mr. MYERSasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the expenditure incurred by the Caledonian Railway Company in connection with the Gleneagles golf course and hydropathic; whether he is aware that the cost of this scheme is variously estimated at from £300,000 to —500,000; whether his sanction was necessary or his approval sought in connection with this expenditure; and whether free railway passes were granted to prominent golfers attending the opening meetings on the course?
    Sir E. GEDDES: My attention has not previously been drawn to this expenditure, and no application for its approval has been received. If it affect the account of the company with His Majesty's Government, the expenditure will be dealt with on its merits under the terms of the Railway Agreement. I have no information regarding the last portion of the hon. Member's question.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether the Caledonian Railway Board are not best likely to know what would improve the position of their shareholders and develop their traffic?
    Sir E. GEDDES: Yes, and they are at liberty to do whatever they think best, provided they have not run the State into expenditure.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have we not undertaken to make up the loss to this railway company while the right hon. Gentleman's Department is in being, and, therefore, does it not very much affect the public accounts?
    Mr. MYERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the latter part of my question?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The railway companies, during the temporary guarantee by the Government, have continued their ordinary practice in these matters. I have no reason to believe that they are doing anything but pursuing that practice.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the right hon. Gentleman can look after charges for champagne, surely he can look into the price made for professional golfers?

    RAILWAYS (GOVERNMENT AGREEMENTS).
    20. Major BARNESasked the Minister of Transport whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the agreement between the President of the Board of Trade and the Underground Railway Companies made in 1915; and if he will circulate amongst Members copies of all agreements with the railways made during the War which were disadvantageous and would not have been made if the Government of the day had had the advantage of the advice of a railway expert?
    21. Major MACKENZIE WOODasked the Minister of Transport whether he can state the terms upon which the agreement entered into in 1915 between the President of the Board of Trade and the Metropolitan District Railway Company was cancelled; whether these terms were embodied in a new agreement; and, if so, will he lay both agreements upon the Table?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I must refer the hon. Members to my answers to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich on 3rd May and 14th June. The general agreements with the railway companies have already been printed in Command Paper 654. I am sending copies of the answers to my hon. Friend.
    Major BARNES: Are we to understand that all these agreements have been circulated in the Command Paper?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I have not referred to the disadvantageous agreements, but, as far as they are ascertainable, to the general agreements between the railways and the Government. If my hon. Friend
    14
    will look at the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) he will find the particular agreement dealt with.
    Mr. PALMER: Would the disadvantageous agreements include the one made between the right hon. Gentleman and the North Eastern Railway Company, by which he got £50,000? Would he regard that as one of the disadvantageous agreements which should be gone into and revised, if possible?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I hardly think that arises out of the question. There is no agreement between the Government and the railway company on that subject.
    Mr. PALMER: No, but was there not an agreement under which the taxpayer finds the money?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is question No. 21 covered by the right hon. Gentleman's answer?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I did answer it. I answered Nos. 20 and 21 together.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does not Question No. 21 ask for the terms under which the agreement with the Metropolitan District Railway Company was cancelled? The right hon. Gentleman has not answered that.
    Sir E. GEDDES: That is not a formal agreement. It is an undertaking given by the Chairman of the London Electric Railways, and is confirmed by a Clause in my Report to the Private Bill Committee which dealt with the Bill.

    MONTENEGRO (RELIEF MISSION).
    23. Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a Committee, under the chairmanship of the Lord Provost of Glasgow, has been formed for the purpose of relieving distress among the destitute and starving population of Montenegro, to which considerable sums of money have been subscribed in Glasgow and elsewhere; that this Committee recently despatched a mission to Montenegro to administer the relief under a British officer properly authorised and carrying full credentials for the purpose

    15
    indicated; and that the mission has been forcibly prevented by the Serbians from entering Montenegro, whereby thousands of pounds' worth of stores and transport have been detained at the coast; whether all the facts connected with this outrage have been known for some time to the Secretary of State; and if he will say what steps have been taken by the Government to protect the material provided by the Glasgow Committee and to overcome the refusal of the Serbians to allow the remnant of starving Montenegrins to be saved by British charity?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second and third parts of the question, I understand that the representative of this Relief Fund arrived at Antivari without the necessary visas to his passport, and that the local authorities requested him to proceed to Belgrade in order to comply with the necessary formalities. The attitude of the Jugo-Slav authorities appears, so far as my information goes, to have been correct, and no force or violence was used against the members of the mission. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part of the question, I understand that the stores are in the custody of the Italian authorities at Antivari. Seeing that the difficulty which has arisen is admittedly due to the passport arrangements of the mission not having been in order, the first step to be taken would appear to be for the mission to see that the regulations under this head are properly complied with. If thereafter further difficulties should arise, the Secretary of State will be ready to consider what action, if any, it may be open to him to take.
    Mr. McNEILL: Will my hon. Friend say whether he was aware that the head of this mission had a passport properly viséd in London, not only by our own Foreign Office, but by the Serbian authorities in London, and that it was counter-viséd by the Serbian authorities at Trieste? Under the circumstances, from whom does my hon. Friend derive his information, which is quite inaccurate?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I gave the hon. Member the best information at my dis-
    16
    posal. The hon. Member is aware that there are many points about this mission which are very much disputed.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to find out whether he is correctly informed or not?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: To the best of my ability I have taken steps, but I will take further steps if the hon. Member desires.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Would my hon. Friend say whether it would not be possible for those interested in this mission, namely, the Glasgow Committee, to be allowed proper information by the Foreign Office with regard to the necessary verification of passports; that they endeavoured to fulfil all the conditions, but did not obtain proper information?

  PEACE TREATIES.

    CHIMARRA.
    24. Mr. HILTON YOUNGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any news has yet been received by him as to the state of affairs in Chimarra following the occupation of that Greek district by the Albanians; and whether it is contemplated entrusting the protection of the district to the kingdom of Greece, pending a final settlement of boundaries?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no further information since the reply which I returned to the hon. and gallant Member's question of the 21st instant. As regards the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the question of Albanian boundaries forms part of the general peace settlement, and, as such, is a matter for the decision of the principal Allied and Associated Powers as a whole. We are telegraphing to His Majesty's Minister at Athens for such further information as he may be in a position to give us.
    Mr. A. HERBERT: Is it not the fact that in 1913 Greek troops overran the province of Chimarra?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would require to give notice of that. The Under-Secretary of State was not Under-Secretary at that time.

    TESCHEN.
    30. Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a deputation has been received by the Czecho-Slovak Chamber of Deputies representing two separate races, in addition to the Czechs, which have insisted upon the carrying out of the plébiscite to decide the future of the Teschen area; and whether he is aware that the above deputations unanimously endorsed the indivisibility of the Teschen district and the need for its incorporation into Czecho-Slovakia?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I have no information respecting the incident. The whole question of the future territorial arrangements in Teschen is under consideration by the Ambassadors' Conference in Paris.

    GERMANY.
    43. Mr. PALMERasked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information to the House concerning the details of the latest Allied Notes presented to Germany; and whether one of them demands, in accordance with Article 211 of the Treaty of Versailles, the abolition of conscription in Germany?
    The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of these Notes, which will occur in due course. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    72. Sir F. HALLasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will arrange for a Report to be made giving particulars of the extent to which Germany has fulfilled the disarmament provisions of the Peace Treaty as certified by Allied representatives from actual observation; and whether it is intended, as in the past, to accept the word of Germany for the fulfilment of her Treaty obligations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I can add nothing to previous replies on this subject. With regard to the last part of the question, all statements and reports by the German Government are investigated by the Inter-Allied Commission of Control in Germany.
    Sir F. HALL: Have not the Allied Control Officers stated since the Armistice that Germany has been making some of these guns—whether, in fact, they have made 80 of them? Has any report been received?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Many reports have been received, but this is one of the main questions, with which the Allies are dealing.
    Sir F. HALL: Has Germany recommenced making these guns; and, if so, what is the good, on the one hand, of asking for the destruction of guns if, on the other hand, you allow them to be made?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend is assuming something I do not know.
    Sir F. HALL: Has there been any report from the Allied Control Officers to that effect?

    ANGLO-PERSIAN AGREEMENT.
    25. Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister if he will state what, if any, are the naval and military obligations of Great Britain towards Persia involved, directly or indirectly, in the Anglo-Persian Treaty, 1919–20; whether the Admiralty and War Office were consulted as to the cost arising from such obligations; and what is the estimated cost of such services apart from establishments maintained in Mesopotamia which are included in the same vote?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the text of the Anglo-Persian Agreement of 9th August, 1919, which has been laid (Cmd. 300), from which he will see all the commitments which His Majesty's Government have undertaken. These do not involve naval or military obligations towards Persia.
    Major GLYN: May I ask if it is inaccurate to state that we have large commitments in Persia?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter on which the hon. and gallant Member can form his own opinion.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question says "naval and military."
    73. Major MACKENZIE WOODasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a statement by M. Fleurian that the Anglo-Persian agreement not having been submitted to the League of Nations, that body is not competent to deal with the Persian problem; and whether the Secretary of State accepts this view?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: My attention has been called to an allegation to this effect which appeared in the French Press and was reproduced in the London Press of 16th June. There is, however, no foundation for the report that M. de Fleurian said any such thing.
    74. Major HAYWARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Persian agreement has been submitted to or approved by the Council of the League of Nations; and whether this agreement, alleged by the Russian Government to be endangering the peace of the world, will be reviewed under Article XIX. of the covenant?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have been waiting to communicate the agreement to the League of Nations until they have been informed of its approval by the Persian Parliament. In reply to the second question, I am not in a position to say what action may or may not be taken by the League of Nations in any particular matter.
    Lord R. CECIL: Is it necessary to wait for the approval of the Persian Parliament before submitting the agreement to the League of Nations, and would it not be of considerable advantage, both financial and political, not to wait?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think it is by agreement between the two Governments.

    WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).
    26. Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether the Allies have decided to proceed with the trial of the ex-Kaiser; if so, what steps they propose to take to do so; whether any proceedings have yet taken place or are to take place at Leipzig for the trial of ex-enemy subjects upon the black list; and whether the German naval offenders will be tried under British or German interpretation of international law?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first and second parts of the question, I have nothing to add to previous replies on the subject. As regards the last part, an Allied Committee is now considering what steps can be taken to ensure that the proceedings at Leipzig are not unduly delayed.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman still think that any failure to bring the ex-Kaiser to justice will constitute a gross dereliction of duty on the part of this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly it would, if the ex-Kaiser were available, but I do not think that he is worth any more bloodshed. He is now in the custody of another Power, which declines to surrender him, and I do not think it is desirable to use force.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it will involve bloodshed to insist on his surrender by Holland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Holland has refused to surrender him, and there is only one way you can compel a country.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the surrender of the ex-Kaiser was implicitly promised at every election?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know what pledge was given by my hon. and gallant Friend, but there was no pledge given by anyone that I know of that we should compel the surrender of the ex-Kaiser if he were in the hands of a neutral Power which declined to give him up.

    CHANNEL TUNNEL.
    27. Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether any decision has yet been arrived at with reference to the Channel tunnel; and, if not, whether any decision is likely to be reached before the Summer Recess?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I regret that I am not in a position to say when the decision will be reached.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is it usual for the Government to take such a long time to make up their mind over such a matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend knows something about these matters. I have been a member of several Governments which have considered this, and it is one of the most difficult questions on which to arrive at a conclusion.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not the fact that this question has been under consideration for the last twenty years?

    ASIA MINOR.
    28. Mr. A. HERBERTasked the Prime Minister whether there was a record harvest in Asia Minor in 1919; and what quantity of foodstuffs was imported into England?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Reports received indicate that there was a record yield per acre of the principal cereal crops in Asia Minor in 1919. It is understood, however, that the total production was not in excess of local requirements. No cereals have been registered as imported into the United Kingdom from Asia Minor during the present year, and only small quantities in 1919.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    29. Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will reconsider their decision not to appoint an independent committee with regard to the question of limiting the public expenditure to not more than a certain proportion of the estimated national income?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As a full discussion on public expenditure will soon take place, this suggestion, amongst others, can be put forward and examined.
    38. Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared to say when the House will have an opportunity of discussing the Treasury Vote?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As my hon. Friend knows, this must depend on whether and when the Vote is asked for in the ordinary way.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Are we to understand that it is quite impossible for the rest of the House to have a
    22
    Debate on a particular question of finance unless the Opposition ask for it?
    HON. MEMBERS: Which Opposition?
    The PRIME MINISTER: On Supply—that was the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of Council when he first introduced the Guillotine Resolution, that the choice of the particular topic for discussion should be left to the Opposition. Every Government has adhered honourably to that understanding, and I think it is a good one. There ought to be no difficulty. I understand that the Opposition is just as anxious as my hon. Friend to discuss expenditure, judging by their speeches outside, and I cannot imagine that they would make speeches outside without being prepared to make them here.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which Opposition?"]—when invited by the Government to adopt a frontal attack, think it a very much better policy to find a way round by the regular Estimates from week to week, and if the Government wish an opportunity of debating the subject, they can find it in their own way by moving the Adjournment of the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Well, but my right hon. Friend would prefer not making a frontal attack on expenditure. That is the open, straightforward way of challenging the policy of the Government on expenditure, and here is an opportunity for them to do so.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that we have two opportunities at least, on the Second Reading and the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and, from his knowledge of working in Opposition, does he not know the great value of keeping in hand as many days as possible to cover as wide a field as possible for discussing the Estimates?
    The PRIME MINISTER: From that, I gather that he is in no hurry to discuss public expenditure.

    GERMAN AND RUSSIAN PRISONERS (REPATRIATION).
    31. Lieut.-Colonel CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether Dr. Nansen has

    23
    requested the British Government to provide money and ships for the repatriation of German and Russian prisoners; whether he has consented to provide money and place ships at the disposal of Dr. Nansen for this purpose; whether this burden is being equally shared amongst all European nations; how many prisoners will be transported; and what is the estimated cost to this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The League of Nations has approached His Majesty's Government on this matter with a view to their taking a share in the financing of some international arrangement for repatriation of prisoners. The matter is receiving consideration.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it the fact that nothing has been decided upon and that there is no question of the British Government giving any sanction to the transportation of 180,000 men?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think anything has been decided upon.
    Sir R. COOPER: Will the House be consulted before this country is committed to any large expenditure from the repatriation of Russian and German pris oners between those two countries?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult this House before he refuses to grant money from such an obviously humane purpose?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If it is undertaken it will only be undertaken by this country in conjunction with other countries with whom we are associated.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Will money be refunded in that event by those two countries, or is it a question of making England pay?

  MUNITIONS.

    DUMPS (FRANCE).
    32. Mr. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister if the British dumps in France have been sold to one individual; what were the gross contents of such dumps; what was the total sum paid; whether the sale was thrown open to British business men generally; if so, how many competitors were there; and if a much greater sum
    24
    would have been realised if the vast quantities of goods, steel, munitions, etc., had been sold in separate lots?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the other parts, therefore, do not arise. I am making inquiries of the Disposal Board in France as to the number of dumps sold up to date to the French Government and to individual purchasers respectively, and I will communicate this information to my hon. Friend in due course.

    MECHANICAL TRANSPORT.
    84. Mr. DOYLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he will state how many Government depôts with accumulated motor lorry and car stocks still remain; what are their names; how many men are still employed; what is the monthly cost; what is the number of motor vehicles at each depot; how many have been disposed during the past six months; and when he expects such rolling stock and the depôts to be finally disposed of?
    Mr. HOPE: The whole of the surplus stocks of mechanical transport and spare parts were sold on the 7th April last, and are now in course of delivery to the purchasers. The sale in question also included such mechanical transport and spare parts as may be declared surplus within two years from the date of the agreement. The Ministry's staff are under instructions to do everything possible on their part to insure quick delivery to the buyers.

    KHAKI CLOTH.
    85. Mr. BRIANTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if any khaki cloth or uniforms have been sold by his Department; and, if so, if he will state the quantities and price obtained?
    Mr. HOPE: As I said on the 7th instant, in answer to the hon. Member for Frome, the amount of khaki cloth disposed of since the Armistice is 9,500,000 yards and the average price obtained per yard is 9s. No khaki cloth now remains in the hands of the Disposal

    25
    Board. I regret that it has not been possible in the time available to compile a complete statement of the number and price obtained for uniform; but I will communicate with the hon. Member in the course of a few days.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    SIR STUART SAMUEL'S REPORT.
    33. Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister what was the nature and effect of the representations made by the secretariat of the League of Nations which induced the Government to withhold from publication the Report of Sir Stuart Samuel; when were those representations made; and whether after the Report had been communicated to it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The matter was discussed informally with the Secretary-General of the League of Nations at the end of April, and Sir Eric Drummond then expressed the view that the Report should not be published until the League had considered it, since the actual investigation of the Jewish position in Poland lay strictly within the province of the League as custodians of the Minority Clauses of the Treaty. His Majesty's Government accepted this view at the time and proposed to act in accordance with it, but in view of the great interest expressed in the Report, both in this House and outside, and of the fact that the League of Nations cannot at the earliest consider the Report until the end of July, they have now decided that its publication should not be further delayed, and it will therefore be laid on the Table without delay.
    Sir F. HALL: May I ask if there can be any value in the League of Nations if they do not succeed in getting such a large country as the United States into it?

    CABINET CONTROL.
    63. Mr. MOSLEYasked the Prime Minister whether a Committee of the Cabinet, consisting of the Lord President of the Council, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the President of the Board of Education, has been formed to deal with the various questions affecting the League of Nations; and, if so, what would be the functions of this Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it desirable to give the names and particulars of Committees of the Cabinet which are set up from time to time. It is a great mistake—it happens to get into the Press now and again—and if you answer questions about one, you have to answer about several questions. I have no particular objection to this question, but I think it is a mistake to make it a precedent.
    Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how this information gets into the Press?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know.
    Lord R. CECIL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a statement to this particular effect has already appeared in the Press?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not complaining, but it would be a great mistake to create a precedent. That is the only objection I have in this case, and not because. I have any particular objection to this question.

    PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
    34. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the published reports to the effect that it is not the intention of the Government to introduce the Bill giving legislative sanction to the concessions to pre-War pensioners until after the Recess; and, in view of the fact that these concessions are being made to meet the urgent requirements of the necessitous cases, and that since the announcement was made several pensioners have passed away in poverty and want, he will consider the possibility of making a statement on the subject that will dispel the fears that have been raised?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I do not think that any such statement as my hon. Friend suggests is necessary, as it has already been announced that this Bill will be introduced at a very early date.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on several occasions statements have been made that this would be introduced at an early date, but up to the present no date has been given, and can we now get the date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend who is in charge of Business hopes that the Finance Resolution will be reached this week.
    66. Sir R. NEWMANasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Bill to be shortly introduced by the Government to increase the pensions of pre-War pensioners will include Post Office officials who retired under the age limit on a pre-War pension only between 4th August, 1914, and 1st March, 1917; and whether, in the event of his not feeling inclined to make any announcement prior to the introduction of the Bill, in view of the natural anxiety of old pensioners on the subject, the Bill will shortly be placed before Parliament?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Arrangements are being made to introduce the Bill at a very early date.

  RUSSIA.

    GENERAL WRANGEL'S OFFENSIVE.
    35. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to statements that a body of General Wrangel's troops was landed on the shores of the Sea of Azov for the recent offensive; was shipping supplied to General Wrangel for this purpose; if not, what shipping General Wrangel has been able to use; whether General Wrangel is still in possession of merchant shipping; and whether it is being convoyed by His Majesty's ships?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the remainder of the question, His Majesty's Government have no definite information on the subject, except that no British shipping was used.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As there were recently British Naval and Military Missions with General Wrangel, what is the use of those Missions if the Government are not kept informed on important matters like these?

    BLOCKADE.
    59. Mr. BARNESasked the Prime Minister if there is any blockade on Russia by the ships of this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The reply is in the negative.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If there is no blockade, why should export licences have to be obtained for goods going into Russia?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a different question. It is not proposed to remove the licences until there is a clear understanding on two or three essential matters.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then we are to understand that there is a blockade, but it is not called a blockade?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a very different matter. It is a question of resuming trading relations, and we can only resume trading relations upon the clear and distinct terms we have laid down, and, unless those terms are accepted, we certainly cannot withdraw the licences.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the House be told what those terms are?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly. I shall be pleased to state to the House what those terms are, and I hope Russia will understand what those terms are. However, I do not wish at the present moment to state them.

    TURKEY (GREEK OPERATIONS).
    36. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether any obligations have been entered into to give assistance to the Greek Government in operations against the Turkish Nationalists; if so, whether these obligations will be communicated to this House; and whether the Nationalist Army is recognised as a combatant army and subject to the laws of war?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; to the last part in the affirmative.

  IRELAND.

    EDUCATION BILL.
    37. Mr. LYNNasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when the Second Reading of the Irish Education Bill will be taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the answer which I gave on Thursday last to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodvale.
    Mr. LYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that early in the present year the Government gave a pledge that the Irish Education Bill and the Government of Ireland Bill would proceed step by step?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no recollection of any pledge in that form being given as to the Irish Education Bill.

    RAILWAYMEN (DEPUTATION TO PRIME MINISTER).
    40. Lieut.-Colonel ALLENasked the Prime Minister whether he received a deputation of railway workers from Ireland; whether there was a member thereof purporting to represent the railway workers at Portadown, in the province of Ulster; whether he has received a resolution from the railway men of Portadown repudiating such representative and stating that they might be relied on to assist all in their power the conveyance of military when and where they may be required; and whether, in future, before receiving such deputations, he will satisfy himself that the members thereof represent any substantial opinion of labour?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The deputation in question was understood to represent railway employés of Ireland as a whole, but I subsequently received a telegram from Portadown strongly supporting the attitude of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. LYNN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received a telegram from other parts of Ulster from railwaymen offering to assist him in fighting this conspiracy?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

    DISORDER, LONDONDERRY.
    56. Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the extensive use of rifles by the civilian population of Londonderry during the recent disturbances; whether His Majesty's Government intend to disarm these civilians; and whether the
    30
    disarmament will be carried out impartially?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is undesirable that any steps contemplated by the Government should be published at present.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can tell me if he intends to disarm the population after what has happened this last week?

    MARTIAL LAW.
    58. Major BARNESasked the Prime Minister if martial law has been proclaimed in any part of Ireland; if so, in what part or parts; and whether, in the event of martial law being proclaimed, the attention of officers upon whom its execution will fall will be drawn to the views of the Government on the administration of martial law as expressed by the Secretary of State for India in his letter to the Government of India following on the Memorandum on the Hunter Report submitted to him by that Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. Martial law has not been proclaimed, but should it at any time be necessary to adopt such a course I have no doubt that the duties falling upon them would be properly carried out by the officers of His Majesty's Army.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Have any of the leaders of the movement been arrested since this rebellion started?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that.
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is there any truth in the report that Brigadier-General Lucas has been captured?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice has been given of a question on that subject.

    BRIGADIER-GENERAL LUCAS.
    Sir H. CRAIK (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he has any information to give the House in regard to the kidnapping by Sinn Feiners in Ireland of Brigadier-General Lucas?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): Brigadier-General Lucas and Colonels Danford and

    31
    Tyrell were arrested at Kilbarry, five miles from Fermoy, where they had been fishing, at 11 p.m. on the 26th instant by twelve armed and masked men, who had a motor-car bearing no number. At a place called Rathcomrack Colonel Danford tried to escape. A man in one of the cars fired two revolver shots, wounding him in the head and arms. He was left there with Colonel Tyrell, and the General taken away in the motor car towards Cork. He has not since been found. The two Colonels have returned to Fermoy. The officers were unarmed. A telegram received to-day at one o'clock says, "No news of General Lucas."
    Lord R. CECIL: Is there any news as to the condition of the wounded Colonel?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON:I am not able to answer that question.
    Mr. C. PALMER: May I ask why the right hon Gentleman used the words "General arrested" instead of "General kidnapped"? Do you "arrest" a man without authority?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: That is the word use in the Press and elsewhere. I suppose the telegraphist thought it was most convenient. [HON. MEMBERS: "The wrong word!"]
    Mr. PALMER: Can Sinn Feiners "arrest" British officers?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: It is the wrong word to me—
    Mr. PALMER: Thank you!
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: "Kidnapped" is the proper word.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Asquith! [See Col. 44.]

    PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Last week, Mr. Speaker, I put a supplementary question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether Mr. McKenna, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, did not express the view that the country financially might be unable to fight the War to a finish. I find my recollection was at fault, and that the opinion was not expressed by Mr.
    32
    McKenna. By a slip of memory I attributed it to him, and I thought I ought to correct the matter.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    ASYLUM TREATMENT.
    42. Mr. HURDasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the national council of the Evangelical Free Churches regarding the incarceration of ex-service men in pauper asylums; whether any ex-service men are so incarcerated; and what steps will be taken to secure their treatment in a way commensurate with their services.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I have been asked to repy to this question. My right hon. Friend's attention had not been called to the resolution referred to, but I may say that any ex-service man suffering from certifiable insanity who is confined in a county or borough asylum is by special arrangement treated, not as a pauper lunatic, but as a service patient, if his condition is found to be due to his service in the late War. As a service patient he is entitled to all the privileges of a private patient, the entire cost of his maintenance and treatment, and of the special privileges accorded to him being borne by the Ministry of Pensions. I am satisfied that it would not be in the interests of the men themselves, or of their relatives, that they should be treated in special establishments devoted exclusively to ex-service cases, and in this connection I would refer the hon. Member to an answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reply to a question on the 31st March, 1920, of which I am sending him a copy. I am, however, taking steps to assure myself that the present arrangements are in all cases working satisfactorily, and are the best that can be made in the interests of these unfortunate men.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is considerable hardship falling on the dependants of these men, because their allowances are being reduced in order to pay for the maintenance of these men in various asylums, and will he consider the hardship involved?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That raises rather a different question.

    SHOPS (CLOSING HOURS).
    39. Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister if the Government has decided to introduce a measure this Session continuing the present closing hours of shops for a short period; and if they will introduce a Bill in the Autumn Session dealing with the whole question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the answer given by the Leader of the House on Wednesday last to questions on this subject.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (INCREASED WAGES).
    41. Mr. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether, in cases where contractors to Government Departments were compelled to grant increases of wages to their workers by Statutory Rules and Orders made subsequently to the date or dates when the contracts were entered into, by the Minister of Munitions acting in pursuance of the Munitions of War Acts, the amount of the increased manufacturing charges resulting therefrom is allowed and paid by the Government to the contractors in addition to the contract price, and, if not, what allowance, if any, is made; and whether, in regard to claims for such allowances, increases of wages paid in conformity with such Orders are regarded as in the same category as increases of wages granted as a result of agreements between representatives of employers and representatives of workers?
    Mr. HOPE: I have been asked to answer this, and as the answer is somewhat long and complicated, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the answer referred to:
    So far as the first part of the question is concerned, pre-Armistice contracts placed by the Ministry of Munitions fall into the following three classes:
    (1) Those containing a provision that when wages are varied by direct Government action during the course of the contract, price shall be raised accordingly.
    In this case addition to the contract price is allowed, upon application, as regards amounts necessarily paid on account of Statutory Rules and Orders.
    (2) Those containing a provision that the contractor takes the risk of any rise in wages.
    No allowance is made in these contracts.
    (3) Those containing neither of these provisions.
    In this class it is the practice to grant ex gratia on application such additional sums (not exceeding the amounts necessarily paid by the contractor in pursuance of Statutory Rules and Orders) as shall allow a contractor a reasonable profit provided the contract has been satisfactorily performed.
    The answer to the last part of the question is generally in the negative, but the matter is one that depends upon the terms of the particular contract.

    ITALY (BRITISH MAILS).
    45. Mr. PRESTONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that British traders are seriously hampered by the fact that letters from this country to Italy are held up for months in the Italian Post Office; is this fact well-known to the British Embassy and Consulates in Italy; have these, in consequence, offered to assist in the delivery and distribution of British mails in Italy, but their offer has been declined; is he aware that there are now in Genoa 14 railway wagons full of undelivered British mails which have accumulated since March; and does he propose to take action which will remove this hindrance in trade with our Ally?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information in the sense suggested in the first four parts of my hon. Friend's question. I understand that the Italian Post Office are taking all possible steps to carry on an efficient postal service, but have been hampered by repeated strikes.
    Mr. PRESTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a Report has not been received from our Embassy in Italy, that the delay in delivering British mails in Italy is deliberate and is due to the strong political feeling there against this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think we have any information from our Embassy to that effect, but I will make inquiries.

  MESOPOTAMIA.

    OIL.
    46 and 47. Major ENTWISTLEasked the Prime Minister (1) whether any arrangement has been made with France by which 25 per cent. either of the exploitation of the oil wells of Mosul or of the produce has been allocated to that country; if so, how that arrangement is consistent with the policy of the Government in vesting the whole of the oil resources of Mesopotamia in the Arab State that is to be set up;
    (2) whether his statement that no arrangement of any sort or kind has been made with any company with regard to the oil of Mesopotamia, but that the whole of the property will be vested in the Arab State, is to be taken to imply that the oil will be exploited either nationally by that State or by the British Government on its behalf?
    48 and 51. Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Prime Minister (1) what are the various arrangements made before the War between Turkey and other countries which will have the effect of preventing the whole of the oil resources of Mesopotamia belonging to the Arab State that is to be set up;
    (2) whether any concession was granted before the War to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company for the exploitation of oil in Mesopotamia; and, if so, whether such arrangement will remain valid after the setting up of the proposed Arab State?
    49 and 50. Mr. KENYONasked the Prime Minister (1) how it is proposed to secure that the whole of the oil resources of Mesopotamia will belong to the Arab State that is to be set up;
    (2) whether, in view of the fact that, owing to the trustification of the oil industry, the Arab State cannot secure a fair price for the oil which is to be its property by selling the right to exploit it to the highest bidder, it is proposed to hand over to that State the profits arising out of the exploitation after the payment of a commission to the exploiting company or trust?
    60. Major BARNESasked the Prime Minister if he will be able to lay upon the Table the document under which the oil fields of Mesopotamia are vested in the Arab kingdom; if he will say who are the signatories of that document; and whether its terms have been communicated to the League of Nations?
    61. Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House what agreements exist as to oil in Mesopotamia or the Mosul vilayet between the old Turkish Government and private or national concessionaires; and whether he will have the agreements laid upon the Table of the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The ownership of the oil deposits in Mesopotamia will be secured to the Arab State as part of the administrative arrangements under the Treaty and mandate. There is no separate document dealing with this point. No final decision has been reached as to the method of working the fields, but it is clear that due consideration will have to be given to rights legally secured before the War. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company is a participant in a group claiming such rights. I am in communication with the French Government in regard to the publication of the terms of the Anglo-French Agreement in regard to Mesopotamia. In any case the interests of the State have been carefully safeguarded. It will obtain a return on the whole of the oil won, in the form either of royalties not yet fixed, or of profit on oil sold, according to the method of development adopted. As it is not possible at this stage to say what claims based on grants by the Turkish Government may be put forward in the various mandated territories, it does not appear desirable at present to take the course suggested by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are the Arabs in a better position with regard to mineral resources than the people of this country?

    CIVIL ADMINISTRATION.
    52. Mr. KILEYasked the Prime Minister if he can state by what methods revenue is being raised in Mesopotamia to meet the cost of the civil administration?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The largest contributions to civil revenue during the current year are expected from Customs and Land Revenue, the former head, according to the latest estimates available, being much the larger, and the two heads together contributing considerably more than half the total revenue. The remaining receipts come under a large number of heads, all relatively small in amount.
    53. Major HAYWARDasked the Prime Minister if he will state how many civil servants from India are at present engaged in the administration of Mesopotamia?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am unable to state the total number of persons in all grades of the administration who have been drawn from civil services in India, but according to the latest returns available, the number in the superior grades is between 40 and 50, including six members of the Indian Civil Service.
    54. Major HAYWARDasked the Prime Minister whether the salaries of the civil servants from India who are at present engaged in the administration of Mesopotamia are met out of the India Office Vote or out of the revenue raised in Mesopotamia for the administration of that country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The salaries are met out of revenue raised in Mesopotamia.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    57. Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that those interested in the supply of liquor for household consumption are subject to onerous and severe regulations imposed on them by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) as a war-time measure; and whether, having regard to the further delay in introducing a Licensing Bill, he will have these restrictive regulations at once inquired into with a view to their modification?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to replies given to questions on this subject by me on the 17th of June.

    AALAND ISLANDS.
    62. Lord R. CECILasked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information as to the action of the British Government with respect to the dispute on the Aaland Islands between Sweden and Finland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As stated by hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 23rd June, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, the Secretary of State, acting in exercise of the friendly right conferred by Article XI. of the Covenant of the League of Nations, has brought to the attention of the Council of the League the case of the Aaland Islands as a matter affecting international relations, which unfortunately threatens to disturb the good understanding between nations upon whom peace depends. He has informed the Governments of Sweden and Finland of the action which he felt it his duty to take, and both Governments have expressed their satisfaction that the case will now be examined without delay.
    Lord R. CECIL: May I express my great gratification at the answer? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the matter will come before the League of Nations? I see a reference in the papers to a special meeting.

  INDIA.

    AMRITSAR DISTURBANCES.
    65. Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the conflicting statements that have been made as to the extent and nature of the information furnished to the Secretary of State for India by Sir Michael O'Dwyer and others with regard to the occurrence at Amritsar in the spring of 1919 and the dates at which such information was given, the Government will appoint a Select Committee of the House to inquire into the matter and to report after taking all available evidence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I see no reason for the appointment of such a Committee as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. The matter can be brought up in Debate.

    UNEMPLOYMENT.
    67. Mr. CHARLES WHITEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government intends to bring forward proposals for the prevention of unemployment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are doing, and will continue to do, everything in their power to prevent unemployment.
    68. Mr. WHITEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government has given a pledge to the trade unions to oppose the Amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Bill carried in Standing Committee C, by which the friendly societies are enabled to participate in the administration of benefits; and, if so, when, where, and under what circumstances the pledge was given?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to reply. I am not aware that a pledge as suggested by my hon. Friend has been given at any time. The views of the Government on this subject will be stated in the usual way when the Bill comes up for consideration on Report.
    Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Solicitor-General has made some intimation to this effect to a party in this House?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of the fact.
    69. Mr. BRIANTasked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is intended to proceed with the Unemployment Insurance Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As announced on Thursday last, it is intended to proceed with this Bill on Friday next.

    MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (STATUE).
    70. Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that a year and a half ago Mr. Tweed was approached respecting the statue of the right hon. Joseph Chamberlain; and whether the matter can be settled before the House rises in August?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I feel sure that the House would desire that this should be done without delay, and I hope that time may be found for it before the Adjournment.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend mean that the money is to be found for this by some separate Vote?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is an understood form in a case of this kind. I think it is by a Resolution of the House.

    AGRICULTURAL WAGES.
    79. Mr. PALMERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he has seen the recent decision of the Agricultural Wages Board in favour of an increase of 4s. in all areas over the present minimum wage for male workers of 21 years; and what attitude the Government are taking up in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Agricultural Wages Board have come to no final decision in the matter referred to. They have submitted a suggestion to the District Wages Committees for their consideration, and the reports from the Committees on this suggestion will come before the Board at their next meeting on July 6th. The Wages Board have statutory powers, and their decisions are not subject in any way to control by the Government.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    WHEAT (SALES TO GERMANY).
    80. Captain R. TERRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether any sales to Germany of British wheat have recently taken place or are being negotiated; and, if so, what price will be paid to the grower and what is the f.o.b. price?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on Monday, 21st June, to the hon. Member for Canterbury.

    PIG-KEEPING.
    81. Sir BEVILLE STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture what steps, if any, are being taken by the Ministry, as urged by the Selborne Report on agricultural policy,

    41
    to encourage and revive pig-keeping among cottagers in rural areas, with the view to promoting the production of greater supplies of pig meat in this country; whether, as these small producers require some form of cheap insurance to protect themselves against loss, the Ministry is doing anything to promote the formation of small mutual pig insurance societies; to promote village domestic industries through women's institutes or otherwise; and to improve the social life of the cottager population by the establishment of village halls, village institutes, and such like organisations?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919 (Section 8, Sub-section 4), provides that County Agricultural Committees shall make such inquiries as they consider desirable with a view to formulating schemes for the development of rural industries and social life in rural places. The Ministry has formed a Rural Industries Branch, under the direction of Sir John Green. Active steps are being taken to encourage and to revive the keeping of pigs and other small livestock among cottagers, and no less than 123 mutual clubs or societies for the purpose have already been formed. The question of insurance of livestock by cottagers has been investigated, and rules for the mutual insurance of pigs and cows have been printed and circulated. With regard to the concluding portion of the question, grants from the Development Fund have been given to the Federation of Women's Institutes and to the Village Clubs' Association for the purpose of assisting the establishment of women's institutes and village clubs.

    SUGAR.
    88. Lieut.-Colonel CROFTasked the Food Controller, whether any practical steps have been taken by the Sugar Commission to develop sugar production within the Empire in order to reduce the price of sugar to British consumers and to render them independent of continental supplies?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No steps such as those suggested by the hon. and gallant Member have been taken by the Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply, as such action would be outside the Commission's terms of reference. I may, however, remind him that under the fiscal
    42
    arrangements contained in the Budget of 1919, which have been in operation since September of that year, sugar from British sources receives a rebate of one-sixth of the duty payable on importation into this country.

    SUGAR COMMISSION.
    89. Lieut. - Colonel CROFTasked whether Messrs. Runge and Stieber are still connected with the Sugar Commission; and, if so, what posts they hold in connection with the Commission?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; Mr. Runge is secretary and manager, and Mr. Stieber assistant manager, to the Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Could not gentlemen of entirely British origin have been appointed to these posts?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am informed that both of these gentlemen are British-born subjects.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: I said "British origin."

    OAKLEIGH PARK (SIDING).
    82. Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he is aware that Mr. E. Horace Thompson, F.S.I., part owner of a building estate at Oakleigh Park, N., in March last received authority from the London Housing Board to consign building material for the development of the eastern part of the estate to Central Stores Depôt, 1,707 siding, at Oakleigh Park, east of the railway line; that this authority was given in agreement with the Disposal Board; that on 3rd June the Great Northern Railway Company gave permission for the siding to be so used subject to confirmation by the Ministry of Munitions; and that the Central Stores Depôt have refused to confirm such permission; and whether, in view of the urgency of housing, the matter may be reconsidered?
    Mr. HOPE: I am glad to say that, at the instance of my hon. and gallant Friend, an arrangement satisfactory to Mr. Thompson has been arrived at.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the hon. Gentleman say there will be no delay in the matter, though "my own information is not quite in accord with that of the hon. Gentleman"?
    Mr. HOPE: I understand it is as I have said, but I will make further inquiries.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Are we to understand that in future the Ministry will only give its consent, coupled with certain conditions, for building purposes, whilst another section of the Government withholds consent three months afterwards?
    Mr. HOPE: That is rather a wide question to be answered off-hand.

  POST OFFICE.

    MAIL SERVICE (UNITED STATES).
    90. Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the mail service to the United States of America is lamentably slow and irregular; that letters, for instance, posted on the 3rd of May arrived after those posted on the 10th; that such instances are frequent; that, having regard to the difference of exchange, this irregularity is liable to be of serious consequence in business transactions; and whether he can take immediate steps to assure the required improvement?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I am aware that the mail service from this country to the United States of America has for some time past been somewhat slow and irregular as compared with the pre-War service. This is chiefly due to the depletion of the fleets of the shipping companies concerned, as a result of the War; but labour troubles and coaling difficulties have been contributory causes. I am glad to say that the number of fast steamships available has recently been augmented; and a better service may be expected in future. The despatch of letters for the United Stat s of America which were posted on the 3rd of May was delayed by a strike; but they should have reached the addresses in New York not later than the 17th of May, whereas letters posted here on the 10th of May cannot have reached New York before the 21st. If the hon. Member can send
    44
    me the covers of any letters posted on the 3rd of May which were delivered after the 21st, I will see whether any light can be thrown on the delay.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that letters are delayed in order that telegrams may get to their destination a little bit quicker than letters?

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    91. Captain R. TERRELLasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that for a telephone installation for Henley-on-Thames the annual subscription was £11 8s. at the end of February and is now £14 8s., and how the extra cost is accounted for?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The hon. and gallant Member is presumably referring to a proposed new Exchange at Peppard, near Henley-on-Thames. The increase in cost now over the February quotation is due to the increased cost of labour and materials.

    POLAND (MUNITIONS).
    83. Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what types of munitions, and in what quantities, have been despatched from Broadheath Ordnance Camp, Altrincham, to Poland during the past six months.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have been asked to answer this question. No munitions have been despatched to Poland from Broadheath Ordnance Camp during the past six months.

    INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE, BOULOGNE.
    Mr. ASQUITH (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to make a statement to the House on the subject of the recent Inter-Allied Conference at Boulogne?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the fact that the meeting at Boulogne was principally concerned with the policy of the Allies to be adopted at the forthcoming Spa Conference on Monday next, and as all the decisions arrived at which

    45
    could be made public were published at the time, I do not propose to make any statement to the House, beyond that contained in my speech on Wednesday last, until after my return from Spa.

    GLASS WORKS, ALLOA (TRADE DISPUTE).
    92. Mr. MYERSasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a dispute at the glass works at Alloa has been in operation for 27 weeks, involving the stoppage of more than 100 workmen; that the employers concerned refuse to meet representatives of the workmen in negotiation, decline to be parties to any method of arbitration, and have rejected strong representations made by a joint committee from the employers' association and workmen's union in the trade to discuss the matters in dispute; and whether his Department are taking any steps with a view to bringing the parties together and effecting a settlement of the dispute?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am advised that the facts are as stated in my hon. Friend's question. My Department has been in constant communication with the parties to the dispute, but I regret to state that up to the present it has not been possible to effect a settlement.

SELECTION (STANDING COM MITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Sir Henry Harris.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Firearms Bill [Lords]): Mr. D. M. Wilson.

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Women, Young Persons, and Children (Employment) Bill): Mr. Shortt.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session, to provide for the better Government of Ireland, to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament of any salaries, remuneration, pensions, superannuation, and other allowances, gratuities, or compensation for the payment of which to, or in respect of the services of, Judges and Irish officers, officers of the High Court of Appeal of Ireland, or officers or constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary, or of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force, provision may be made in pursuance of the said Act, and also of the expenses of the Civil Service Committee established by the said Act, and also of any sum for the payment of which out of the Exchequer provision may be made by the said Act in the event of the failure of the Government of Southern Ireland or of Northern Ireland to make any such payment."
  Resolution agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee [NINTH DAY].
  [Progress 22nd June.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

  PROVISIONS AS TO EXISTING JUDGES AND OFFICERS.
  (1) All existing County Court Judges, and all existing Irish officers serving in an established capacity in the Civil Service of the Crown and receiving salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, shall, if at the date of the passing of this Act they are removable only on Address from both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom, continue to be removable only upon such an Address, and if removable in any other manner shall continue to be removable only in the same manner as before that date; and shall continue to receive the same salaries, gratuities, and pensions, and to enjoy the same rights and privileges and to be liable to perform the same duties as before that date or such duties as His Majesty may declare to be analogous, and their salaries and pensions shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of
  74
  the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof, and all sums so paid shall be made good by means of deductions from the Irish residuary share of reserved taxes under this Act in accordance with Regulations made by the Treasury.
  (2) If any of the said Judges or officers retire from office with His Majesty's approbation before completion of the period of service entitling him to a pension, His Majesty may, if he thinks fit, after considering any representation that may be made by the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, grant to him such pension, not exceeding the pension to which he would on that completion have been entitled, as His Majesty thinks proper.
  (3) Sub-section (1) of this Section shall apply to existing Irish officers in the Civil Service of the Crown, who, although receiving salaries not charged on the Consolidated Fund, are removable only for misconduct or incapacity, including (after the date of Irish Union) officers removable under Section seventy-three of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877: Provided that, in the case of any such officer whose salary is payable otherwise than out of money provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the provisions of that Sub-section with respect to the payment of salaries and pensions out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom shall not have effect, and in the case of any such officer whose salary is payable out of money provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom those provisions shall have effect with the substitution of payment out of money so provided for charge on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  The following Amendment stood first on the Order Paper in the name of Major Hills: In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "reserved" and insert the words "British-collected."
  The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills), is a consequential one. The two following Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness), appear to me to be alternatives with the same purpose, and I will allow him to move whichever he may prefer.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "including," to insert the words "clerks of the Crown and Peace."
  As the Bill is now drawn, their case, if they retire during the transition period, is not covered. Clerks of the Crown and Peace are deemed to be in the permanent Civil Service of the Crown, but the

  75
  Schedule has been held to rule them out from compensation because the fifth Schedule gives compensation to officers serving only in an established capacity. But it lays down no definition of what established capacity includes. The provision for compensation apparently was prepared only to meet the case of the ordinary civil servant who retires at the age of 60, and there is a good deal of doubt as to whether it covers the clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed for life. The second Amendment is hardly an alternative, and I think they ought to have compensation under Sub-section (2). It is, however, necessary to define what is the period, because, being appointed for life, they do not get the benefit of the 40 years period in the Civil Service, and it seems necessary to lay down some fresh rule. I raise this matter chiefly for the purpose of obtaining information, because if they are already provided for, I shall not press my Amendment.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): This Amendment is not really wanted, because the words include clerks of the Crown and Peace. On the next Amendment I propose to deal with the question of the period.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add a new Sub-section—
  "(4) Sub-section (2) of this section shall apply to clerks of the Crown and Peace with the substitution of a period of forty years' service for the period entitling him to a pension."
  I will formally move this Amendment, as the learned Attorney-General has promised to deal with the point on this Amendment.
  Mr. HENRY: We propose to extend this provision to other offices and to put them all on the same footing. They are referred to in Sub-section (3) as Irish officers in the Civil Service of the Crown who do not receive salaries which are charged on the Consolidated Fund. We propose to put them all on the same footing, and we will bring up the necessary Amendment on the Report stage.
  Mr. T. W. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in his Amendment the assistants employed by the Clerks of the Crown and Peace?
  Mr. HENRY: I think my hon. and learned Friend will see that that is quite impossible, because they cannot be put on the same footing as Clerks of the Crown and Peace. We only propose to extend this provision to people mentioned in Subsection (3).
  Mr. BROWN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not intend to give any protection to those assistants in the office of the Clerks of the Crown and Peace?
  Mr. HENRY: No, it would be quite impossible to put them on the same footing.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 52.—(Continuation of Service of, and Compensation to, Existing Officers.)
  (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all existing Irish officers in the Civil Service of the Crown who are not provided for under the last-preceding Section and are at the appointed day serving as Irish officers shall, after that day, continue to hold their offices by the same tenure and upon the same terms and conditions (including conditions as to salaries and superannuation) as theretofore and shall be liable to perform the same duties as theretofore, or such duties as the Civil Service Committee established under this Act may determine to be analogous, and while performing the same or analogous duties shall receive not less salaries than they would have received if this Act had not passed:
  Provided that notwithstanding the provision hereinbefore contained as to the tenure of existing Irish officers any existing Irish officer who at the time of the passing of this Act is removable from his office by His Majesty, or by the Chief Secretary, or by any person other than the Lord Lieutenant, or in any special manner, may be removed from his office after the appointed day by the Lord Lieutenant, but, in the case of the existing permanent members of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, only by an Order of the Lord Lieutenant, which shall be laid before the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and of Northern Ireland, and if an address is presented to the Lord Lieutenant by either such House within the next subsequent forty days on which that House has sat after any such Order is laid before it praying that the Order may be annulled, the Lord Lieutenant may annul the Order, and it shall thenceforth be void.
  (2) The Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1914, shall continue after the appointed day to apply to any such existing Irish officer

  77
  to whom they then apply, and the service of any such officer under the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland shall, for the purpose of those Acts, be deemed to be service in the permanent Civil Service of the Crown and in a public office within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1892:
  Provided that so far as relates to the grant and ascertainment of the amount of any allowance or gratuity under those Acts as respects any such officer who at the time of his ultimate retirement is serving under the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, the Civil Service Committee shall be substituted for the Treasury.
  (3) The provisions as to compensation contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall apply with respect to any such existing Irish officer.
  (4) The superannuation and other allowances and gratuities which may become payable after the appointed day to or in respect of existing Irish officers in the Civil Service of the Crown under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1914, and any compensation payable to any such officers under the provisions of this Act, shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but any sums so paid shall be made good by means of deductions from the Irish residuary share of reserved taxes in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury.
  (5) Where any existing Irish officer in the Civil Service of the Crown to whom the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1914, do not apply is at the appointed day serving as an Irish officer in a capacity which, in accordance with a condition of his employment, qualifies him for a superannuation allowance or gratuity payable otherwise than under those Acts, that condition shall after the appointed day have effect, subject to the following modifications, that is to say, any superannuation allowance or gratuity which may become payable to the officer in accordance with that condition after the appointed day shall, if and so far as the fund out of which such allowances and gratuities are payable at the time of the passing of this Act is by reason of anything done or omitted after the passing of this Act not available for its payment, be charged upon and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, or shall be apportioned between those funds as the Joint Exchequer Board may determine, and any powers and duties of the Treasury as to the grant or ascertainment of the amount of the superannuation allowance or gratuity, or otherwise in connection with the condition, shall be exercised and performed by the Civil Service Committee.
  (6) The Pensions Commutations Acts, 1871 to 1882, shall apply to any person to whom an annual allowance is granted in pursuance of the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers as they apply to a person who has retired in consequence of the abolition of his office, and any terminable annuity payable in respect of the commutation of an allowance shall be payable out of the same funds as the allowance.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2) after the word "Ireland" ["or Northern Ireland shall,"] insert the words "or the Council of Ireland."
  After the word "Ireland" ["or Northern Ireland, the Civil Service Committee"] insert the words "or the Council of Ireland."—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]
  Major O'NEILL: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (2) to add the words
  "Provided further that, notwithstanding any rule, regulation, or practice of the Treasury to the contrary, the Irish Insurance Commissioners shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of established civil servants under the Superannuation Acts in regard to pensions and other rights, and in calculating said pensions, such pensions shall be based on the number of years that have elapsed since the entry of the said Insurance Commissioners into any branch of the public service in a temporary or a permanent capacity."
  This Amendment relates to the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the object is to insure that that Commission shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of establised Civil servants, including the right of pensions and other rights, so that they shall have, without question, all the rights under this Bill as regards compensation, and so on, which established Civil servants have. As a matter of fact, the Irish Insurance Commissioners are four in number, three of them are men and one is a woman. It is particularly in regard to her case that I bring this matter before the House, and I feel sure that this Amendment will have the support of many hon. Members, from the North of Ireland, at any rate, because the lady in question, Mrs. Dickie, has especially close relationship with the large Northern Irish friendly societies. I think that last year the Irish Insurance Commissioners were made established Civil Servants, and I understand their salaries were raised from £1,000 to £1,200 a year. With regard to the three gentlemen members of the Commission, they obtain the full pension rights of Civil servants, but the lady member, Mrs. Dickie, owing I believe entirely to the fact that she is a married woman, is in the position that she may be thrown out of her position, after this Bill is passed, by a Sinn Fein Government in Ireland without any of the pension rights which her colleagues, the male members of the

  79
  Commission, have got. The Treasury is acquainted with this case, and the Chairman of the Irish National Insurance Commissioners has put before them, on many occasions, the desirability of Mrs. Dickie being placed in the same position as the other members of the Commission, but up to the present this has not been done. Quite apart from any general consideration of the treatment of women in the Civil Service, in this particular Bill, as it is passing through Parliament, she may be placed in an extremely precarious position, which no other woman member is for the moment exposed to. I do feel that the Govern- 4.0 P.M. ment may safely grant this Amendment in the interests of common justice to this lady. She has been a Civil Servant for something like over twenty years. She has, through hard work and by excellence, attained one of the highest positions in the Civil Service which any woman has attained anywhere throughout the United Kingdom, and, now that her position may be prejudiced unless the safeguards against possible injustice which apply to her male colleagues are made also to apply to her, I do ask the Government to take this opportunity of reconsidering the matter and placing the whole of the Health Insurance Commission upon the same basis.
  Mr. HENRY: It is quite true that there are three Insurance Commissioners, two gentlemen and one lady, but at the time of their appointment the two men received different salaries and enjoyed different privileges as to pension. This Clause continues them in that privileged position. An agitation was got up some time ago for the purpose of getting a pension for the lady member of the Commission, and, acting upon the ordinary rules, the Treasury declined the pension, but increased the salary by £200 a year in lieu of pension. My hon. and gallant Friend now seeks, not to give any new rights to the two men, but to confer, for the first time, a pension upon the third member of the Commission, although she has received a sum of £200 in consideration of the fact that she is not entitled to a pension.
  Major O'NEILL: When the increase of £200 per year was granted, it was specifically stated by the Treasury that it was
  80
  without prejudice to her right to raise the question of the pension at any time she liked.
  Mr. HENRY: That is not my information; but, if my hon. and gallant Friend will bring it up on Report, I will communicate with the Treasury and verify my facts.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman quite appreciates, at any rate, one point of my hon. and gallant Friend's case. We are snaking provision for an entirely new set of things. These permanent officials, men and women, will be under a Government which possibly may feel antagonistic to them, on grounds which would not command the approval of any section of this House, and it is not impossible that they may take advantage of their position of authority to avenge whatever grievances they may feel on the permanent Civil Service. It appears that this woman is in the public service, performing duties precisely similar to those performed by men. Under the Bill they are given a certain measure of security in respect to their pension. Owing to a consideration, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated and which did not appear to be a very important consideration but rather of a technical character, because she has been given £200 per year increase of salary in lieu of pension—obviously, if it were intended really to be equivalent, it differs only technically from her right to a pension—she is to be left entirely at the mercy of any jealousy or unfairness in the new Government, whereas her male colleagues are to be protected. The Government cannot seriously defend an arrangement of that kind. If we are all unanimous in thinking that it is desirable to secure the permanent officials in their pension rights, it is also desirable to secure this lady who does not differ from them in a position of equal security, although up till now she has had an increase in salary in lieu of pension.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman obtains those statements, which he says he will examine before the Report Stage, I think he will find that the increase of salary was not in lieu of pension, but in response to a demand that there should

  81
  not be gross inequality in the salaries of the members of this Commission. A great many people felt that the same work had been done by the three Commissioners, and that it was not right that two of them should be receiving a salary different from the third. It was in order to put them on an equality that the increase was given, and it was not given in lieu of pension. Secondly, even supposing it was intended to be in lieu of pension, obviously, the only way in which it could be in lieu of pension was the presumption that this lady would enjoy the extra salary for a good many years in order that she might save the equivalent of the pension before the end of her employment. She has been in the enjoyment of that increase only for some twelve or fifteen months, and it is now quite possible under the provisions of this Bill before another year elapses that she may find herself deprived of her employment, in which case the increase would have failed in its object. Therefore, I do think on all grounds that it is only right and just that this increase of salary should not be considered, and that she should be placed on the same footing as the other two members of the Commission with regard to her pension.
  Lord R. CECIL: On a point of Order. Would it be in order to move an Amendment such as this on Report, or is it a matter which, placing a charge directly or indirectly on the taxpayer, is more properly dealt with in Committee?
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot say in advance what view Mr. Speaker would take. If it were merely a matter of definition it might be admissible, but if it involved a new charge, obviously it could not be done without recommittal.
  Lord R. CECIL: In view of that ruling, I do hope that the Government will deal with the matter immediately and accept this Amendment. If they find that it will not do, then on Report they can modify it.
  Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANS (Minister without Portfolio):The Government will accept my right hon. Friend's suggestion and put in these words now, or at any rate some of them, in order that the matter may be considered before the Report stage. There is one other thing that I should not like to leave unanswered. My Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord
  82
  H. Cecil) dealt with two points. He suggested that there was some intention to differentiate between the men and the woman who are Commissioners. There is no intention to differentiate in any way. His argument was addressed to possible victimisation. That is dealt with in the next Clause. This Clause does not deal with compensation for disturbance of office. It is intended to safeguard the right of pension as it at present exists. The next Clause, together with the Schedule, is intended to compensate those officers who cannot carry on under either one or other of the Irish Parliaments, and there is ample protection for those officers. There is no intention to differentiate between one class and another. If my hon. Friend will move the Amendment down to the word "rights" ["pensions and other rights"] I shall be prepared to put it into the Bill at this moment, and, if the information upon which we are acting be not correct; then to meet the position on Report.
  Mr. MOLES: The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us a moment ago that this lady had no pension rights. If you stop at the point where you propose we should say—
  "shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of established civil servants under the Superannuation Act in regard to pensions and other rights"—
  and it would not cover this lady's case.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will take the Amendment as it stands, and consider it before the Report Stage.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 53.—(Establishment of Civil Service Committee.)
  (1) For the purpose of the provisions of this Act with respect to existing officers there shall be established a committee to be called the Civil Service Committee.
  (2) The Committee shall consist of five members, of whom one shall be appointed by the Treasury, one by the Government of Southern Ireland, one by the Government of Northern Ireland, one by the existing Irish officers, and one (who shall be chairman) by the Lord Chief Justice of England.
  (3) Any vacancy arising in the Committee shall be filled by the authority by whom the member whose place is vacant was appointed.
  (4) The Treasury may make regulations as to the manner in which the member to be appointed by the existing Irish officers is to be selected.
  (5) The Committee may act by any three members, and, subject to the provisions of this Act, the Committee may regulate their own procedure.
  (6) The determination of the Civil Service Committee on any claim or question which is to be determined by them under the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers shall be final and conclusive.
  (7) Any expenses incurred by the Civil Service Committee to such amount as may be approved by the Joint Exchequer Board shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and shall be made good by means of deductions from the Irish residuary share of reserved taxes in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "five", and to insert instead thereof the word "six".
  The Civil Service Committee set up under this Clause will have important duties with regard to the selection of officers for transfer from the Imperial Service to the service of either the Northern or the Southern Parliament. The Civil Service desire to be represented on that Committee, and, as the Bill is drafted, they will have one representative. This Amendment suggests that instead of having one they should have two representatives. They have asked for a majority, but obviously that cannot be granted. Still, we do want to meet them as far as possible, and we are, therefore, moving this Amendment. There are several consequential Amendments.
  Captain W. BENN: I do not know whether this is the right point at which to ask what will be the effect on the constitution of this Committee if the Southern Parliament does not meet or if it be dissolved and the Crown Colony arrangement substituted.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My hon. and gallant Friend is familiar with the new Clause on the Paper which we cannot discuss to-day. It provides the necessary arrangements to make it operative, and those arrangements would cover this Clause.
  Colonel NEWMAN: Has the Irish Civil Service any association or union who would be able to appoint two members?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, they have.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "one" ["one by the existing Irish officers"], and insert instead thereof the word "two".
  Amendment proposed: At the end of Sub-section (2) add the words
  "Provided that after the existing Irish officers have been allocated in manner hereinafter provided, of the members of the committee appointed by the existing Irish officers one shall be appointed by such of those officers as have become officers of the Government of Southern Ireland, and one by such of those officers as have become officers of the Government of Northern Ireland."—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]
  Captain CRAIG: Can we have some explanation of this?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Civil Service want two representatives to be appointed as soon as the Commission is set up, and when the two Parliaments are established then one will be nominated by the Southern Parliament and the other by the Northern Parliament. We cannot provide that they shall be so nominated from the commencement, as those two Parliaments will not then be in existence.
  Major O'NEILL: What are the duties of this Civil Service Committee?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It will have to deal with the settlement of pension and compensation claims for some time to come.
  Mr. MOLES: And will the representatives be chosen with due regard to the interests of the Northern and the Southern Parliaments respectively?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Undoubtedly.
  Captain BENN: Will these representatives be appointed by the Civil Service and the Trade Unions?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot give an undertaking on behalf of the trade unions or the Civil Service, but, naturally, those bodies will be consulted in regard to the appointments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (4) leave out the word "member" and insert instead thereof the word "members." Leave out the word "is" and insert instead thereof the word

  85
  "are." In Sub-section (5), after the word "members", insert the words "and notwithstanding any vacancy in their number".—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I wish to ask whether Sub-section (7), printed in italics, comes within the compass of the Resolution which has been reported to-day?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): We shall come to that in a moment.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 54.—(Provisions as to existing pensions and superannuation allowances.
  (1) Any pension granted on account of service in Ireland as Lord Chancellor or other judge of the existing Supreme Court or of any court consolidated into that court, or as a County Court Judge, or as an Irish officer in an established capacity in the Civil Service of the Crown, or as an officer or constable of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, or Royal Irish Constabulary, and payable at the appointed day, or in the case of an officer or constable of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or Royal Irish Constabulary at the date of transfer, shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof, if charged on that fund at the time of the passing of this Act, and out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom if so payable at that time, and shall be made good by means of deductions from the Irish residuary share of reserved taxes in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury.
  (2) Any pension payable at the appointed day and granted on account of service in Ireland as an Irish officer in the Civil Service of the Crown not serving in an established capacity or as a petty sessions clerk or officer in the registry of petty sessions clerks shall, if, and so far as the fund out of which it is payable at the time of the passing of this Act, is by reason of anything done or omitted after the passing of this Act not available for its payment, be charged upon and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland or apportioned between those funds as the Joint Exchequer Board may determine.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "or" ["established capacity or"], insert the words "on account of service".—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us what Clauses in the main part of the Bill are covered by the Report of the Resolution we have had to-day, and what are covered by the Resolution which has yet to be proposed as a result of the deliberations of the Committee still sitting?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Perhaps I can answer that question better the other way round. None of the Clauses under the heading "Financial Provisions," Clauses 18 to 24 inclusive, are covered by the Financial Resolution already passed. Every other Clause is.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 55.—(Provisions for Defining of Irish Officer and Determining Claims.)
  (1) For the purpose of the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers, any officer shall be deemed to be an Irish officer who is serving or employed in Irish services within the meaning of this Act, and the fact that the salary of an Irish officer is provided in whole or in part out of funds administered by the Government Department in which he serves, or out of an allowance voted for the office expenses of the office in which he is employed, or out of fees, instead of being charged on the Consolidated Fund or paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, shall not prevent that officer being treated as an officer in the Civil Service of the Crown:
  Provided that where any officers employed at the appointed date wholly or in part on Irish services form an integral part of a staff not solely engaged on such services, the Department under which they are employed shall prepare a scheme for determining which of the members of such staff are, for the purposes of this Act, to be treated as Irish officers, and such scheme shall be submitted to the Irish Civil Service Committee and, if and when approved by that Committee, shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
  (2) If any question arises whether an officer is an Irish officer as so defined, or otherwise as to any claim or right of an officer under the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers, that question shall be determined by the Civil Service Committee.
  (3) If in any case the Civil Service Committee are of opinion that the service or employment of an officer is such that he is partly an Irish officer and partly not, that Committee shall determine any question which arises as respects the proportions in which any allowance, gratuity, or compensation payable to that officer is to be paid as between the Exchequer or Consolidated Fund of Southern or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, and of the United Kingdom respectively.
  Captain CRAIG: I beg to move in Subsection (1) after the word "Act" ["meaning of this Act"] to insert the words "including any person employed as standing solicitor of a Government Department in connection with such services." The Committee will see that this Clause begins with the words
  "For the purpose of the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers, any officer shall be deemed to be an Irish officer who is serving or employed in Irish services within the meaning of this Act."
  There are several people in Ireland who are not by any means certain whether they come within this definition, and among them are certain standing solicitors to Government Departments in Ireland. I want to clear up the point as to whether they are included; hence I move this Amendment.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. D. M. Wilson): There is no such thing known to the law as a Standing Solicitor. The solicitors referred to as such will, however, come within the Section. There are three classes of solicitors, who might be referred to under this Amendment. The first are solicitors employed under contract of service. They, I take it, are already under the Clause. The second class are solicitors employed from time to time ad hoc.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman speak up. I cannot hear anything he says.
  Mr. WILSON: I have said the first class are those serving under contract of service. They are public servants already, and would come under the provision. In the second case Government Departments employ solicitors from time to time to do particular work for them, but it is impossible to include them within the compensation and pensions Sections of this Bill. The third class are employed in exactly the same way as the last class, but are under no contract. They to are not included. If any solicitor can show he has a claim to consideration, his case will have to be considered on its merits.
  Captain CRAIG: I think the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves the matter in a very unsatisfactory condition, because every solicitor who feels aggrieved will have to bring an action to test whether his case comes within the Clause or not. It seems to
  88
  me that that ought not to be so. At any rate, I hope the Government will make it clear that all those who come within the first of the three categories described by the hon. and learned Gentleman are included. At present I can see nothing in the Bill which secures that. I would further submit that a solicitor who does work frequently for a Department, although not necessarily under contract, can be quite well said to be serving or employed in the Irish service.
  Dr MURRAY: I feel sure that any solicitor in Ireland will take care that his rights are secured under this Bill. Solicitors who work for any Government Department will attend to that. But I should like to make sure of the position of medical officers under the Irish Local Government Board. They are not mentioned any more than solicitors, and they are not so capable of looking after their own interests. Therefore I want to make sure that their positions are secured under this Bill.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not at all agree with the hon. Member who last spoke in the very unfair distinction he drew between the two professions we represent. As a Member of the solicitors' branch of the legal profession I venture to say my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment has done it with very sound reason. Instead of solicitors being always able to look after themselves they have in the past been most unfairly treated, and my right hon. Friend who is taking charge of this part of the Bill (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) will remember a case in connection with one of the great Government Departments, where legal appointments, which were specifically designated to be held by solicitors, had been filled by barristers. I know of no case under any Statute where appointments reserved for barristers have been given to solicitors. I hope, in the interests of solicitors with a permanent status, their appointments will be amply safeguarded. I remember discussing with a friend on one occasion the position of solicitors, and hearing him remark that they ought to be more generous to the public. I remarked to him: "You have no idea how much work lawyers do for nothing," and he admitted that he had not.
  Mr. MOLES: I shall not join in the controversy as to whether lawyers or doctors are best able to take care of themselves in these matters. I will only say that in my own experience both professions endeavour to make the best of both worlds. I want to define what is meant by the words, "those employed under contract of service." Does that mean people only who give their whole time to the appointment, and are precluded from indulging in private practice, or will it cover the case of Crown solicitors? I want to know where the line is drawn. I would also like to have it explained what is meant by "those employed from time to time ad hoc." Does that cover those charged with criminal prosecutions at Assizes? I think it is very desirable that these points should be more clearly defined.
  Mr. HANNA: I wish to ask as to the position of assistants of Chief Crown Solicitors in Ireland, men who are usually paid by the Chief Crown Solicitor. They are whole-time servants, and I want to know how they will be affected?
  Colonel NEWMAN: I do not quite understand the position with regard to doctors. They can, perhaps, look after themselves, but I should like to ask whether the officials called dispensary doctors come within this provision, and, if not, what doctors it covers?
  The CHAIRMAN: The reference to doctors has been an imported matter here. This Amendment deals only with solicitors. We must deal with them one at a time.
  Mr. WILSON: Crown solicitors in Ireland, who are employed in Irish cases, undoubtedly come within the Section, and would get the benefit of it. When solicitors are employed by Departments under contract, they are usually employed at a salary. Solicitors who will not come within this Section are solicitors employed by a Department in the same way in which a client might employ a solicitor; that is to say, they have no fixity of tenure, and the client can employ someone else the next day. They are not paid by salary at all, but by costs, taxed and paid in the ordinary way. Solicitors employed in that way are excluded; the others come within the Section. As regards doctors in Ireland, dispensary
  90
  doctors are dealt with under a code of their own, under the Public Health Act. Their case is statutorily provided for.
  Captain CRAIG: After what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 56.—(Allocation of Existing Officers between Southern and Northern Ireland.)
  (1) The existing Irish officers who at the appointed day are concerned solely with the administration of public services in Southern Ireland shall become officers of the Government of Southern Ireland, and the existing Irish officers who at the appointed day are concerned solely with the administration of public services in Northern Ireland shall become officers of the Government of Northern Ireland.
  (2) The existing Irish officers who at the appointed day are concerned with the administration of public services both in Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland shall be allocated as between the Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland in such manner as the Civil Service Committee may determine; and in determining whether any particular officer is to be allocated to the Government of Southern Ireland or to the Government of Northern Ireland, the Civil Service Committee shall, so far as the exigencies of the public service admit, endeavour to give effect to the wishes of the officer:
  Provided that any existing Irish officers who at the appointed day are solely employed in public services which are as from the appointed day administered by the Council of Ireland shall become officers of the Council of Ireland.
  Major O'NEILL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "solely" ["who at the appointed day are concerned solely"], to insert the words "or mainly".
  This is really only a drafting Amendment.
  Mr. WILSON: I regret that the Government cannot see their way to accept this Amendment. In this Section, as drafted, there is a perfectly clear system of arrangement in relation to these officers. Irish officers who on the appointed day are solely concerned with the administration of public services in Southern Ireland go to Southern Ireland, and those who are concerned solely with Northern Ireland go to Northern Ireland. In the case of officers who are partly

  91
  concerned with Southern Ireland and partly with Northern Ireland, the allocation is made by the Civil Service Committee. To add the words "or mainly" would create an absolutely impossible position. Who is to determine whether an officer is "solely or mainly" concerned with one part of Ireland or the other? A distinction can be drawn between those who are solely employed in either of the two areas, and this Clause enables them to be allocated either to Southern or to Northern Ireland, as the case may be. In the case of those who are partly concerned with both areas, it is absolutely necessary that some body should go into each particular case, and, accordingly, the Civil Service Committee is set up. It would only create confusion to add the words "or mainly". Indeed, if the hon. and gallant Member will look at the Sub-section, he will see that his Amendment would only relate to Northern Ireland.
  Major O'NEILL: I agree that that is a mistake.
  Mr. WILSON: I should like to point out that the addition of the words "or mainly" would create an impossible position, because, since Southern Ireland is a larger area than Northern Ireland, an officer who was concerned partly with both would necessarily be concerned mainly with Southern Ireland. We think that a great difficulty and confusion would arise if we accepted the Amendment, and that it will really serve no good purpose.
  Major O'NEILL: I think that, perhaps, I did not fully appreciate the extent of the ramifications of this Amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Major O'NEILL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "determine" ["in such manner as the Civil Service Committee may determine"], to insert the words "subject to the approval of the Governments of Southern and Northern Ireland respectively."
  This Amendment raises a much larger and more important point than the last one. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated, where officers are concerned, as is the case with the large majority, both with Northern and with Southern Ireland, their allocation is to be deter-
  92
  mined by the Civil Service Committee, and my Amendment suggests that the Civil Service Committee shall only be able to make that allocation after consulting with and securing the approval of the Governments of the two areas. If that is not done, it seems to me that a difficult state of affairs might arise. As things are at present in Ireland, it is not at all unlikely that most of the Civil Servants— who, of course, are primarily located in Dublin—would rather be under the Northern Government than the Southern; and the large majority of the existing Civil Servants in Dublin might be anxious, if they possibly could, to serve under the Northern Government, in order to be free from the, possibly, very difficult set of circumstances under a Sinn Fein Government, if that were set up in the South. For years we have heard in this House constant tirades against Castle government. We have been told that it is the curse of Ireland, that it is governed by a set of Civil Servants who owe their allegiance to what is called the Castle régime. Surely, if you transferred those people, say, to the Northern Parliament, without asking it whether it desires to have them, you would be perpetuating in the North this system of Castle government which has been so much denounced in Ireland as a whole. A lot of elderly men, who may be largely past their work, may be anxious to go to the Northern Parliament, and the Government of Northern Ireland will not be able to say "No" to the decision of the Committee that they shall go there. Moreover, it is well known that to a large extent the Civil Service in Dublin—not, perhaps, in the case of the highest officials—is imbued with the doctrines which find acceptance among the majority of the people in that part of the country. It would really be asking for the breakdown of government in the northern part of Ireland if a large number of those gentlemen, whose sympathies might be entirely with the South, were, at the behest of this Civil Service Committee, sent up to the Government in the North. That would lead to friction, and might lead to a conflict of opinion between the Civil Servants of the Government and the Parliament which controls that Government. I hope that the Government will see the force of the case I am putting before them, and will accept some modification of the scheme at present proposed in the Bill.
  Mr. WILSON: No doubt, as the hon. and gallant Member says, there may be many difficulties in relation to the allocation of Civil Servants in Ireland to the respective Governments of Southern and Northern Ireland. At present, however, there is a body of Civil Servants in existence in Ireland, and they must be dealt with. The Government have to find the best way of dealing with them, and they consider it to be that provided in the Bill, namely, by setting up this Civil Service Committee, which, as the Committee will remember, is to consist of one member from the Government of Northern Ireland, one member from the Government of Southern Ireland, and two members from the existing Civil Service, with a member appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England as chairman. The Civil Servants are quite satisfied with that provision, which balances the parties evenly. The Governments and the Civil Servants are equally represented, and, if there is any difficulty, surely the Lord Chief Justice's nominee will be sufficient to settle it. If this Amendment were accepted, we should have, after the Committee had decided the matter, to come back and get the Parliaments of Northern and Southern Ireland to accept the Civil Servants so allocated. I think that that would create great difficulty. The case might arise in which a particular individual, having been allocated to Northern Ireland and refused by the Parliament there, might be allocated to Southern Ireland and also refused by the Parliament there. I think my hon and gallant Friend will see that for business purposes, and for the purpose of transferring Civil Servants who are already in existence, the arrangement provided in the Bill is the best that could be adopted, and that it would only be creating confusion to provide that the approval of the respective Parliaments should be required.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: The arguments of the learned and gallant Gentleman (Major O'Neill) were curiously interesting. First of all, he urged in favour of his Amendment that if the Clause stands as it is in all probability there might be a perpetuation of the much dreaded Castle rule in the Northern Parliament. I understand that all that Ulster wanted was to be let alone. I am indeed delighted to hear
  94
  that they share to some extent the views of Southern Ireland in regard to what is known as Castle rule in Dublin.
  Major O'NEILL: The officials of the Castle.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I am unable to distinguish the rule of Dublin Castle from the officials who carry out the administration. His second argument was, "For all we know we may be getting in the Northern Parliament officials who are working at present in the South of Ireland and have become infected by the virus which is apparently widespread in the political atmosphere there, so we shall not be able to put up with those people." The solvent which he suggested for the difficulty is, let each Government chose its own officials. The more one knows of Ireland the less one knows of Ireland, and I cannot imagine a merrier time than the new Governments will have in the scrambling for unwilling officials between the Northern and the Southern Parliaments. Some will wish to remain in the South. According to the Clause, as far as the exigencies of the public service admit, they must endeavour to give effect to the wishes of the officers. One officer has lived in the South and has presumably become infected by the political desires of the South; another has been too long in Dublin under the shadow of the Castle, so he is undesirable. What it really resolves itself into is apparantly this: pension them all and start afresh. That is apparently the solution that is going to be applied to the whole thing. The officer's desires, of course, must be consulted. The Northern Parliament wants him and the Southern Parliament may want him, and between them all, having tried every possible avenue which may open up a decision, you call in an Englishman to settle it in the shape of the Lord Chief Justice of this country. If that is the way in which the Bill is going to be carried out it shows the hopeless chaos of the whole matter.
  Sir E. CARSON: The right hon. Gentleman is a very good champion of Castle Government. He sees nothing against these officials in Dublin Castle or officials appointed by Dublin Castle. He thinks the whole thing is really splendid and these are a splendid lot of officers who have to be allocated between the two Parliaments. Immediately after-

  95
  wards he confessed that he really knew very little about it, and I think that is the truest thing he said. I will tell the Committee the exact position. Under the long régime that went on when the Liberal Government came into power in 1916, during the time they were trying to prove that this Parliament could not govern Ireland—because that was the set policy of Mr. Birrell—they crammed every one of these offices that they could full of Sinn Feiners. The whole Post Office, even in the North of Ireland, is full of Sinn Feiners. You cannot send a letter or a telegram there without its all being known, within a very few hours, in the whole district, and the other day when there was a general strike, or a general holiday—the two things are somewhat synonymous in Ireland—announced for a particular day, in a number of post offices in the North of Ireland, which were preponderatingly Unionist and Protestant, the Sinn Feiners in the post office refused to work in the post office. That is a pleasant sort of performance by Government officials. When we asked the Postmaster-General about it, he said, "It is quite true." We said, "What are you going to do with them?" He said, "I cannot do anything with them. I cannot dismiss the whole Service." Now you are setting up a Government for the North of Ireland, and as a good start for that Government you say to them, "Whether you like it or not, and practically without a voice in the matter, you must take over as your servants these men, who have been working against you and fighting against you all this time, and who have, even under the Government of the Imperial Parliament, been refusing to carry out duties which have to be performed." Do you want to make the new Governments a success or do you not? How are they to operate with such officials? If the South of Ireland does, as I apprehend it will do, begin at once to try to destroy the North of Ireland. they will have a spy in every post office and in every other office in the whole place. And those are the auspices under which we are asked to carry on the new Government. I do not think it is fair.
  If it was a purely personal matter to me I should not of course mind, because I suppose the controversy will have ended for the time being, at all events, as far
  96
  as this House is concerned, and there may be such a state of affairs as may bring us back to the repeal of the whole Act. That is a matter which may eventually come, but I plead here on the part of the new Parliament that you are setting up in Ulster, which however we dislike it, we say we are determined to work as well as we can, do not overload us at the start with a number of officials who will be opposed to the whole Government. That is impossible, and that is what we are asked to do, and all the Amendment says is, let the Parliament that you are setting up have a voice as to whether it will have these officers or not. They are told they will not have a voice. That is a very funny kind of Parliament. We ask that the new Parliaments shall have a voice and we are told that is not a matter that can be granted. Then the right hon. Gentleman says it would be very expensive to charge the pensions of these men on the British Exchequer. But who is asking to have this Parliament set up? It is this House. It is not the people who constitute the Northern Parliament who are asking to have it set up. The right hon. Gentleman really thinks it is an extravagant proposition to put forward that if you wish to set up a Parliament and to give it a fair chance and you have to get rid of a number of officials, that the British Exchequer should pay for it. I cannot see the logic of that argument. I made a suggestion when the question of the police was being considered and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) said he would consider it, and I think it has been received with favour in many quarters. That was, that before you put the police under Governments that they might not wish to go under, you should dissolve the force and allow them to re-enlist if they like under either Parliament. The same thing as regards the Civil Service. If there are any of these men who will not be well received by either of these Parliaments, it is not fair to put them under the Parliament, nor is it fair to ask the Parliament to pay for them. I think the Amendment is most reasonable. It is very elementary that the Parliament should have a voice in the selection of the men who are going to do the work which it is asked to carry out. Anything else seems to me to be absurd, and I shall certainly support the Amendment.
  Dr. MURRAY: I have a good deal of sympathy with the spirit underlying the Amendment because I believe the Civil Service should, as far as possible, be loyal and in sympathy with the particular Government, but the question becomes a very practical one, and the Committee which the Government proposes to set up to decide the allocation of these officers seems to me, in the present circumstances, as far as the Government can go. The question arises, if a large number of these men are rejected by either Northern or Southern Ireland, who is to pay the pension. Are a large number of them—young men and possibly young women— to be thrown upon the pension fund of this country? Why should Great Britain pay? I should be inclined to suggest that the rejecting Government should pay the pensions of such of these officials as they chose to reject, and who are not accepted by the other Parliament. I do not see any other solution. It would be unfair to put the burden of payment upon the Parliament of Great Britain. I would give hon. Members what they want if they are willing to pay for it, but I am not willing that the British Treasury should pay for the luxury given to these Parliaments of rejecting some of these officials whom they do not like. They should pay for their pet aversions. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) said, that the Liberals proved that they could not govern Ireland, they certainly showed that they could govern Ireland better than the present Government can govern it to-day in any case.
  Lord R. CECIL: I do not quite understand about these pensions, which seem to be the really important part of the Amendment. Suppose an officer is transferred to the Northern Government, and the next day the Northern Government dismisses him. Who pays his pension? If it is paid by the United Kingdom, as I understand it is—
  Mr. WILSON: No, the Northern Parliament.
  Lord R. CECIL: In other words, none of these people are to receive any security for their pension when they are dismissed by the Government to which they are subject. I do not think that has been understood. I understood their rights were to be quite secure unless they
  98
  were dismissed for misconduct. That is a different matter. Whatever rights they had were to remain with them, and they were to receive the same security for being paid their pensions or compensation as they have now. I apprehend if they were dismissed without cause because they were supernumeraries, they would be entitled to a pension, and that would be paid, as now, out of funds provided by the United Kingdom. The effect of this Amendment would be to give 5.0 P.M. the right to the Northern Parliament to refuse to receive the civil servants transferred. In that case the pension would be payable and charged upon the funds of the United Kingdom; but if instead of that, under the Bill, they are received on a Monday and dismissed on a Tuesday, the pension would still be paid, as I understand it, as a charge on the funds of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it does not seem to me important whether you put this Amendment in or not; but it is important that the public should know the financial position, and whether we are really going to pay for all the things that are done by these Parliaments in Ireland in respect of their civil servants. If so, the country ought to know it. The Solicitor-General for Ireland says it is all right because we shall be able to deduct it from the taxes which are reserved. But supposing they fail to reserve these taxes; supposing they cannot collect them or get enough, what is to happen then? What would be our right of recourse against the Irish funds in order to recoup ourselves? This ought to be made clear. The public are sensitive on the question of economy, and we ought to know what we are being let in for.
  Mr. MOLES: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is that neither of the two Parliaments in Ireland should have any right whatever to have a say in the class of civil servant to be appointed. That is a novel doctrine, and if it were to prevail government would be impossible. If the Government persist in their attitude, I tell them very frankly that over a great part of Ireland they will make public service impossible. It has been said more than once in this House that the Post Office in Ireland, root and branch, is permeated with Sinn Fein, and that nobody who is sending a letter containing anything of confidence

  99
  would dream of sending it through the Post Office. If that is so, what on earth is the justice of suggesting that, although you have 70 or 80 per cent. of your Post Office servants who are absolutely untrustworthy and who disobey the Official Secrets Act and not one whom a private employer would keep, these servants must be retained? I do not know how the Government can make a proposal of that kind. Surely it is of the essence of the public service that where you are taking over a vast body of servants, for whose payment you must be responsible and with whose good or ill deeds you must put up, at least you are entitled to have some kind of right or veto against those who are more than suspect? Is it reasonable to expect that the Northern Parliament is to be supposed to carry on the postal service for the six counties?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is reserved.
  Mr. MOLES: Perhaps I had better not take the Post Office, as it is a reserved service for the time being.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON- EVANS: Hear, hear!
  Mr. MOLES: If the right hon. Gentleman who says "Hear, hear" had his way, we should have to take it over immediately, and then we should have to face the difficulties to which I have referred. Let us take any other service, and the argument that I have been advancing is as cogent as it would be against the Post Office. How can you expect us to carry on these important public services if the services are entirely disaffected and the civil servants in them declare that they will make government in Ulster as impossible as they are seeking, with success, to make it impossible in other parts of Ireland? How that can be considered a fair proposal in which we can be expected to acquiesce, I do not know. The proposal put forward by the Solicitor-General is: "You have a body of public servants and you have to deal with them somehow." That is another way of saying, "We, the Government, have to get them off our hands, and we do not care what happens." It is not for us to suggest a way out for the Government. As the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) said: "We have not sought this
  100
  Bill." Therefore, the difficulty with which you have to deal is not of our making, but we do say that, inasmuch as you are taking action in this particular matter, you have no right to saddle upon us a body of entirely untrustworthy public servants and expect us to pay for them and carry on the services effectively. It is quite unfair, and whatever the way out may be, it is your affair to find it. We make the position as strong as we can, that inasmuch as responsibility for carrying on these services is to be ours, you are entitled to give us a Civil Service which you can expect us to carry out.
  Captain W. BENN: We learn now that the party which is supposed to represent Ulster, represents it in such a way that their own Civil Service—
  Mr. MOLES: It is not our Civil Service.
  Captain BENN—that their own Civil Service is honeycombed with Sinn Fein, and the party of tolerance which is always afraid of Popery in Ireland sweeping away Protestants, desires to get power to sack all the Sinn Feiners employed in the service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not!"] Therefore, we find that the cry of intolerance is not entirely true of one party, and not true of the other. This is an Amendment to give power to the Northern Parliament to sack everybody who does not agree with them politically, and to do it at the expense of the British taxpayer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sack the lot!"] It is on these Debates on small points that we get the most light on the point of view of hon. Members who come from Ulster. They want to set up a political proscription in the Civil Service under the Northern Parliament, so that if a person does not agree with them, he can be discharged, and be paid by the British Exchequer. It is extraordinarily difficult to discuss these matters before we discuss the financial Clauses. I understand that the amount of pension will fall on a sum which is the adjustment between England and Ireland. The proportion is to be settled by the Joint Exchequer Board, but we have not discussed the Joint Exchequer Board or the financial Clauses, so we do not know whether, if we submit to the preposterous demand made by Ulster that there should be a clean sweep, a purge of the Civil Service of everyone who does not agree

  101
  with them, the sum will be fairly distributed by the Exchequer Board as between the parties responsible. It is incidents such as these which make one believe that this Bill is only so much waste paper; but although it has no value, the Debate has a very real value in showing us the true position of those in Ulster.
  Lord H. CECIL: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken misunderstands the position. The Liberal party persists in thinking that the difference which divides Ireland is a political difference. It is nothing of the kind. It is something more profound. My hon. Friends who represent Ulster are afraid, whether reasonably or unreasonably, that the disagreement which exists in Ireland is not the disagreement such as exists between the Liberals and Conservatives of this country or between the Methodists and Roman Catholics of this country, but it is such a difference as implies that those who differ from them will be organising civil war and revolution and treasonable conspiracy, while all the time they are nominally officials of the Northern Parliament. It is a difference in terms of civil war and not a disagreement in terms of partisan differences. It is precisely on that account that the Irish question is so difficult of solution. The Government proposal is difficult to contemplate without a smile. They accept, not perhaps in words, but in effect the view, of those who have been putting forward the irreconcilable character of the difference between the North and the the South, and, believing that they set up a Committee which is to be carefully balanced between the North and South, with the Lord Chief Justice of England, as the nearest approach to King Solomon that they can obtain, to give final judgment between the disputants. To that Committee—on the impartiality of which, at any rate, on the impartiality of the chairman they can rely —they entrust the powers of safeguarding the rights of civil servants, and the result of that is that super-imposed upon the absurdity of compulsorily dosing the Irish people with a nominal system of self-government which they loudly declare they do not desire. You dose a self-governing Parliament with officials they do not desire, and then you turn away, proud of your allegiance to the principle of autonomy, self-determination, and so on.
  102
  I do not see why, if you are going to give them government at all, you should not allow them to select their own Civil Servants. My Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) has pointed out that you are making a law which would entitle them to dismiss an official the day after he is appointed. Why not, under those circumstances, allow the Government of the Northern and Southern Parliaments decide whether they will have the officials appointed at all? It is not clear to me upon whom the cost will ultimately fall. We are told that the pensions are to be paid in the first place where a person fails to be appointed or where he is unreasonably dismissed by the Government of the North or the South. Of this the Committee is to judge. Having been dismissed, such person is to be paid out of funds which are paid to the British Exchequer in the first instance, but kept for the payment of Irish services. Does that mean that the loss will ultimately fall upon the Irish or upon the British taxpayer? The machinery is confessedly complicated, and I shall be glad if the Government will tell us whether the effect of that method of paying the pension means that the Irish taxpayer—I suppose the Irish taxpayer in all Ireland, and not distributed between the North or the South, although I am not sure of that—will have to pay. If not, which of the Irish taxpayers will have to pay, or, on the other hand, will the cost of these pensions have to be paid out of the taxes of England and Scotland? Does not this Amendment show, as all our discussions show, how farcical it is to proceed in the way the Government are proceeding, and how impossible it is to set up any form of self-government with the state of Irish opinion such as it is at the present time?
  Mr. STEWART: I wish to reinforce the position of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). Are we dealing with Irish or British money? If we are dealing with British money we should be very careful about the number of annuitants with which we saddle ourselves. We are pretty well overburdened as it is. With the spirit of the Amendment I have great sympathy. If you are going to impose on these Parliaments the liability to take over officers in whom they cannot place any confidence, I think that both Southern and Northern Parliaments should have a say in the matter. There is the difficulty that when

  103
  you get an overplus of officers you have got to treat them fairly. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) is not present, because he of all Members of this House, is in a position to have studied this question, as the naval service is now subject to a great overplus of officers, and they have gone into the question of how many officers should be retained, and the terms on which the services of the others should be discontinued. There must be an estimate about a matter of this sort. What is the liability of the Irish and the British Treasury if we have to provide pensions for all these officers whose services are not required?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This discussion has wandered away from the lucid statement made by the Solicitor-General for Ireland originally when explaining the Clause. This Clause only relates to officers who are not solely carrying on the work which is allocated either to the Northern or the Southern Parliament. All Post Office questions, except the actual headquarter staff at Dublin, are ruled out at once. The Post Office is a reserved service, and therefore neither Parliament is concerned with the staff, but even after union the question would not arise. It is only with regard to officers who are not solely carrying on work allocated to one of other of the Parliaments. As regards those, the claim is made that each Parliament should have a veto against anyone being transferred to the work of that Parliament without that Parliament's consent. I have a lot of sympathy with the desire of those who are going to administer the work of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, that the officials should be loyal officials, able to carry on the work; but we have given the protection that there is set up a joint Civil Service Committee, upon which each of the two Parliaments is represented, and upon which the Civil Service belonging to Northern Ireland will have a representative, and that belonging to Southern Ireland will have a representative. So that on that Committee you will have two Members definitely interested in the administration of Northern Ireland, and two definitely interested in the administration of Southern Ireland. There will be a Treasury representative and an independent chairman appointed by the
  104
  Lord Chief Justice of England, and the Committee will consider the names of various officers for transfer to one or other of the two Parliaments. If there is anybody to whom the Northern Parliament objects, the two Northern representatives can take exception to him, and similarly exception can be taken to any one to whom the Southern Parliament objects.
  Suppose that there were a veto given, and suppose this was accepted. Would it in practice work out in a different way? Would, in fact, there not have to be representatives of each of the two Governments considering the qualifications and past history of the officers who were to be transferred, and, in fact, would not the same procedure be carried out on behalf of the two Governments? I think it would myself, and I believe that we have given complete protection by this Bill. But suppose there were a case of an odd one or two officers to whom both Parliaments objected, then who is to pay the pension? As it stands now— I will deal with the finance in a very few words; it is quite simple—the pensions of retained officers retained in conditions stated in the Act, are chargeable upon the Consolidated Fund of this country. But under Clause 52, which we have already passed, there will be a deduction made from the payments which will ultimately be made to the two Parliaments of a sum equivalent to the pensions that are paid. So although the officers will get the security of the Consolidated Fund, the United Kingdom in fact will not pay any part of the pension, but each Parliament will be charged with the pensions of its own officers, and that is right. We are not proposing here to add as a permanent charge to our fund the liability for pensions. To all these officers we secure that their pensions are paid, but we take good care to make provision for the recovery of these moneys from the Irish Parliament. The question was asked, what if they do not pay the taxes? It can hardly be conceived that the taxes whose collection we retain, Customs and Excise and Income Tax, raising to-day very many millions a year, will go into default to such an extent that we shall not have in our hands ample security for any payment charged upon the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain. We have, therefore, machinery

  105
  for the choice of officers which is as good machinery as could be set up, even if the Amendment were accepted. We have given to the officers proper security for the payment of the pensions, and, as regards this country, we have got a proper method adopted for the recovery from the Irish Parliaments of payments made.
  Lord H. CECIL: If a man is dismissed immediately after appointment?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Then he will get his pension, if he is entitled to a pension. He is not entitled to a pension simply because he is dismissed. If he is dismissed on the ground that he is disloyal, or anything of that kind, he will not get a pension.
  Captain W. BENN: Who is to judge of his being disloyal? Is it the hon. Member for St. Augustine?
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I should be a very good judge.
  Captain BENN: I do not doubt that.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer is, that the master of the servant will determine whether or not he is to be dismissed, subject to the servant's rights at law, and if the master comes to the conclusion that the servant is not carrying out his work properly he will dismiss him. If a master improperly dismisses a servant, the servant can enforce his rights. If he is dismissed by the Northern Government, it will be the Northern Government which will be responsible, and similarly with respect to the Southern Government.
  Mr. INSKIP: This is an Amendment of substance and importance. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has rather overlooked the last Sub-section of his own Clause, which lays down the principle that these officers are to be allocated to the Northern or Southern Parliament in accordance with the wishes of the officers concerned. I should have thought it more reasonable that the wishes of the Government concerned should be the dominating principle upon which the officers should be allocated. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the excellence of the Committee who will be appointed to allocate these officers. The Civil Service Committee, by the terms of the Clause, will receive directions, and
  106
  directions which they have to carry out, to give effect to the wishes of the officers, and will not therefore be in a position to give effect to what may be the desires of their own Government. I should have thought that this Amendment would be regarded as reasonable, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept it.
  Mr. RAFFAN: The Noble Lord, the Member for Oxford, says that the Liberal Party are constitutionally incapable of appreciating the Irish question, because they do not quite realise how acute the differences of opinion in Ireland are. I would like to know whether it is his view that the Civil Service in Northern Ireland should be manned entirely by those who do not share the view of the majority of the Irish people, because if that is so, it would be extremely difficult to carry out administration in such a way as to give any evidence of real fairness. We have just ascertained, as the result of local government elections, that two counties are to be transferred to the Northern Parliament against their will, and, apparently, if this Amendment were carried it is intended to be set up a method of discrimination, not as regards the capacity of the Civil Servants whom it proposed to take over, but as regards their opinions. Apparently, every person, however capable he may be for the work entrusted to him, if he holds opinions which do not agree with the view of the majority of those who control this Parliament, then he is to be shut out entirely from the Civil Service. What it would mean in practice is that nearly half the people under the control of the Northern Parliament will be shut out from any administrative position whatever.
  I do not vouch for the figures, though if they are wrong the hon. Member for Belfast can correct them, but I have been informed that in the past, under the Belfast Corporation and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, there has been just such a veto upon the claims of those who do not profess the political views or the religious views of the majority. If that be so, then the House must view with some apprehension any proposal which seeks to apply the same test to the whole of the Civil Service in Northern Ireland. If you had not to deal with an existing Civil Service, there would be no answer to the case made by the mover of the Amendment, but he has not at all

  107
  attempted to deal with the fact that you have the Civil Service there, and that it would be an extremely wasteful proceeding to put the whole of those civil servants immediately upon the pension list and to begin to make fresh appointments. On the other hand, if you are to take advantage of their training and capacity, it seems to me that either you are bound to adopt some such proposal as the Government have put into the Bill or to find some other arrangement which will guarantee that the people of this country are not saddled with the enormous cost of pensioning the whole of the Civil Service of Ireland.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 57.—(Continuation of service of, and compensation to, members of the police forces.)
  Lord H. CECIL: Would not the Government be wise to postpone this Clause, which appears to deal with a question that is reserved for their consideration?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We could pass the Clause pro forma without prejudice to undertakings that have been given.
  Lord H. CECIL: I beg to move "That consideration of the Clause be postponed."
  This Clause makes very elaborate arrangements, all of which will have to be discussed if the Government adopt the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson)— a suggestion which they appear to be considering favourably. I should have thought that the appropriate course would have been to drop the Clause out of the Bill at this stage or to postpone it to be dealt with at the same time as the other financial Clauses, because by that time the Government will have made up their mind and will be able to put into a new Clause the details of any arrangements they make.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope my Noble Friend will not persist in his Motion. This Clause forms part of a series of Clauses, some of which have already been put in. There is the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend (Mr.
  108
  Long) to reconsider the whole question of the police. I do not know what the Bill will look like if we do not deal with the Clause while we are about it. I can foresee considerable drafting difficulties in framing the new scheme unless we have before us either all the old scheme or none of it. We have already part of the old scheme in the Bill, and it is much more convenient that the rest of it should go in, without prejudice to the undertaking already recorded with regard to reconsideration.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope this Clause will be postponed. The whole question of the Royal Irish Constabulary is exciting the greatest possible interest, not only in Ireland, but in this country. The Constabulary are discharging a very difficult and dangerous task in Ireland, and passing this Resolution pro formâ—
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If my right hon. Friend thinks there is any advantage to the Committee in postponing the Clause, I will agree to postpone it, but I think that in the matter of drafting it will be a great deal better to have it there in considering Amendments.
  Major Earl WINTERTON: I am very glad of that, but I should like to have a little more definite information as to the procedure the Government propose to adopt regarding the police. My right hon. Friend has stated that he would—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The object of postponement is to put off discussion for a time. We can only discuss reasons why the Clause should be postponed.
  Earl WINTERTON: If I may respectfully request it, would you point out what word I have uttered that is out of Order? I should be very grateful.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood the Noble Lord was proceeding to discuss the question of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Earl WINTERTON: I was proceeding to do nothing of the sort. I merely wished to say I would like to know when the Government are going to give us an opportunity of discussing this matter. On a point of Order. May I qut a question? The proposal before the Committee is that this Clause should be postponed. May I ask whether it is in Order on such a ques-

  109
  tion to ask the Government to what date it is proposed to postpone the discussion?
  The DEPUTY- CHAIRMAN: That would be quite in Order.
  Earl WINTERTON: That was what I was proceeding to say when you interrupted me in the middle of a sentence. The point I wish to put is this: We have, by a former decision, decided to postpone consideration of the Financial Clauses. We are now going to postpone consideration of the Clauses dealing with the police. I would like to ask whether, pending the discussion of the Police Clauses, the Government are taking steps to ascertain from the police themselves what are their views on the matter. I think I am not travelling outside the scope of the Motion in mentioning that, on the 1912 Bill, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Birrell), on a similar proposal being made to postpone the Police Clauses, stated that steps had been taken, pending discussion of the question by the House after postponement, to ascertain the views of the police, both by means of county committees and by means of a central committee representing the whole force, and that this inquiry would be completed before the Clause was taken. If this Clause is postponed now, will the Government make a real effort to ascertain the views of the police themselves on the Clause? I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given by Mr. Birrell in this sHouse in April, 1913, when a similar point arose.
  Captain W. BENN: Before we come to a decision on the Amendment, I should be much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he would repeat what was the pledge given by the Government to the right hon. Member for Duncairn in reference to the police. I have some idea what it was, but I am not quite clear.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: There has been no private undertaking given. It was made in Committee, and it is, of course, recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There are communications going on now with regard to the new scheme, and the whole matter will receive consideration before the Clause is brought up again for discussion.
  Earl WINTERTON: With whom are the communications? That is an
  110
  important point. Are the views of the police being ascertained? Are the police being consulted through properly constituted committees?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: They are being consulted, yes; but whether it is being done through what my Noble Friend calls "properly constituted committees" is another matter. That I really cannot say. After all, what is the proposal? The proposal we have undertaken to consider is that the service should be wound up within a period, and that the men should be allowed to re-engage. That is not a matter upon which there would necessarily be detailed consultation with representatives of the police.
  Earl WINTERTON: I understand that there are in Ireland, as in this country, committees set up by the police, and to such committees questions of this kind might be put. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this, and ascertain whether or not the opinion of the police as a whole has been ascertained through those committees? It is most important that their views should be taken before we discuss this Clause. When the Clause is again discussed, three or four weeks hence, we do not want to be told that the views of the police have not been obtained.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Noble Lord's suggestion shall receive consideration, and the course he suggests will, no doubt, be adopted.
  Question, "That consideration of the Clause be postponed," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 58.—(Continuation of Existing Laws, Institutions, etc.)
  All existing laws, institutions, and authorities in Ireland, whether judicial, administrative, or ministerial, and all existing taxes in Ireland, shall, except as otherwise provided by this Act, continue as if this Act had not passed, but with the modifications necessary for adapting them to this Act, and subject, as respects matters within the powers of the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, and after the date of Irish Union within the powers of the Parliament of Ireland, to repeal, abolition, alteration, and adaptation in the manner and to the extent authorised by this Act.
  Major O'NEILL: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words
  "so, however, that such modification, repeal, abolition, alteration, or adaptation shall be

  111
  without prejudice to and shall not affect or diminish the rights or privileges of any existing officer of a local authority under the provisions of the Local Government (Ireland) Acts, 1898 to 1919, or any Act relating to superannuation or retiring allowances."
  Mr. WILSON: The Government are willing to continue the protection of the Acts already in existence, but it is considered that the better way of doing that would be not to accept this Amendment, but to propose it in the form of a new Clause to be moved later.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 59.—(Use of Crown Lands by Irish Governments.)
  His Majesty the King in Council may place under the control of the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, for the purposes of that Government, or under the control of the Council of Ireland for the purposes of that Council, such of the lands, buildings, and property in Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland respectively vested in or held in trust for His Majesty, and subject to such conditions or restrictions (if any) as may seem expedient.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Captain W. BENN: It is rather an extraordinary thing that in a Bill which proposes to alter the constitution of these islands a Clause should be put to the Committee without a word of explanation by the Government.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 60.—(Promotion in Civil Service.)
  Where it is proposed to fill a position in the civil service of the Crown in Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland by the appointment thereto of a person not already in that service, and the position is one which before the appointed day was customarily filled by the promotion of a person in the civil service of the Crown notice of the proposed appointment shall one week at least before it is made be published in the "Gazette" that is to say, the publication in Southern or Northern Ireland corresponding to the "London Gazette."
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  The purpose of this Clause was to provide that where it was proposed to fill positions in the Civil Service by the appointment of persons not already serving publicity should be given to that step. There was considerable anxiety
  112
  felt amongst members of the Irish Civil Service, that the newly constituted Governments would go out of their way to appoint outsiders to the Civil Service, and this Clause was put in the Bill to meet that apprehension. The Committee of the Irish Civil Service now think that this Clause would serve as an invitation to the two Irish Governments to appoint outsiders. We think that that apprehension is quite reasonable, and consequently I move the omission of the Clause.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 61.—(Arrangements between Departments.)
  Arrangements may be made by any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom for the exercise and performance on behalf of that Department of any powers or duties of that Department by officers of a Department of the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, or by any Department of the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland for the exercise and performance on behalf of that Department of any powers or duties of that Department by officers of a Department of the Government of the United Kingdom, or by officers of a Department of the Government of Northern Ireland or Southern Ireland, as the case may be, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed:
  Provided that no such arrangements shall diminish in any respect the responsibility of the Department by which the arrangement is made.
  Mr. D. M. WILSON: I beg to move, after the word "Ireland" ["Ireland, or by any Department"], to insert the words "or by officers of the Council of Ireland."
  Ths is a Clause to enable Departments of the Government of the United Kingdom to make arrangements for the exercise and performance on behalf of the particular Department of any powers or duties of that Department by officers of a Department of the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, and this Amendment proposes to include officers of the Council of Ireland amongst those with whom arrangements can be made.
  Captain W. BENN: We all know that there is going to be an Ulster Parliament, and that the rest is going to be done by Dublin Castle. In that case, how is this complicated operation of inter-Departmental management to work, when everybody will be nominated by Dublin Castle

  113
  except in the case of the Parliament in Belfast? This is purely a fantastic image in which not a single Member of the House believes. An explanation as to what will be the exact value of this Clause under the circumstances I have mentioned might contribute to our conception of what will really happen if and when this Bill passes.
  Lord H. CECIL: I hope that the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman will receive a reply. As I understand, this Amendment applies to the Clause to the Council of Ireland. The Clause now refers to two Governments in Ireland, but it is far more likely that there are going to be four, or there might be four. There is certainly going to be the Council of Ireland, and in a new Clause an Order-in-Council may direct that certain things may be done. I understand the object of this Clause is to facilitate the smooth working between the different departments of the rather complicated machinery of this Bill.
  Mr. FISHER: I wonder my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain W. Benn) thought fit to ask his question, because if he reads the Suspensory Clause, which we shall discuss later, he will see that in the unfortunate event of the Southern Parliament not functioning there will be a nominated Assembly, and the Council of Ireland will also operate. The administrative dispositions of this Clause will be carried out, whether the Legislature in the South is nominated or elected.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Does this mean that a Department of the United Kingdom is to carry out, say, agricultural functions through the Irish Agricultural Department or police arrangements through the police in Ireland—
  Earl WINTERTON: Several hon. Gentlemen have questions to put on this Clause generally, and is the hon. Member not going outside the scope of the Amendment?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: A general discussion of the Clause would take place on the question that the Clause stand part.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I should have thought it would be better to consider on this Amendment what would be the general
  114
  working of the Clause. Are these arrangements as to police, law, agriculture or customs to be carried out by the Departments in Ireland on the responsibility of the Department in the United Kingdom which makes the arrangements?
  Earl WINTERTON: As it seems we can raise the whole question on this Amend ment—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not rule to that effect. The Amendment is to insert the words "or by officers of the Council of Ireland." That does not mean it is a question of the whole Clause.
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not propose to go beyond the scope of the remarks just made by my hon. Friend. I think we should be grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain W. Benn) for putting a question on this Clause, which seems to me a curious one, and which otherwise might have been passed sub silentio. I think it is very desirable when a point is raised from the Front Opposition Bench that a reply should be made. This Clause says: Arrangements may be made by any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom for the exercise and performanace on behalf of that Department of any powers or duties of that Department by officers of a Department of the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, and it is now proposed to add the words "or by officers of the Council of Ireland." That will add to the confusion which already exists in the Clause by giving power to make arrangements with another Department. Without fuller explanation I think it would be undesirable to pass either this Clause or the Amendment. The last thing we want to do is to give Departments more power than they already possess. Any Clause which allows a Department of the United Kingdom to make arrangements with Departments of the Irish Government seems to me to be very dangerous. If any such arrangements are to be made they should be made, not through Departments, but through the Government of the United Kingdom with the Parliaments in Ireland. I do not understand why we should propose to allow a Department of one Government to make arrangements with a Department of another Government. It is a proposal in accordance with the procedure adopted in so many Government Departments and which

  115
  the Government themselves are adopting, and that is of doing things through Departmental rather than through Cabinet responsibility. That I regard as a dangerous proposal.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. FISHER: I agree that the Committee is entitled to further information on this Clause. Let me observe, in the first place, that this is a purely permissive Clause. It enables arrangements to be made between a Department of the United Kingdom and a Department either of the Northern or of the Southern Parliament in Ireland, and we are here proposing to insert an Amendment to enable such arrangements also to be made between any of these Departments and any Department of the Council of Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) wanted to know how this would work and what is the purpose of it. We are proposing in this Bill to entrust to the Council of Ireland functions in connection with railways and with fisheries. Is it extravagant to enable the Council of Ireland, which deals with fisheries, to make administrative arrangements with the Agricultural Departments either of Northern Ireland or of Southern Ireland, or is it extravagant to ask the Council of Ireland, which deals with railways, to make such arrangements as may seem to be convenient and suitable with that Department of the Imperial Government concerned with the collection of Customs and Excise? That seems to be a mere matter of administrative routine and convenience. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is afraid of departmental tyranny, but let me draw his attention to the last words of this Clause—
  "Provided that no such arrangements shall diminish in any respect the responsibility of the Department by which the arrangement is made."
  Earl WINTERTON: Responsibility to whom?
  Mr. FISHER: The responsibility of a Northern Irish Department will be to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, of a Southern Irish Department to the Parliament of Southern Ireland, and of a Department of the Government of the United Kingdom to this House. In any case the responsibility would be on the Minister responsible for the Department.
  116
  In the case of the Council I would remind the Noble Lord that the Council is to be elected by the two Parliaments in Ireland, and although it is true that the responsibility in that instance is not so direct, yet there is an indirect responsibility to the Northern and Southern electors. This Clause really is not a Clause of any great constitutional importance, but it is a Clause which will have a definite administrative convenience, and I hope I have satisfied the Committee that it should be retained in the Bill.
  Mr. INSKIP: The right hon. Gentleman has done his best to satisfy the Committee, but I confess I am quite mystified by this Clause. We shall, I am sure, be only too happy if it will facilitate the transfer of proper duties to the Council or to the Northern or Southern Parliament, if these Governments come into existence and show themselves competent and willing parts of the Government of the United Kingdom and of Ireland, but one of the objections to this Clause seems to me to be that it is so permissive, and that it is drawn in such a way, that the vagueness of it really gives us no guide as to the use which is likely to be made of it. The proviso, coupled with the Amendment to be proposed later, mystifies me too, because the proviso says, with the Amendment, that "no such arrangement shall diminish in any respect the responsibility of the Department [or Council] by which the arrangement is made. The only Department whose responsibility could be diminished by such an arrangement is a Department of the Government of the United Kingdom, and I cannot understand how the responsibility of a Department of either the Northern or Southern Government in Ireland, or of the Council, could be diminished by having a duty put upon it. Therefore I think the real object of the proviso is to prevent a Government Department of the United Kingdom coming down and saying that under Clause 61 of the Government of Ireland Act they have transferred certain duties to the Government of Northern or Southern Ireland or of the Council, and that, therefore, they are no longer responsible to the House of Commons for the performance of such duties.
  If that is the intention of the proviso, does it not show the fog in which the draughtsman was in that it is now proposed to insert the words "or Council"?

  117
  I suggest that the draughtsman's doubtfulness only arose from the vagueness of his instructions. I want to ask another question. Arrangements may be made by any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom; are they to be revocable or irrevocable? Supposing my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman beside him (Captain W. Benn) are responsible for the Government, and they think it may be convenient to transfer the duties and the powers of Government Departments to the Council of Ireland; when they cease to hold office, will those arrangements which they have made be revocable by, shall I say, a more sane or a more competent Government? If it it is merely to facilitate the performance of duties which can more conveniently be performed by local officials, I think there is a good deal to be said for such a Clause.
  Mr. LONG: Hear, hear!
  Mr. INSKIP: My right hon. Friend indicates that that is the object of the Clause. If so, I hope words will be inserted subsequently, making it plain that these arrangements are revocable at the direction of the Government Department of the United Kingdom which makes the arrangements from time to time, and that the officers of the Council and of the two Governments of Northern and Southern Ireland are merely Ministers who are carrying out the directions and behests of the Department in this country concerned.
  Mr. LONG: Hear, hear!
  Mr. FISHER: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Inskip) for his observations, which, have, I think, a real relevance to this Clause, and we shall be very glad to consider what words can be put in to safeguard the points he has raised.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: The speech of the President of the Board of Education raises what I think is a serious question, namely, the responsibility of the Council of Ireland. He pointed to the proviso to this Clause, and said that in certain cases the Council would be responsible. I can quite understand that a Department of either the Southern or Northern Parliament in Ireland would be responsible to their own Parliament, but what
  118
  I should like to know is who will be responsible for the actions of the Council. Supposing, in the exercise of their powers under this Clause, they do something which is disapproved of and is challenged, who is to answer for them, and who is responsible for them? Will there be anyone in this House who will be responsible, or will there be anyone in either the Northern or Southern Parliament in Ireland who will be responsible for them?
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: Surely the action of the Council can never be challenged under this Clause. The object of the Clause is simply to facilitate arrangements between Departments. It is entirely a matter of convenience that the Department responsible to the United Kingdom Parliament should be able to make arrangements for the carrying out of some of its duties by the Department responsible either to the Southern Parliament or to the Northern Parliament in Ireland. It is a common enough arrangement here to-day in England, Scotland, and Ireland. As to the point whether any such arrangement would be revocable, how is it possible to explain the final proviso of the Clause unless it is quite clear that it is revocable? The Department that makes the arrangement is to continue to be responsible, even although it gets another Department to act for it. It is not the Department with which it makes the arrangement that is to be responsible, but the Department that makes the arrangement, and that is to say that it can withdraw the arrangement at any moment it chooses. I do not know about the law in England, but I do know about the law in Scotland, and there are provisions relating to the feeding of children in schools for which the Education Department in Scotland is responsible, but it hands over the charge to one of the Local Authorities. It supervises the whole thing and continues to be responsible, but it is another Department that is actually carrying out the duties. This Clause, I take it, is merely giving powers to a Department of the United Kingdom to make an arrangement with a Department of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or Southern Ireland to carry out duties that rest primarily on a United Kingdom Department, and in the same way the Clause gives the power to the two Irish Parliaments to entrust certain of their duties

  119
  to a Department responsible to the United Kingdom Parliament, and I submit that the Clause ought to be passed as it is, and that it is quite clear that it is a revocable power.
  Dr. MURRAY: To a dull-minded person like myself, the only thing I can gather from the discussion is that such a Clause is not necessary. We have an elastic British Constitution, and why lay down rules and regulations for every detail of government in the case of Ireland? We have the power in this United Kingdom between England and Scotland; in educational matters I understand the Scottish Department acts sometimes for the English Department, and vice versa, and why put a provision of this sort in the Bill stereotyping certain rules and regulations? The Government could withdraw this Clause without doing any damage at all to the Bill.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to the responsibility for the acts of the Council of Ireland?
  Mr. FISHER: I gather that the hon. Baronet is anxious about the responsibility of the Council of Ireland. Hs asks in effect to whom are the members of the Council responsible, and what check have the Parliaments in Ireland over the misuse of the functions delegated to the Council of Ireland. I think I can put my answer in two propositions. In the first place, the Council of Ireland is composed of representatives elected in equal numbers from the North and the South of Ireland. In the second place, if the hon. Baronet will refer to Clause 10, Subsection (6), he will see that the Northern and Southern Parliaments have the power of revoking any power or function delegated to the Council of Ireland. If, therefore, the Northern or Southern Parliaments are discontented with the use of any power delegated to the Council of Ireland, it is within their province to revoke that power, and, consequently, they have a very considerable hold upon the Council of Ireland.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the only check upon the action of the Council of Ireland a revocation of their power? That is a very extreme measure to adopt.
  Mr. FISHER: It is not the only check. As I pointed out, the Council of Ireland consists of delegates of the two parts of Ireland, that in itself constitutes a security, if not a check.
  Mr. M. MACDONALD: May I ask if the question of responsibility of the Council arises on this?
  The CHAIRMAN: It certainly does not arise on this Clause or on the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: After the word "Ireland" ["or Northern Ireland for the exercise"] insert the words "or by the Council of Ireland."
  After the word "Department" ["that Department of any powers or duties of that Department by officers"] insert the words "or Council."
  After the word "Department" ["that Department by officers of a Department of the Government of the United Kingdom"] insert the words "or Council."—[Mr. D. M. Wilson.]
  Mr. D. M. WILSON: I beg to move, after the word "Department" ["responsibility of the Department by which the arrangement is made"] to insert the words "or Council."
  Mr. INSKIP: I understand these words are not required here, because the responsibility affects the Department making the arrangements, namely, any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I, too, am entirely mystified by the proposal to insert the words in this place.
  Mr. M. MACDONALD: The arrangement is a reciprocal arrangement, so far as I understand. In the first Amendment we inserted the words "or by officers of the Council of Ireland," and it is necessary to insert the words "or Council" in every case where, according to the Amendment paper, it is proposed to insert them. Supposing the Council has certain duties entrusted to it, and makes an arrangement with one of the Parliaments in Ireland to carry out some of its duties, the responsibility still rests primarily with the Council, and with the officers of the Council, and you insert the words "or Council" here when you say the responsibility is still to continue with the Council.
  Mr. FISHER: I am convinced by the right hon. Gentleman's argument that we do want the words here.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: If my right hon. Friend is convinced by the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I beg him to answer this question. The proviso says
  "that no such arrangements shall diminish in any respect the responsibility of the Department by which the arrangement is made."
  Can such an arrangement be made by anyone except a Department of the Government of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. MACDONALD: It is reciprocal.
  Lord H. CECIL: I do not see why you should not also put in "Governments." If you are going to safeguard the responsibilities of everyone, you ought to safeguard the Governments of the two Irish Parliaments and the United Kingdom. All these bodies have Departments under them. Either you ought not to put in "or Council" or you ought to put in a great deal more.
  Sir H. CRAIK: A Department of the Government of the United Kingdom, for its own convenience, might hand over the performance of its duties to a Department acting under the control of the Southern Parliament or the Northern Parliament or the Council of Ireland. On the other hand, any Department under the Parliament of Southern Ireland, or the Parliament of Northern Ireland, or the Council, might arrange for the performance of its duties to be handed over to a Department of the Government of the United Kingdom. Surely, all we need to mention is the Department, and not either the Government or the Council, but if you do insert the Council, which I think is perfectly unnecessary, then I think you must insert the Governments.
  Mr. MACDONALD: If you know there are to be Departments under the Council, it is quite unnecessary to insert the word "Council," but that is not stated. In that case, the first Amendment ought not to stand exactly as it stands, because the words "or by officers of the Council of Ireland" imply that the Council of Ireland employs its own officers to carry out its own duties without the interven-
  122
  tion of Departments. It is because those words are inserted in the first Amendment that it is necessary to insert this Amendment. If it had simply been "or Department of the Council," then it would have been unnecessary to insert the words "or Council" by this Amendment.
  Major O'NEILL: In view of the great divergence of opinion about this small point, I would suggest that the Government should not press this Amendment, but should go into the whole matter again with the draftsman, and find out really what is meant, and then bring it up on Report. The President of the Board of Education was first of all absolutely convinced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. Inskip) that these words were not necessary, and then the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. M. Mac-Donald) convinced him, even more than my hon. Friend, that they are necessary, and I really doubt if there is any Member of the Committee who knows exactly whether they are necessary or not. So far as I can make out, it is necessary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) suggests, that, if you put in the words "or Council," you should also put in the words "or the Government of Northern or Southern Ireland." I do not see why, if you say the responsibility of the Council is in no way to be diminished, you should not say the responsibility of the Governments of Northern and Southern Ireland is not to be diminished. The discussion has been so curious that I do not know what is or what is not meant, and I think it would be much better for the Government to bring the matter up later.
  Captain COOTE: Surely the matter is perfectly clear. There are three originating authorities, namely, the Department of the Government of the United Kingdom, the Department of the Government of Northern or Southern Ireland, and the Council. The word "Department" in the proviso, I should think, covers either the Department of the United Kingdom or the Department of the Government of Northern Ireland or the Department of the Government of Southern Ireland. Therefore, if you insert the words "or Council", they cover the three authorities, and the meaning of the Clause is perfectly clear.
  Captain W. BENN: We have had a very interesting discussion. The Government first proposed an Amendment, then they withdrew it.
  Mr. FISHER: No, they did not.
  Captain BENN: Well, they admitted that they had been convinced of error.
  Mr. FISHER: They withdrew it for the moment, to consider best how to fit it in.
  Captain BENN: That is the point. The right hon. Gentleman was convinced by the arguments against the Amendment, now he has been re-fortified, and he or his Department is persisting in the Amendment. It ought to be clear how far this Amendment carries us. The Council has had to be the nucleus Parliament for all Ireland. Therefore quite clearly if the Government, or the Council of Ireland, transfer powers to Departments, it ought to be made perfectly plain as to what exactly those powers are.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Captain BENN: This Clause permits a Government Department in England to transfer certain of its powers to any party in Ireland. The general purpose is to transfer powers, or is the delegation of powers—
  Mr. FISHER: No, no.
  Captain BENN: Well, I will read the Clause, and perhaps we shall understand exactly what it does—
  "Arrangements may be made by any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom for the exercise and performance on behalf of that Department of any powers or duties….."
  Mr. FISHER: Hear, hear!
  Captain BENN: Well, I called that, in my desire to save time, delegation of powers.
  "……the exercise and performance on behalf of that Department of any powers or duties of that Department by officers of a Department of the Government of the United Kingdom……"
  We have had great discussions about railway administration, and on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Northern and Southern Parliaments have been given powers over the two railways.
  124
  At the same time the Council of Ireland is a Department which deals with the railways. It is the nucleus of that great united self-governing body which the Government set up by this Bill. There still remains certain powers to the Ministry of Transport in this country. Is there any provision made here for directing the Ministry of Transport as to how it should dispose of any powers and duties in respect of transport and railways as between the Government of Northern and Southern Ireland and the Railway Department of the Council of Ireland? There seems to me likely to be a good deal of jealousy between these three bodies in the exercise of their railway powers, and it would be a sad thing if the Home Department were to take one side against the other, and so increase the friction, which, I am perfectly certain, is bound to arise in Ireland.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 62.—(Special provisions as to Dublin University, Trinity College Dublin, and the Queen's University of Belfast.)
  (1) No law made by the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland shall have effect so as to alter the constitution, or divert the property of, or repeal or diminish any existing exemption or immunity enjoyed by the University of Dublin, or Trinity College, Dublin, or the Queen's University of Belfast, unless and until the proposed alteration, diversion, repeal, or diminution is approved:—
  (a) in the case of the University of Dublin, or Trinity College, Dublin, by a majority of those present and voting at a meeting of each of the following bodies convened for the purpose, namely, the governing body of the College, and the junior fellows and professors voting together, and the University Council, and the Senate; and
  (b) in the case of the Queen's University of Belfast, by a majority of those present and voting at a meeting of each of the following bodies convened for the purpose, namely: the Senate, and the Academic Council, and the Convocation of the University:
  Provided that this Section shall not apply to the taking of property (not being land in the occupation of or used in connection with the College or either of the Universities) for the purpose of roads, railways, lighting, water, or drainage works, or other works of public utility upon payment of compensation.
  (2) There shall be paid annually, out of moneys provided by the Parliament of

  125
  Northern Ireland, to the Queen's University of Belfast, a sum of eighteen thousand pounds for the general purposes of the University, and that sum if and so far as not so paid shall be deducted on the order of the Joint Exchequer Board from the Irish residuary share of reserved taxes and paid to the University.
  (3) Until the Joint Exchequer Board certify that the amount standing to the credit of the account of Trinity College under Section thirty-nine of the Irish Land Act, 1903, as adequate to afford the indemnity for which provision is made by that Section, there shall be paid annually out of moneys provided by the Parliament of Southern Ireland the sum of five thousand pounds to that account; and that sum, if and so far as not so paid, shall be deducted on the order of the Joint Exchequer Board from the Irish residuary share of reserved taxes and paid to that account.
  Sir W. WHITLA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Ireland" ["or Northern Ireland shall have."] to insert the words, "or after the date of Irish Union by the Parliament of Ireland."
  I shall content myself by formally moving the Amendment. Its object is simply to give additional security to the two universities in Ireland, and it is more in the interests of the Southern University, and of Trinity College, than that of the Northern University. I should be extremely grateful if the Government accept the Amendment.
  Mr. D. M. WILSON: The proviso suggested is quite unnecessary. The Parliament of Ireland after the date of Irish Union will have no more powers to make laws than the Parliament of the North or the South of Ireland had before. I would ask hon. Gentlemen to look at Clause 3 of the Bill where it says:
  "On the date of Irish union the Council of Ireland shall cease to exist and there shall be transferred to the Parliament and Government of Ireland all powers then exercisable by the Council of Ireland, and also the matters under which this Act cease to be reserved matters at the date of Irish union"—
  If hon. Members also look at Clause 4 they will see that if it were necessary to insert the Amendment of my hon. Friend in this Clause 62, it would also be necessary to insert it in Clause 4, for it says:
  "(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the Parliament of Southern Ireland and the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall respectively have power to make law for the peace, order and good government…."
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Before the withdrawal of the Amendment. I hope the
  126
  Government will consider two things. Firstly, is there any objection to the Amendment; and secondly, is it really unnecessary, in order that it may be made quite clear that neither the Northern nor the Southern Parliament can make laws affecting the universities—which is extremely important—and that the united Parliament will be unable to obtain that power either? I do not think the thing is quite clear, and I hope the Government will consider, if not now, at any rate before the Report Stage, whether it would not safeguard the position of the universities if the words were inserted.
  Lord H. CECIL: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman made it quite convincing that if you put this Amendment in here you will go back upon Clause 4.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: The only question is, is it quite clear that this limitation of powers will also apply to the united Parliaments?
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir W. WHITLA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "eighteen" ["a sum of eighteen thousand pounds"], and insert instead thereof "twenty-eight."
  This Amendment is simply to correct a technical statement or error. Subsection (2) says that there shall be paid annually to the Queen's University of Belfast £18,000 for the general purposes of the University. This amount was the amount stated in the 1914 Act. The Clause in which the words occur has been transferred to the present Bill. Since that time, however, the Government or the Treasury have been giving an additional grant of £10,000, of which £2,000 was for equipment. This grant was found to be absolutely essential for carrying on the University. We should have had to close under the altered conditions of the War, for the salaries were not sufficient to meet the requirements of the case, or some of the Departments would have been shut up if we had not got this money. We would be very much better without this Clause at all if un-amended, for it actually puts upon us a hardship. Ministers that I have consulted on this point tell me that there is no reason to be at all uneasy, for the Ulster Parliament will supply the additional £10,000. But there is no Clause in the Bill allowing that. We

  127
  might have a hope that we should get it, but as the Bill now stands, and if passed, you might be met by the Ulster Parliament with the argument, "We took you over on the understanding that the amount was £18,000." I appeal to all principles of fairness and justice that the £28,000 should be inserted in the place of the £18,000. What, assuming it stands, is to happen to the University in the interval between the suspension of this grant and the granting of the increased amount by the Ulster Parliament? It would be such a hardship that I believe it would knock our machinery wrong altogether.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley, I do not find—I think my recollection is correct—in the Resolution which was reported to-day anything that covers such an increase of charge as contemplated by the Amendment about to be put. I should like, if you will kindly intimate to the Committee whether I am right, that this suggested Amendment is not within the scope of that Money Resolution. If so, how does it come within the compass of the Committee at present, and until we have the Fnancial Resolution which was postponed until the Report of the Committee was submitted to the House?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I point out that the proposal is for a sum of £18,000 and the Amendment suggests £28,000 for the general purposes of the university out of the money provided by the Parliament for Northern Ireland.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is the point. Of course I scrutinised this very carefully, as I do all financial provisions, and I am satisfied that this proposal does not require a Money Resolution, and the Amendment is quite in order.
  Mr. FISHER: I am sure that my hon. Friend, who moved the Amendment, will realise that there is on the part of the Government no lack of sympathy with the admirable work which is being done at Queen's University, Belfast, and we are very anxious to see that university develop and thrive. Further, I am in entire agreement with the hon. Member when he tells the Commitee that the annual sum of £18,000 is necessary to meet the needs of the present university. This Clause provides for the continuance of the statu-
  128
  tory sum which has been assured in the past to the Queen's University of Belfast, and the reason why the Government did not put in another figure was that it felt that the interests of Queen's University, Belfast, would be safe in the hands of the Northern Parliament, and it was felt undesirable to fetter the discretion of that Parliament. It was also felt that probably the university would have a greater power to appeal to the patriotic citizens of the six counties if they were able to go to Parliament, and put their case in its entirety before them.
  It is perfectly true that the University Grants Committee came to the conclusion that the university required an additional annual grant of £8,000 a year, and over and above that, university grants have been made out of the sum placed at their disposal by the Treasury, and there has been a non-recurrent grant of £2,000 to repair the wastage of the War. The question which the Committee have to consider is whether, in view of the finding of the University Grants Committee, it is or is not desirable to increase the sum mentioned in this Clause. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment spoke of the Committee as having recommended an annual additional sum of £10,000. That is a slight error. The Committee recommended an annual grant of £8,000 and a non-recurrent grant of £2,000. I confess that the Government is anxious to do what is best for the University of Belfast; but I for one am in some doubt as to what really is the best course to pursue, and as to whether my hon. Friend, in proposing the sum he has proposed, is doing what he believes is the most advisable course in the interests of the university itself. The University Grants Committee made this recommendation after a preliminary survey of the needs of the universities of Great Britain and Ireland, and since that recommendation was made, the same Committee has made further careful inquiries, and I think it is quite possible they will make a further recommendation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on some other occasion later on. Asuming that this definite figure is put into the Bill, what will be the attitude of the Belfast Parliament? Will they consider that their obligations are already discharged?
  I confess that in this matter I will be guided by the advice of the Ulster Members, but let me say that if the hon.

  129
  Member should persist in his Amendment, the Government is ready to alter the figure from £18,000 to the figure of £26,000, leaving out of account the non-recurrent grant, and adding the annual grant recommended by the University Grants Committee. Whether it would be wise to accept this proposal is a matter on which local knowledge should decide. Our view was that probably the best course was to leave the care of the University to the Northern Parliament, and the generosity of the citizens. We were anxious not to fetter the discretion of the Northern Parliament, but if the hon. Member who moved this Amendment and his friends from the North, think it desirable to substitute £26,000 for the £18,000 in the Clause, the Government are willing to move that Amendment.
  Mr. REID: I have no hesitation in saying, that I believe the bulk of those connected with University would be ready to adopt the course taken by the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment. A great deal may be said for leaving the care of the University to the Northern Parliament, and there may be a point about throwing the University on the generosity of the Northern Parliament. However, I see no reason for putting in this Clause an insufficient sum, and it has been found impossible to carry on the University efficiently with the present grant. The citizens of the North have already shown their generosity towards this University, but that is no reason why the State, when bringing in a new Constitution, and altering all the financial arrangements, should do anything to jeopardise the financial position of that University Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that those connected with the University will support the action which has been taken in this matter.
  Sir W. WHITLA: It is absolutely essential that we should get this money, and if we cannot get more than this £8,000 now, I still make an appeal to the Government to increase that sum. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to give the whole £10,000, I shall have to be content with £8,000. The University is in urgent want of funds, and we are appealing for £100,000 because we believe there is not much hope of getting any further sum from the Government when there is such difficulty about getting this paltry £2,000.
  Sir E. CARSON: I think the Minister for Education has met us fairly upon this matter, but with reference to what he has said, though I think this sum goes a very short way towards what is really required, from what I know of Belfast I think the most useful work undertaken in the North of Ireland is that of trying to procure funds for this University. There is an enormous field for university work, an immense number of students, and plenty of material. It is not a question of £8,000 or £10,000, but, as my hon. Friend has already pointed out, it is a question of £100,000. When Parliament meets, in the first place, it will have an immense number of questions to deal with. It may be a very long time before they can take up the university question at all. As far as I can see, the Government are determined that their first act will be the very complicated and controversial question of primary education. I do not see any prospect of the Government fulfilling their promises about primary education which they have made so often in this House. In the second place, the new Parliament will be faced by a number of unforeseen items of expenditure which a young Parliament will have to incur, and to risk the stoppage of this grant of £8,000 would be one which no party who had the interests of Belfast at heart could properly undertake. I hope, as the Minister of Education said he would leave it to us in the Bill, he will on those grounds allow us to accept his offer, and it should be made clear in the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member for Belfast University would like to withdraw his Amendment and move it in the new form suggested by the Minister for Education.
  Sir W. WHITLA: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the word "eighteen," and insert instead thereof the words "twenty-six".—[Sir W. Whitla.]
  Captain W. BENN: I understand that this money will come out of the residuary share of taxes. Is that so? I suppose this is not imposing any additional charge.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have already dealt with that matter on a point of Order when the hon. and gallant Member was absent.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 63.—(Special Provisions as to Freemasons.)
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East Down (Mr. Reid) deals with a matter which was settled on the last Clause.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  7.0 P.M.
  Captain BENN: Are we going really to pass whole Clauses of this Bill without a word of explanation from the Government? Does it not show that the whole thing is a farce? That is how it strikes me. There are, however, I presume Members of Parliament who imagine that in this Bill they are framing a Constitution for Ireland—
  The CHAIRMAN: These remarks are quite irrelevant. It is not necessary for Ministers to get up and explain every Clause. The Question I have put is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and the hon. and gallant Member must address his remarks to that point.
  Captain BENN: I submit I am asking the Government whether they are going to explain these special provisions. They are not, apparently. They have pursued this course on several occasions. It is a matter of pure indifference to me, because I do not believe this Clause will ever become operative; but I do ask, is it consistent with the self-respect of the Committee that whole Sections of the Bill should be passed without a word of explanation or defence from occupants of the Treasury Bench?
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 64.—(Repeal of s. 16 of 21 & 22 Geo. 3, c. 11 (Irish).
  The powers conferred by Section sixteen of the Act passed by the Irish Parliament in the Session held in the twenty-first and twenty-second years of the reign of His Majesty King George the Third, chapter eleven, intituled, An Act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, shall not be exercised by a resolution passed by both Houses and that Section shall be repealed.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, to leave out the words "by a Resolution passed by both Houses."
  This is purely a drafting Amendment.
  An HON. MEMBER: What is the Act here referred to?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is a most interesting Act. I think I have particulars here, if hon. Members will excuse me for a moment.
  Captain BENN: Hear, hear.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend want the particulars?
  Captain BENN: As the right hon. Gentleman has asked me a question, I will tell him why I said "hear, hear." It is because this is an illustration of what I meant when I said the proceedings were a farce. Here we have passed four Clauses sub silentio, and when somebody ventures to get up and ask for an explanation of another Clause, we find Ministers have not even the explanation ready.
  Dr. MURRAY: I think we had better move to report Progress.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Act referred to is an old Act passed rather more than a hundred years ago Under it the Lord Lieutenant has power by Order in Council to repeal Section 16 of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1781. That is a power which we do not propose to entrust to either of the two subordinate Parliaments. Consequently by this Bill we are repealing a power which now exists on the Statute Book. The words now proposed to be omitted were left in by accident It was a printer's error simply, and if they are left out as we ask, the Clause will have the effect of repealing the power to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. We do not think it would be right to leave such a power in the hands of the subordinate Parliaments.
  The CHAIRMAN: It appears to me that this Amendment is a purely drafting Amendment, and any discussion should come on the Clause itself.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill"
  Sir E. CARSON: May I suggest that the end aimed at might easily have been secured by simply saying that Section 16 of 21 and 22 Geo. 3, Chapter 11 is hereby repealed.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 65.—(Power to make Irish Transfer Orders.)
  His Majesty may by Orders in Council (in this Act referred to as Irish Transfer Orders) make such regulations as seem necessary or proper for setting in motion the Parliaments and Governments of Southern and Northern Ireland, and when established, the Parliament and Government of Ireland, and also for any other matter for which it seems to His Majesty necessary or proper to make provision for the purpose of bringing this Act into full operation or for giving full effect to any provisions of this Act or to any future transfer under or by virtue of this Act of a reserved service: and in particular His Majesty may by any such Order in Council—
  (a) make such adaptations of any enactments so far as they relate to Ireland as may appear to him necessary or proper in order to give effect to the provisions of this Act, and also make any adaptations of any enactments, so far as they relate to England or Scotland, as may appear to him necessary or proper as a consequence of any change effected by the provisions of this Act; and
  (b) make such adaptation of any enactments as appear to him necessary or proper with respect to the execution of reserved services and services with respect to which the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland have not power to make laws, and, in particular, provide for the exercise or performance of any powers or duties in connection with those services by any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom or officer of that Government where any such powers or duties are, under any existing Act or by the common law, to be exercised or performed by any Department or officer in Ireland who will cease to exist as a department or officer of the Government of the United Kingdom; and
  (c) on the transfer of the postal service make regulations with respect to the relations of the Irish and British Post Offices, and in particular provide for an apportionment of the capital liabilities of the Post Office between the Exchequers concerned for the execution of postal services by the one Post Office at the request of and on behalf of the other, and for the terms and conditions under which the services are to be so executed, for facilities being given in connection with any such postal
  134
  services at the request of one Post Office by the other, and for the reservation of power to His Majesty by Order in Council to transfer in time of war or national emergency the powers or duties of the Irish Post Office to the British Post Office, or to the naval, military, or air force authorities of the United Kingdom; and
  (d) on the transfer under this Act of public services in connection with the Post Office Savings Bank, or Trustee Savings Banks, make provisions for giving an Irish depositor in the Post Office Savings Bank the right to repayment of any sums due to him in respect of his deposits at the time of the transfer, and for giving the trustees of any Trustee Savings Bank in Ireland the right to close their bank and to require repayment of all sums due to them from the National Debt Commissioners, and for securing to the holder of any annuity or policy of insurance granted before the date of the transfer the payment of the annuity or of any sums due under the policy; and
  (e) make provision for securing the payment of an old age pension to any person who is entitled to the payment of such a pension at the appointed day, while he continues so entitled; and
  (f) make provision with respect to the transfer and apportionment of any property, assets, rights, and liabilities in connection with Irish services and the transfer of the right to recover any taxes charged but not paid before the appointed day; and for apportioning as between the Exchequer of the United Kingdom and the Exchequers of Southern and Northern Ireland the proceeds of transferred taxes properly attributable to Ireland and levied in respect of the financial year in which the appointed day falls; and
  (g) where the day appointed for the transfer of any Irish service is subsequent to the day appointed as the day from which the Irish residuary share of reserved taxes becomes payable, provide for the proper deductions being made from that share in respect of the cost of that service during the interval between the said days; and
  (h) provide, in cases where the same Act deals with reserved matters or matters with respect to which the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland have not power to make laws and with other matters, for specifying the matters dealt with by the Act which are to be treated in accordance with this Act as such other matters; and
  (i) provide for the reservation of power to His Majesty to confer on the

  135
  naval, military, or air force authorities of the United Kingdom control over any harbours, lighthouses, light-vessels, buoys, beacons, or other navigational marks to such extent, at such times and in such circumstances as may appear to His Majesty to be required in the national interests; and
  (j) provide for the inclusion in the National Health Insurance Joint Committee of representatives of the Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland (or, if the services connected with the administration of Part I. of the National Health Insurance Act, 1911, as amended by subsequent enactments are transferred to the Council of Ireland, a representative of the Council of Ireland), and for conferring on that Committee such powers in relation to England, Scotland, Wales, Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland as are before the appointed day exercisable by the Committee in relation to England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales; and
  (k) in the event of the Parliament of Ireland being established apply, so far as applicable, and subject to this Act and the constituent Acts, and subject to any necessary adaptations, to the Parliament and Government of Ireland, and Ministers, Departments, and officers of that Government, the provisions of this Act relating to the Parliaments and Governments of Southern and Northern Ireland, and Ministers, Departments, and officers of those Governments, and provide for the transfer of officers property and liabilities from the Governments of Southern and Northern Ireland to the Government of Ireland.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in paragraph (d), to leave out the words "an Irish", and to insert instead thereof the word "a".
  This is another drafting Amendment, and, taken in conjunction with the next Amendment to insert the words "resident in Ireland", means simply that, instead of calling a depositor "an Irish depositor", he will be described as a depositor who is resident in Ireland, that being a better and less ambiguous description than "Irish depositor".
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In paragraph (d), after the word "Bank" ["Savings Bank the right"], insert the words "resident in Ireland".
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Captain W. BENN: I have no doubt that the Government will pursue its usual course, and treat with contempt any remarks I venture to make. I suggest to the Committee that, whatever their opinion may be as to the refusal of the Government to answer questions which I put, it is treating the Committee itself with complete contempt to pass pages of a Bill altering the constitution of the United Kingdom without offering a single word of explanation.
  The CHAIRMAN: Any hon. Member is entitled to rise and ask for explanation of a Clause, but it is not the business of Ministers in charge of a Bill to give explanations on every Clause.
  Captain BENN: I do not know whether you are calling me to order because I complain of the absence of explanations.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am reminding the hon. and gallant Member of the habitual procedure of the House.
  Captain BENN: I was proceeding to ask for an explanation, and I do not think my remarks could be described as otiose. I think I am entitled to ask an explanation. Here is an elected House of Commons, pretending to pass a Bill involving large transfers of authority and power, and yet there is no criticism and no word of explanation offered by the Government. It does not matter to me, as I have already said, but I take the view that the reason there is no explanation offered is that the Government and the Prime Minister know that the whole proceeding is a farce, that the Bill is never coming into operation, and therefore it is not worth while taking up the time of the Committee with explanations.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member must make his remarks pertinent to the Motion before the Committee, which is that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  Captain BENN: I think my remarks are pertinent. I want to know whether the Government intend to pursue the same course on this as on other Clauses, and to give no explanation. I repeat, I do not consider it is consistent with the self-respect of the Committee that large sections of the Bill should be passed in this way without a single word of explanation.
  Mr. LONG: I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there is no intention to treat him with any disrespect or want of courtesy. He complains that we do not get up and offer an explanation on each Clause, but he has been reminded that we are pursuing entirely the usual practice. General statements are made by the Government on the Motion for the Second Reading. When we come to Clauses we answer questions. The hon. and gallant Member is inaccurate if he suggests that the Government do not desire questions to be addressed to them. I may remind him that some of the questions which have been put have carried their answers on the face of them. In this particular case this Clause is one which is usual in all similar Bills enabling certain transfers to be made. There is nothing in it which is unusual. It has repeatedly appeared in previous Acts of Parliament, and it merely enables the powers given by the Bill to be put in force by the ordinary machinery.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman has placed himself in complete accord with Parliamentary practice. A demand has been made for an explanation and he has given the best explanations he can. That is all my hon. and gallant Friend was asking, and he was entitled to ask it. The Government, if they choose, are entitled not to answer. If they take that course, so much the worse for them. That is all. My hon. and gallant Friend asked for an explanation of Clause 63 and that has now been given.
  Sir E. CARSON: So far as I am concerned, I should like to protest against it being constantly said that this Bill is not meant to become law, or that the proceedings are a farce. The farce lies with the Opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we are getting into a debate on the Bill as a whole.
  Sir E. CARSON: I will pass from that. I will, however, ask, Is the hon and gallant Member opposite, when a number of Sub-sections in a Clause have been passed to which he has taken no objection or put down any Amendment, whatsoever, entitled, in regard to Sub-sections which he admits he cares nothing about, to call upon the Government to go through
  138
  each one of them line by line and tell him what they mean, although he has not pointed out a single difficulty in understanding any of them? The truth of the matter is that observations of that kind, and the course that has been taken, are bringing Parliament into contempt.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope, Mr. Whitley, that you are going to give the Committee the necessary guidance by answering the point of order which has been addressed to you by my right. hon. and learned Friend the Member for Duncairn.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have already twice or three times tried to make it clear to the hon. and gallant Member who began this little discussion, that it is not incumbent on the promoters of a Bill to rise to offer explanation on the various Clauses of the Bill. That is the well-known procedure on any Bill.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: The point of order which was put by my right hon. and learned Friend was one which is of very great importance to the position of hon. Members of this House. If I understood my right hon. and learned Friend correctly, his point was whether a Member of this House, although he passed Clause after Clause without any comment, either by Amendment or on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, was entitled, on a Clause in which he happened to be interested, to address the Committee on that. I do not think there can be any more fundamental point in connection with the rights of this House.
  The CHAIRMAN: Any Member of the Committee is entitled, on the question of the Clause standing part of the Bill, to rise and ask a question with regard to it. Some of the most interesting Debates in our Committe have arisen in that way.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I should like to say one word in regard to what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain W. Benn). It is not the first time he has made this complaint that the Government have given no explanation. He said just now that it showed a want of self-respect on the part of the Committee to allow that. I desire to remind the hon. and gallant Member, and the Committee, that in the case of the Bill of 1914, which has made this Bill a necessity, and which was defended and supported all through by the hon. and

  139
  gallant Gentleman, Clause after Clause was passed in that way.
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Clause.
  Mr. McNEILL: An hon. Member of this House having taken a point, whether good or bad, is it not in order for me to point out that, on a previous occasion, that some hon. Member supported procedure which precluded discussion altogether?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have dealt, I hope quite clearly, with the point put to me as Chairman.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  CLAUSE 66 (Irish Transfer Orders to be laid before Parliament) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 67.—(Commencement of Act and appointed day.)
  (1) This Act shall, except as expressly provided, come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day for the purposes of this Act shall be the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this Act is passed, or such other day not more than seven months earlier or later, as may be fixed by Order of His Majesty in Council either generally or with reference to any particular provision of this Act, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act, but the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland shall be summoned to meet not later than four months after the said Tuesday, and the appointed day for holding elections for the House of Commons of Southern and Northern Ireland shall be fixed accordingly:
  Provided that the appointed day as respects the transfer of any service may, at the joint request of the Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, be fixed at a date later than seven months after the said Tuesday.
  (2) Nothing in this Act shall affect the administration of any service before the day appointed for the transfer of that service from the Government of the United Kingdom.
  Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words. "the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this Act is passed or".
  This Amendment, and four other Amendments, are consequential Amendments which have been put down by me for the purpose of dealing with a point on which an assurance was given by the Government, during the Second Reading
  140
  Debate and subsequently, that the setting up of these two Governments in Ireland should not become either farcical through not being worked by the parties concerned, or dangerous through being being worked by people who were under no obligation to work them with loyalty or in such a manner as not to be a danger to this country. When I put these Amendments on the Paper, the Government had taken no steps to show in what way effect would be given to the assurance given by the Leader of the House. The Government has, however, since put down, later on the Paper, two new Clauses, which, I take it, are meant to take the place of this proposal of mine. My proposal would have the effect that the definite appointed day would be taken from the Bill, and that it would be left in the hands of the Government to decide whether they were satisfied that the Government of the North or of the South of Ireland would function. If they were satisfied, they would, by Order in Council, fix an appointed day. The Government have put forward proposals as to another method of dealing with the matter. This Amendment and those which follow were designed to give the Government an entirely free hand in dealing with this matter as to when and under what circumstances they shall put the two Irish Governments, or either of them, into effect. If, however, it is the considered opinion of the Government that they would prefer to deal with this matter on the lines of their two new Clauses, I do not know that I should wish to press these Amendments of mine. I probably should not have put them on the Paper had I seen the Government's new Clauses. Having put them there, all I wish to say is that, should the Government prefer not to have a free hand, but to bind themselves to operate by means of the proposal that all candidates shall take the oath and that at least one-half of each Parliament shall be validly elected, I shall not oppose it nor proceed with my Amendments.
  Mr. FISHER: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has put forward his Amendment. He realises, as I was certain he would, that the new Clauses which the Government have put on the Paper have a very serious effect upon his Amendments. I hope that, as he indicated he might, he will see fit to withdraw his Amendment, in view of

  141
  the suspensory Clause which the Government have put down. After very careful consideration of the question, the Government came to the conclusion that it was desirable that the suspension of a freely elected Parliament, either in the North or in the South of Ireland, should be dependent upon an overt act, and the Government have taken the oath of allegiance as the overt act on which the matter will depend.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir JOHN BUTCHER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert:
  "(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Section contained, the Lord Lieutenant, if having regard to the condition of the country in respect of law and order he shall so think fit, may by proclamation postpone the date on which this Act shall come into operation and the date on which the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland, respectively, shall be summoned to meet."
  This Amendment raises, I venture to think, a vitally important question, namely, the question whether it is possible or desirable to set up a Parliament in the South of Ireland until some form of law and order is restored there. By the Bill as it stands, these Parliaments cannot come into existence until after the expiration of eight months from the passing of the Act, and, at latest, they must come into existence on the expiration of 15 months after the passing of the Act. Unless, therefore, there is some proviso of this sort, these Parliaments must necessarily come into existence, at the latest, 15 months after the Act has been passed. I ask the Committee, would it not be a desperately dangerous gamble to set up a Parliament with these wide powers in the South of Ireland—I say nothing about the North, which, perhaps, could be trusted—in the midst of such a state of disorder and chaos, and such an orgy of crime, as exists in many parts of the South and West of Ireland? How can a Parliament possibly exercise any functions such as any Parliament in any civilised country has ever attempted, and is bound to exercise, until some form of law and order is restored, until confidence is once more restored to the country, and until an end has been put to that state of terrorism which at present demoralises the population, and which facilitates the commission of crime and prevents its detection? The only suggestion that, I
  142
  understand, is made on behalf of the Government, is that these dangers, which must be obvious to every Member of the Committee, will be averted by the Clause which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, providing for the taking of the oath of allegiance by Parliamentary candidates. If you assume that all those Parliamentary candidates are honest, honourable and trustworthy men, and that they would not take an oath of allegiance unless they intended to abide by that oath, then, I think, the Clause would be effective. But are we to expect that standard of honour and of trustworthiness on the part of the men that now rule the South of Ireland? Is it not possible, to say the least, that the code of ethics now prevailing in Ireland, where murder is denounced by very few except the loyalist population, where crime is allowed to go unchecked, where no evidence is procurable—is it not quite possible that there might be a sufficient number of men depraved and criminal enough to take an oath of allegiance dishonestly, with the intention of getting into their hands the whole power in Ireland? I do not for a moment say that all the Sinn Feiners are prepared to act in that way. But there are a large number of persons in Ireland at this moment who are engaged in the commission of crime, and is it inconceivable that these men, in order to promote the success of their criminal objects, would take the oath of allegiance, and then under the Bill the Parliament must necessarily come into operation at the end of 15 months. The Lord Lieutenant would, of course, act under the constitutional advice of Ministers. This is a necessary and proper safeguard against prematurely setting up a Parliament in the South of Ireland.
  Lord R. CECIL: It will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if the Government indicate what course they intend to take with regard to the remaining Clauses of the Bill. I see great advantage in having all this discussion as to the postponement of the Bill on one Amendment. If we discuss it at first on this Amendment, and then later on on the Government Amendment, we shall get it rather confused. After all, we must recognise facts as they are, and there is very little chance of my hon. and gallant

  143
  Friend's Amendment being passed, though I personally would vote in favour of it if it were pressed to a Division, whereas the Government Amendment no doubt will be passed—whatever the Government finally decide to move. Therefore we shall have a much more real discussion on that Amendment, and it will then be for the House to say whether it really thinks the Government's Amendment will meet the case. If it does not think it will, the Government will have to produce some other plan, no doubt on the lines of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. If we discuss this and it is negatived that door will be shut for ever—we shall be precluded by the decision of the Committee—whereas if we first discuss the Government's Amendment, and find out what the case for that Amendment is, and if we are not satisfied with it, if necessary, vote against the Government, if hon. Members could be screwed up to that point of courage; or, if that is not possible, it could put such moral pressure on the Government as it has at its command to induce it to adopt some more rational course. Therefore, I suggest that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) should indicate what course he proposes to take with regard to the Bill to-day, and particularly if he can tell us they do not propose to move their new Clause to-day. I think that will be really the more convenient course, and one which will conduce to rational discussion of this very important matter.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: May I suggest that, in view of the position, which I expect will shortly be the fact, that we shall have passed all the remaining Clauses of the Bill, when we reach that stage the right hon. Gentleman should move to report progress, and start the new Clauses on another day, especially in view of the fact that the first of the new Clauses is one to which we on this side attach the very greatest possible importance. Notwithstanding the interruptions we have made on this side of the House, the right hon. Gentleman has made very great progress with a Bill of this magnitude—from Clause 54 to Clause 70, only postponing one or two—in the process of his seven league stride. I think he has done extremely well, and when we come to Clause 70 I suggest that he might move to report progress.
  Mr. LONG: I do not differ at all from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that we have made very satisfactory progress—certainly as rapid progress as the Government could have possibly had anticipated—and I share the view, apparently held in a good many quarters, expressed by my Noble Friend, that it would be for the convenience of everyone if we could discuss the proposals for suspension, or the more drastic proposals of my hon. and learned Friend, in one, and probably the most convenient time for that discussion would be when the two new Clauses in my name come up for consideration. I fully accept the view that it would not be desirable to start them late in the evening, and I have already learned that a good many hon. Members understood that they were not going to be taken this evening. Indeed, I understood that there was some technical difficulty. I have not looked into it, but I accepted it as the intimation reached me. But I understand a good many hon. Members were under the impression that when we reached Clause 70, if we succeeded in doing so, we should not take the new Clauses to-night at all, and they have made their arrangements in accordance with that view. I am a firm believer in adhering closely and rigidly to the best Parliamentary practice, which is not to take advantage of a mere majority to force hon. Members to discuss parts of a Bill which they were led to believe would not be discussed on the particular evening. When we reach the end of the Clauses we have to move to postpone Clauses 18 to 34, inclusive, which are the Financial Clauses, and Clause 57, dealing with the police, and between those two Motions I propose that we shall take and pass Clause 40, which we omitted in consequence of not having the Financial Resolution. I do not think it raises any controversial question, but we thought we could not take it because of Sub-section (5). Therefore we shall have Clauses 18 to 34 and 57 to take when the Bill is resumed, and, of course, the new Clauses. In those circumstances I should not propose to say anything in answer to my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Butcher) now, because if he accepts what appears to be the general view we, could take the whole thing upon my new Clauses. I hope my Noble Friend's advice will not be taken in full, he having incited the House to vote against the Government, which I

  145
  always think is a very bad practice. But short of that there is no doubt that our Clause, if it does not commend itself to the Committee, can be strengthened in the direction indicated by my hon. and learned Friend, or, indeed, in any other direction which is consistent with the principle of the Clause, and therefore I do not think anything would be lost by agreeing to take the whole discussion on our new Clauses, in which case we should be willing to postpone them, and in these circumstances I should hope the further discussion of these Clauses may not be unduly prolonged. We have dealt with all controversial matters, so far as I know, and if this suggestion meets with my hon. and learned Friend's approval. perhaps he will withdraw his Amendment so that we make take the discussion on the new Clauses, which will be reached almost immediately when we resume the discussion.
  The CHAIRMAN: There is a point of procedure on which I am not myself clear. It is competent when we come to the postponed Clauses to move that they be further postponed to a certain place, namely, after the new Clauses or after the new Clauses and Schedules. That, no doubt, will be made clear when we come to such a Motion.
  Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: It will be a convenience to some of us if the Schedules can also be postponed. My right hon. Friend did not mention the matter, but I do not think it would tend to delay it if the Schedules were also postponed until we take the new Clauses.
  Mr. SUGDEN: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend this: If, as he suggests, my hon and learned Friend withdraws his Amendment, is it possible for us so to strengthen the Government to make it what some of us think quite necessary in the interests of Ireland?
  Mr. STEWART: Do we forfeit our right to bring this in afterwards?
  Mr. LONG: Clearly the hon. Member can move any Amendment he likes to the new Clauses in my name. What we propose is to postpone these Clauses which deal with finance and the police till after the new Clauses, in order that we shall have full time for the consideration of the financial Clauses. We would
  146
  then take them and the Schedules, which, of course, will be postponed, with the Clauses.
  Dr. D. MURRAY: Do we understand that the Government proposes to take Clause 70 to-night?
  Mr. LONG: Yes, that is part of the arrangement I suggested. If we postpone all the rest, we must be allowed to take to the end of Clause 70.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to be under any misunderstanding. I have a Motion to postpone Clause 70. No doubt I shall be beaten on that, and we shall then have another Division on the Clause.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: In response to the appeal of my right hon. Friend, and in accordance with what appears to be the general wish of the Committee, I shall be glad to withdraw this Amendment at this stage, on the understanding, of course, that it will be open to me to move it again, either as a new Clause or as an Amendment to the Government Clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 68.—(Definitions.)
  In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
  The expression "existing" means existing at the appointed day:
  The expression "constituency" means a county, borough, or university returning a member or members to serve in the House of Commons of Southern or Northern Ireland, or the Parliament of the United Kingdom, as the case requires:
  The expression "Parliamentary elector" means a person entitled to be registered as a voter at a Parliamentary election:
  The expression "Parliamentary election" means the election of a member to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom:
  The expression "election laws" means the laws relating to the election of members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, other than those relating to the qualification of electors, and includes all the laws respecting the registration of electors, the issue and execution of writs, the creation of polling districts, the taking of the poll, the method of voting and counting votes, the questioning of

  147
  elections, corrupt and illegal practices, the oath, qualification and disqualification of members, and the vacating of seats:
  The expression "Customs duties" includes export duties as well as import duties:
  The expression "Excess Profit Duty" includes any tax on War-time increases of wealth, and any other tax which may hereafter be imposed in lieu of Excess Profits Duty:
  The expression "postal service" includes any telegraphic and telephonic service, and the issue, transmission, and payment of Post Office money orders and postal orders, but shall not include duties with respect to old age pensions or national health insurance undertaken by the Postmaster-General or such other duties of a similar character undertaken by him as may be excluded by Order in Council:
  The expression "submarine cable" includes any land lines used solely for the purpose of connecting a submarine cable with another submarine cable:
  The expression "treasury of Southern or Northern Ireland" means the department or officer, by whatever name called, for the time being entrusted with the administration of finance in Southern and Northern Ireland respectively:
  The expression "salary" includes remuneration, allowances, and emoluments:
  The expression "pension" includes superannuation allowance and gratuity, and in relation to an officer or constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin Metropolitan Police includes a pension or gratuity payable to the widow or children of an officer or constable:
  The expression "office" includes any place, situation, or employment, and the expression "officer" shall be construed accordingly:
  The expression "officer" in relation to the Royal Irish Constabulary includes the Inspector-General, the Deputy-Inspector-General, an Assistant-Inspector-General, the Assistant-Inspector-General-Commandant of the Depôt, the Town Inspector at Belfast, a county inspector, a surgeon, a storekeeper and barrack-master, the veterinary-surgeon, and a district inspector, and in relation to the Dublin Metropolitan Police, includes the Chief Commissioner and Assistant-Commissioner:
  The expression "constable" in relation to the Royal Irish Constabulary includes the head-constable-major, a head-constable, sergeant, acting sergeant, and constable; and in relation to the Dublin Metropolitan Police includes every member of that force
  148
  not being of higher rank than chief superintendent, and not being a member of the clerical staff only:
  The expression "Royal Irish Constabulary" includes the reserve force of that body.
  Amendment made: After the word "respectively" ["in Northern and Southern Ireland respectively"] insert the words "The expression 'County Court Judge' includes 'Recorder.'"— [Mr. D. M. Wilson.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 69.—(Saving for Supreme Authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.)
  Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland, or the Parliament of Ireland, or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and un-diminished over all persons, matters, and things in Ireland and every part thereof.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Malone) ["Nothing in this Act shall take effect in Ireland until the proposals contained therein have been submitted with other alternatives to a referendum of the Irish people"] is outside the scope of the Bill.
  Captain W. BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, with regard to this Clause, what has been the practice as regards the constitutions of Australia, South Africa and Canada with respect to reserving the supreme power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom? I think there is variation, and that under some of the constitutions no such reservation is made.
  Mr. LONG: The hon. and gallant Member is quite right. There is a variation in the different Constitutions in the various Dominions. It is quite obvious that there is a difference in our position as between any of the Dominions. In the other cases, with the exception of South Africa, you were bringing together separate States and uniting them under one head. Here you are setting up two local Parliaments and reserving the supreme power of this Parliament, which is in no way diminished or interfered with by anything in this Bill. It is in order

  149
  to make the position perfectly clear that this Clause is inserted.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 70.—(Short Title and Repeal.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
  (2) The Government of Ireland Act, 1914, is hereby repealed.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be postponed."
  I recognise that the limits within which a Debate of this kind can take place are somewhat restricted The Government of Ireland Act, 1914, is to be regarded as a pledge on the part of the United Kingdom to the Irish people, and before anything takes its place the whole of the Bill, which is proposed to replace it, should be fully before this Committee. Can those proposals be fully before this Committee under the present circumstances? We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, and, of course, we know, that the Finance Clauses, 18 to 34, have still to be debated, and they have also to be debated on the Report of a Committee which has not yet finished its deliberations. Nobody who knows anything about what we call in Scotland the fundamentals of this Bill can deny that finance lies at the root of it, and until we have before us the recommendations of the Committee and the proposals of the Government based upon that Report, we are not in a proper condition to be fully and adequately informed of what those new proposals are which are to take the place on the Statute Book of the Government of Ireland Act, 1914. I can imagine in the old days, which seem so far away, when the Act which is now on the Statute Book was being debated in this House, how a proposal to take this Clause without the financial position being fully developed would have been received by the Opposition, and what weight and consideration the Government of the day would have been bound to give to it. The mere question of numbers ought not, in this House, to affect the weight of argument. My right hon. Friend is a true parliamentarian, and he is a son of the House of Commons, and one of its oldest Members in respect of years of service, and I do press him, not as a Minister of the Crown so much, and not so much as the Minister in charge of this Bill, but I press him strongly as a
  150
  Member of this House, whether he does not in his heart agree with the position which I am now putting. How can we come to a fair decision on the most momentous Clause which says—
  "The Government of Ireland Act, 1914, is hereby repealed";
  how can we come to that grave and serious decision, without knowing what the financial proposals are? The more one presses the matter the more serious it seems. I agree that our attendance on this side has not been as persistent as it might have been, but that ought not in any way to militate against the force of the argument I am putting, which is a purely constitutional House of Commons point of view. You really lose nothing in point of time by postponing this Clause. It is quite clear that this Bill must go over to the Autumn Session. The Financial Clauses must take a long while, and then there are the Schedules and the new Clauses. The Bill must be taken up again in the Autumn Session. The matter can be easily settled by the Chair exercising its new powers or applying the Closure. The Closure has not been applied once in the course of this Debate. I would press my right hon. Friend on this question. A great constitutional principle has to be upheld, and that is that where you have arrived at the pivotal Clause of the Bill, which sweeps away the Act now on the Statute Book, you should have the whole of the Clauses of the Bill before you. When you have the whole case before you, you can take a decision, whatever it may be, whether you agree with it or not. At any rate, you cannot say you have not heard the whole case, for and against. Here is the real Clause of the Bill, and I say in no fractious spirit at all, but with a sincere desire to maintain the traditions of this House, that we ought not to set a new precedent. When my right hon Friend and many of us have passed from this scene, who can say what use will be made of the precedent which we are now setting up? I charge my right hon. Friend to ransack his parliamentary memory for a precedent. Has he ever known a parliamentary situation of this kind where he would not, if he were in opposition, put far more strongly than I am able to do, the case which I am now putting?
  Mr. LONG: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I do not approach this ques-

  151
  tion from the point of view of the majority overriding the minority, or with any desire of doing anything but to obtain a fair and business-like discussion. There are two aspects from which this Clause has to be regarded. From my right hon. Friend's point of view it opens up a great memory of the past, and he is not exaggerating when he tells the Committee that these few words in this Clause, involving as they do, when this Bill passes, the repeal of the Act of 1914, means for those who believe in the Act of 1914 a very serious step. But, really, is there any justification for the postponement of this Clause, which is really only part of the machinery of the Bill? He says it is "the" Clause, and he asks me to charge my memory as to whether there has ever been a precedent. He knows that there have been scores and hundreds of precedents for the repeal of an Act of Parliament when other Acts have been substituted, and as to the importance of this, I do not quite see where his argument comes in. It all depends on whether the Bill passes. My right hon. Friend and hon. Gentlemen on that side are never tired of telling us that the Bill is not going to pass, that it is a sham, and all the rest of it. In those circumstances I do not understand why they should regard this Clause with so much alarm and terror, because if the Bill does not pass this Clause will go with the rest. They have poured scorn on the Bill. Why, then, should they be afraid, if the Bill is not going to pass? If they do not believe what they say, then I can understand their objection to taking this Clause. You are here substituting an Act of self-government for Ireland for the one which is already on the Statute Book. Does anyone propose that you should have two on the Statute Book at the same time? Nobody makes that proposition.
  My right hon. Friend says that before assenting to this clause the Committee, the
  House and the country ought to have before them the whole scheme of the Government in regard to finance. Assenting to this clause now does not repeal the Act of 1914; it does not prevent the Committee, the House and the country from having the whole scheme before them, because this clause only becomes operative when the Bill has passed through Parliament; when it has received consideration and secured its passage through this House and through the other House, and has finally received the King's assent. Therefore, this clause is merely to be regarded in its present form as an ordinary machinery clause following upon the substitution of our proposals for the proposals of 1914. If between now and the time when this Bill comes up for final consideration my right hon. Friend succeeds in defeating our proposals, this clause will go with the other proposals in the Bill. He appealed to me on rather higher grounds than was justified by the case. I hoped we might take to-day down to Clause 70, and I thought that was what my hon. Friend had suggested when he intervened following upon my noble Friend, the Member for Hitchin (Lord H. Cecil). I did not think there was anything controversial in the clauses up to Clause 70, and I understood that we were able to take the clauses up to Clause 70, and to reserve the other clauses for future debate. It seems to me that that is the 8.0 P.m. course which we ought to pursue. I am the last person in the world to seek to force through a clause which is repugnant to the Committee or is unjust, but this is not a course which the minority can regard as specially hostile, and certainly it is not unfair. Therefore I trust that the Committee will not postpone this clause.
  Question put, "That the clause be postponed."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 179.

  Division No. 162.]

  AYES.

  [8.4 p.m.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Mills, John Edmund

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Wintringham, T.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

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

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Johnstone, Joseph

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Mr. Hogge and Mr. G. Thorne.

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

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  NOES.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Atkey, A. R.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

  Barnett, Major R. W.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Barrie, Charles Coupar

  Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)

  Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekln)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

  Parker, James

  Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Hanna, George Boyle

  Perring, William George

  Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

  Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Blair, Reginald

  Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

  Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Pratt, John William

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Prescott, Major W. H.

  Bowles, Colonel H. F.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Briggs, Harold

  Hinds, John

  Rankin, Captain James S.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

  Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Rees, Capt. J. Tudor. (Barnstaple)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hood, Joseph

  Reid, D. D.

  Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

  Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

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

  Butcher, Sir John George

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

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Campbell, J. D. G.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

  Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Jesson, C.

  Stevens, Marshall

  Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Stewart, Gershom

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

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sugden, W. H.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Dixon, Captain Herbert

  Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

  Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

  Donald, Thompson

  Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

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

  Taylor, J.

  Edgar, Clifford B.

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

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Edge, Captain William

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Vickers, Douglas

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Lonsdale, James Rolston

  Waddington, R.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

  Lorden, John William

  Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Lynn, R. J.

  Watson, Captain John Bertrand

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

  Whitla, Sir William

  Forrest, Walter

  M'Guffin, Samuel

  Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

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

  Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

  Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

  Mallalieu, F. W.

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Martin, Captain A. E.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Mitchell, William Lane

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Moles, Thomas

  Woolcock, William James U.

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Gould, James C.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Green, Albert (Derby)

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Younger, Sir George

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

  Gregory, Holman

  Neal, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Greig, Colonel James William

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

  Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Ward.

  Captain W. BENN: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
  Sir E. CARSON: On a point of Order. Is it in order to move to leave out Subsection (2), having regard to the fact that it is impossible for the two Acts, the Act of 1914 and this Act, to run together, and that this is a necessary part of this Bill?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I do not think that is a question as to which I can give a ruling on a point of Order. No doubt this is a matter which the Committee will take into consideration.
  Lord R. CECIL: In order to have our Debates regular, may I ask whether it
  154
  has not always been ruled that you cannot move an Amendment which makes nonsense of a Bill?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is so; but it is difficult in this case for the Chair exactly to make up its mind what would make nonsense of the Bill. It is a very difficult and complicated Bill, and I should not like to rule that it would not be in order for an hon. Member to move the omission of these words.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Apart from the general point made by my Noble Friend, is it not a fact that this Amendment is inconsistent with the Clause we have already passed? In the early part of this Bill we passed a Clause, for instance, setting up a Parliament for the Northern

  155
  part of Ireland. The Act of 1914 establishes a Parliament for the whole of Ireland. That is entirely inconsistent with the Clauses we have already passed. Under the circumstances, is it not following the ordinary rule with regard to consequential Amendments to hold that to make those Amendments would be quite inconsistent?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It might mean that some new Clauses or new Clause would have to be put down, but I think this is an Amendment which the hon. Member should be allowed to move.
  Colonel GREIG: Is it in order for any hon. Member to move an Amendment which is obviously designed to make the Bill a farce, which the hon. Member has already described it to be?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for argument. It is for the Committee and not for the Chair to decide.
  Captain BENN: I am not in the least surprised that the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last, and who, I believe, is a Liberal, objects to this Amendment, or that the Members from Ulster would like to see their work done sub silentio. This is the only clause in the Bill which counts. This is why the Bill is brought in. It is the only point of substance in the Bill from beginning to end. A little nonsense more or less will not therefore matter. This is the one Clause which is not nonsense; it is business. It was designed to get rid of the pledged word of the Government of this country to the Irish people. Representatives of Ulster having, after many years, accomplished their end, would like to secure their reward without any observations being made in the House of Commons.
  Mr. McNEILL: We do not mind your criticisms.
  Captain BENN: Not mine, but there are people to whom the word of the Prime Minister has been pledged, and they also have to be taken into account. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that, as far as I am concerned, I never set much store on my opinions or on my expression of them. I am speaking about people outside. In the first place, I would submit that the Government of Ireland Act does not come into
  156
  operation until peace is declared. That will be a long time yet, for we have just started a new offensive, and until that is successfully completed the Government of Ireland Act cannot come into force. The second point is that we are asked to repeal the only Act for the self-government of Ireland which has been passed, before we have the least indication of what substitute the Government will put in its place. The main substance of the Bill, the financial part, has been postponed. I know perfectly well that it is surmised that one of the Parliaments, the Southern Parliament, will never meet, and that its place will be taken by Crown Colony government, to be defined in an Amendment not yet reached. I agree that the Act passed in 1914 does not in the least square with our conception of what a scheme of self-government for Ireland should do to-day. But we have to remember that it is a pledge given to the Irish nation, and the only Bill that might be needed to modify it and give the necessary security to the minority, in accordance with the pledges of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), can be passed by both Houses of Parliament. It is not easy to pass a real measure of self-government for Ireland through Parliament. It took six years and two General Elections to do it in the past. All that achievement it is proposed to sacrifice by Sub-section (2) of this Clause. The Subsection is the justification for violence. When the Act of 1914 was under consideration opponents of that Measure proceeded, with the assistance of the First Lord, to organise rebellion. They have won. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] They say, "Hear, hear!" The Provisional Government's achievement has been secured. Then what is the use of turning now and complaining that the people of Ireland have thrown aside constitutional methods of agitation? You have taught them to do it. You have taught Sinn Feiners how to organise revolution, and you are sitting now in Parliament or holding offices under the Government. You have taught the Irish people that the only way to get what they desire is by violence. The Leader of the Nationalists (Mr. Redmond) is dead. The hon. and gallant Member (Major Redmond), who used to sit on the Nationalist Benches, has died fighting in the service

  157
  of his Empire. The Constitutional Nationalists have been robbed of that for which they worked, and the men who organised rebellion are sitting on the other side of the House, are given offices, or are made Private Secretaries to the Prime Minister. The Private Secretary to the Prime Minister said he would buy arms and ship them over to Ireland.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now turning to a general discussion of the Irish question. The question before the Committee is whether there is to be associated with this Bill this particular Sub-section. It is not in order to discuss the whole of the Act of 1914. The hon. and gallant Member may be desirous of showing to the Committee that in this Bill it is not necessary or desirable to have this Subsection, but that must be shown only in association with this Bill.
  Captain BENN: I shall raise the point as vehemently as I can in protest against this infamous Bill. The people of Ireland have tried constitutional agitation.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member will no doubt have an opportunity of discussing that question on the Third Reading of this Bill, but this is not the time for making the point.
  Captain BENN: We are discussing the question whether or not we shall repeal an Act which was passed after as great a struggle as has ever been known in this House. I submit that I am quite entitled, in discussing whether or not that Act should be repealed, to discuss the method by which its appeal is being secured. You taught the people of Ireland by this Subsection that it is hopeless to agitate in a constitutional way. The late hon. Member for Waterford, Mr. John Redmond, who, at any rate, obeyed the plain rules, put down violence and discouraged it in his own supporters. The hon. and learned Member for Canterbury and the First Lord of the Admiralty encouraged violence. Who has won? John Redmond is dead and his brother, Major Redmond, is dead, and their cause has failed.
  Mr. McNEILL: And so is Queen Anne.
  Captain BENN: That is a very touching tribute to the late constitutional leader of Ireland. I hope the House and
  158
  the country will take note of it. They are dead and they failed, but the people who put this Sub-section in this Bill have won. They are the people who had recourse to drilling and violence and rifles, and gun running, and incitement to mutiny in the Army, and rebellion. Can you wonder, then, that the people of Ireland have found that the way to win is by violence. Who taught them to use violence except the people who put this Sub-section into this precious Bill for the so-called better government of Ireland? The pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley was most specific. At the opening of the War he told the Irish people that the Government of Ireland Act was suspended for the period of hostilities. Many of the extreme elements in Ireland said from the beginning that it was useless to trust the promises of English politicians, and that they were fraudulent, and they are right. They have been defrauded, they have been swindled, that is the word to use. After thirty years of agitation and self-suppression and constitutional work, the result is Sub-section (2) of Clause 70, and the Government of Ireland Act, passed after two elections and after a gigantic and titanic struggle between the two Houses, is repealed. What is the result of this in Ireland, and what is going to be the result of it? Every moderate man in Ireland is being driven to see that constitutional agitation and trusting to the promises of English statesmen has failed. Every moderate man is being driven step by step to accept another régime which has the approval of the people of Ireland, failing a régime given by the Parliament of this country which was to have their approval. In 29 out of 33 counties allegiance is publicly owned to an authority not His Majesty's, and in 21 counties the Courts maintaining law and order are doing so by the only weapon by which any Courts can hope to get the confidence of the people, namely, the sanction and rule of the people around. Is it to be wondered at, when the constitutional way which we here believe in has so utterly and completely failed.
  What is going to be the end? It is useless for a few people to protest here, but let me tell the Committee that the end is going to be the reconquest of Ireland and civil war. That is the result of the Coalition of November, 1918. I agree that

  159
  the situation has always been difficult, but it has become infinitely worse since the formation of a Government with the connivance and depending upon the support of lifelong enemies of the aspirations of the Irish people. You are going to be asked to re-conquer Ireland. Your work is shattered and it is useless to pretend that by sending soldiers and tanks you can govern a country in spite of its goodwill. That is not an idle statement, but a fact. The Act of 1914 was an attempt to enlist the good-will of the Irish people in a form of Government which you are going to repeal. The result is, that you are going to have to re-conquer Ireland. Let me say two things on that and utter some words of warning. The first is that you cannot trust the instrument which you are going to try and use. When it comes to the real thing you will find they will not fight for it. The Lord Privy Seal said that about the suppression of Ulster and it is true. The second is, that when you attempt the reconquest of Ireland you will take the first step in the break-up of the Empire. What do you think the people of Canada and of Australia are going to think when they read that British troops are advancing in Ireland, and when they read of the casualties, and that you seized upon this point or that? You will disrupt the Empire. That is what is going to happen. You are going to have civil war and I fear the beginning of a step which extremists in Ireland hope for and which we had hoped could be avoided by a solution found in a family of free nations.
  Mr. LONG: I find it very hard to rouse myself to that excitement or heat which the hon. and gallant Gentleman reached in dealing with this Sub-section. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was very eloquent about this Clause as the cause of all the troubles in Ireland. He did not seem to have a bad memory on the whole as political memories go, and yet he seems to have learned Irish history quite afresh, and that all the troubles, all the murders, all the rapine and repudiation of Government are the result of Clause 70 in this Bill. I wish I could think he was within a hundred miles of the truth in making that statement, because if he were it would make the Irish problem much simpler. I do not want to go into controversial questions, but surely the hon. and gallant
  160
  Gentleman has forgotten such little incidents as the Easter revolution.
  Captain BENN: The rebellion you helped to organise.
  Mr. LONG: The rebellion with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives me so much credit was, so far as I know, a rebellion which had not very disastrous consequences, whereas that of 1916 was an actual outbreak which resulted in a disastrous loss of lives, including the lives of a very large number of our soldiers. The casualties of the troops employed were very numerous and serious. That is the rebellion which the hon. Gentleman forgets. I do not want at this stage of the Bill to indulge in tu quoques, and it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's speech will be much more suitable on Third Reading than on Second Reading. He is inaccurate in his description of the effect of what we are doing now. We are merely adding this Clause, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) said, as an inevitable part of the Bill, the greater part of which we have already passed. It was pointed out in the discussion, on the point of Order, that not to pass this proposal would be really to make ridiculous every word of this Bill, which is different from the Act of 1914. If I were to address the Committee on the subject of the cause of the trouble in Ireland, I should take much longer than the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I should not think it necessary to draw upon my imagination, as there are so many facts which can be used.
  The state of Ireland has nothing to do with a particular Clause in a Bill. We have made our proposals for Home Rule in Ireland, and we justified them on the introduction of the Bill and on Second Reading, and this House, by an overwhelming majority, has accepted the principle of our Bill, and has accepted the greater part of the Bill, and that principle involves the repeal of the Act of 1914. As to the argument that the Committee ought to have the whole of the proposals before them before they pass this Clause, I would agree if the insertion of this Clause meant that to-morrow, automatically and without remedy, the Act of 1914 were repealed; but it means nothing of the kind. Hon. Gentlemen opposite resent the repeal of an Act for which they have great affection, but we

  161
  regard it as an Act wholly inconsistent with the legislation which we are now proposing, and we regard this Clause as a mere machinery Clause. We asked the Committee to resist the attempt to postpone it, and we were supported by an overwhelming majority, and in the same way we now ask them to reject the Motion for the deletion of this Subsection. The Sub-section does not really involve the dreadful consequences which my hon. and gallant Friend has evolved, and really and truly it is much more a matter of machinery than of principle. While there are many parts of this Bill which have properly received, and many parts which have yet got to receive, full consideration, it is not necessary that we should delay longer in deciding this particular question.
  Mr. JOHNSTONE: I have the utmost sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member opposite in this protest. I think it reveals a very serious state of affairs. The Irish people have been long buoyed up with the hope of Home Rule, but we are passing a Bill which will effect no good purpose in Ireland. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, the late Prime Minister, erred in allowing himself to be dominated by the Ulster party in this House and to be threatened and bullied into the suspension of the Act of 1914. It would be infinitely better for Ireland, and a great advantage to this country and the Empire, if that Act, with all its defects, had been put upon the Statute Book, because then we should not have been faced to-day with the great problem which now confronts this country. This Bill will not effect any cure for the ills of Ireland and will not settle this question. I am convinced that while the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken says that this is merely a matter of machinery, it will make the worst possible impression in Ireland and that the Irish people will put the worst interpretation on the proceedings of this House in repealing that Act. I believe that Ireland will go from bad to worse, and that the day will ultimately come when we in this House will have to face some greater measure in order to satisfy the aspirations of the Irish people. It is very much to be regretted that this House when it had the opportunity did not seize the moment and put upon the Statute Book a moderate measure of Home Rule
  162
  for Ireland which would have satisfied the Irish people; but, unfortunately, the clamour of the men of Ulster, always pampered, has prevented a settlement of the Irish Question, and the responsibility rests with a heavy weight on the men of Ulster, who have resisted all attempts to heal the long-standing sore of centuries in Ireland and who have prevented peace being brought to that country.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment and refuse to pass the second Sub-section of this Clause. It seems to me that we are going to take away from Ireland what has been gained by practically a treaty between the two peoples. The Act of 1914 was practically a treaty between the English people and the Irish people, settled here across the floor of the House, for putting an end to the perennial disputes between the two countries, and now we are going to take that away from them without its being inserted that we are going to give them anything whatever in return. It is quite true that if this Bill is to come into operation the Act of 1914 must be got out of the way. We do not believe that this Bill ever will come into operation. Some on the other side believe that it will, but I say that it is not at all necessary to put in this Sub-section totally abolishing the Act of 1914 in order to give a trial to see which of us is right. It would have been perfectly possible to put in a Clause suspending the Act of 1914 until there had been a fair opportunity of seeing whether this Bill worked in Ireland or not. If it had failed, as we say it will fail, then the position would be that Ireland would still be in possession of her constitutional rights conferred upon her by the Act of 1914; but now, if this Act fails, you will have taken from Ireland that great right, that Magna Charta of Irish liberties, as it might have been, and you will have given her nothing in its place The net result of the trans action may very well be that you will have set up in Northern Ireland some kind of a Northern Parliament which will work in a way, and you will have set up nothing in Southern Ireland which will work at all. You will have deprived the whole of Nationalist Ireland of what they so greatly valued, and you will have given instead simply martial law to put down the aspirations of the people there. I therefore beg to support the Amendment.
  Mr. INSKIP: This is the most curious Debate we have had at this stage of the Bill, and one might perhaps allow this singular Amendment to pass without comment. But what has moved me to intervene is partly the way in which the hon. Member for East Renfrew (Mr. Johnstone) had addressed himself to the Amendment, and I cannot help wondering how many of the 8,000 majority, which the hon. Gentleman obtained by giving his promise to support the policy of the Prime Minister, with full knowledge of that policy, would have been obtained if he had made, if I may say so, the somewhat sanctimonious speech—
  Mr. JOHNSTONE: In my contest at East Renfrew, I made it perfectly clear to both sides who supported me that I was a firm Home Ruler, and in favour of the Act of 1914.
  Mr. INSKIP: Then I think it is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman has not given the Committee the benefit of his views before this. So far as I know, this is the first intervention of the hon. Gentleman in Committee on this Bill. One can respect the great sincerity of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), because both by his attendance and efforts he has, at any rate, left the Committee in no doubt at all as to his sincere conviction with regard to this measure, and he has spoken to-day in a way which has convinced all as to his sincerity. But he and the hon. Member for the Consett Division (Mr. A. Williams) appear to live in a world of dreams, when they speak of the Act of 1914 as the Magna Charta of the liberties of the Irish people. It is a measure which they must know could not be put in force at the present time; it would require Amendment in almost every conceivable respect.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: So would Magna Charta.
  Mr. INSKIP: They refuse to recognise the facts, or to give the Committee the assistance they ought to receive from them if they have deep convictions on these questions, and the so-called pledges of the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) are left to be recalled to this Committee in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. One would at least expect him to be here to support his pledges,
  164
  and to seek to amend the Bill in accordance with those pledges, if he attached any importance to them at this stage. One can only view this Amendment, and the speeches in its support, with the exception of that of the hon. and gallant Member of Leith, with something like contempt.
  Dr. MURRAY: What has struck me is the light-hearted way in which the Government propose to repeal important legislation, which took a great deal of time and thought in the last Parliament. The Prime Minister was just as responsible for the Act of 1914 as he was for the Land Taxes which he repealed in the same light-hearted way. We should not be off with the old love before we are quite on good terms with the new, and, seeing that the financial arrangements have not yet been considered by this House, I think we should stick to the old Act, apart from the sentimental reasons that have been suggested. I do not see why the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite should admonish the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Johnstone), who is one of the few Liberals on that side who has stuck to his principles all through.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: I only rise to make one remark, and I do so because I see the Prime Minister here. It seems to me that a great deal too much attention has been paid to this Amendment. I could not myself support it, but there is one argument which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made in its favour, that we are still in the dark as to one of the most important parts of the Bill, namely, the financial proposals. Many Members on this side have been anxious as the Debate has gone on, that sufficient appeal was not being made to the Constitutional Nationalists in Ireland, and on that account I venture to take this opportunity of asking the Prime Minister that when, after to-day's Debate, the rest of the proposals of the Bill are postponed, he will remember that on this side of the House there are many Members who will go a very long way with him in making the appeal to the Constitutional Nationalists in Ireland much more attractive than it is at present in the four corners of the Bill. Personally, I am afraid that I cannot support the Amendment.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: It seems extraordinarily difficult for Members on this side to please hon. Members, and especially hon. and learned Members, on the other side. When we did not put in the amount of attendance which they thought was due to the Bill, we were condemned for that, and when to-day, and on a few other occasions, we take some interest in the Bill, we are wrong again. It makes no difference what we do; we are wrong any time. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said he was unable to work up any excitement in connection with the proposal now before the Committee. Why should he? With all his massed battalions and majority, why should he bother? The legislative strides of the Government are only comparable to the gentleman who wore the seven-leagued boots. We have passed 10, 15 or 20 Clauses to-day. My hon. and gallant Friend is one of those Members of this House—I wish there were more—who feel very deeply and sincerely, and accordingly expressed himself as he felt. I do not propose to cover the ground which he did, but to give two or three reasons why I think this Clause should not be insisted upon by the Government. I agree there are some difficulties from the technical point of view, but you, Sir, with the best traditions of the Chair, have allowed our Debate to proceed on rather more general lines.
  What were the three or four factors which distinguished the Act still on the Statute Book? First of all, we had the united support of Nationalist opinion in Ireland. The Bill had the united support of the Liberal party, and not the least of those supporters was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself. It had also, in addition, the advantage of the support of a clean-cut majority in this country. It was passed as the result of the Parliament Act, and everybody knew —the whole country knew—what was intended by the passing of that Parliament Act. It was to put the Home Rule Bill, amongst other Government Measures, upon the Statute Book. There was another factor. So far as that Bill was concerned it stood for one Parliament for Ireland, and constituted that Parliament. What is the position in regard to the present Measure? It is liked by no section in Ireland. It is scorned and rejected by the vast majority of that
  166
  unhappy island. It is regarded by contemptuous indifference by many. Time after time the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Duncairn has expressed his ill-concealed contempt for the whole scheme. It comes before us to-day to take the place on the Statute Book of the Measure to which I have referred. Is it any wonder that we feel it our duty to move the Amendment now before the Committee, and by this means to draw attention, as well as we can, to the difference between these two methods.
  The situation in Ireland is an extremely difficulty one. No one, whether in opposition or on the Government side, can treat it lightly. It may convey very little to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but so far as I can convey to him my sympathy I do so. No one at the head of a Government was ever faced with a more difficult position than he is at present with regard to Ireland. He has a past in regard to the championship of little countries which does him the greatest possible credit. Whenever I part company with him in these matters I do so, as he knows, with the deepest regret. But I do profoundly regret that he regards this Measure as a palliation or mitigation of the woes of Ireland. It seems the more one looks at it to be a trivial playing with the matter. One cannot help seeing and saying that this Bill is a futile attempt to deal with a problem of complexity, danger, and difficulty greater, I think, than any Prime Minister has ever been faced with in regard to the sister country. It is because this scheme lacks the support of any factor which can possibly make it a success that we take the action we do. If I believed it would realy help, I do not know that I would care a rap for party feelings. If I thought it was going to help I would stand by it at all costs and shed friends and comrades. Because it is not I feel compelled to take the view I do take.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am glad that it has been found possible to allow this Debate to assume a somewhat wider aspect. What, however, strikes me very much, as it has struck me in many Debates on Ireland, is that hon. Members who profess to champion the woes of Ireland and to be the special custodians of its national interests seem to be living in a world of

  167
  delusion. Take my hon. Friends opposite who speak as representing a certain view in this matter—and I speak with great respect, for I know they are sincere—you would imagine that what we were deciding now was to abolish an Act which public opinion in Ireland accepted, which public opinion there cherished, yearned for, was waiting for as something that was going to fulfil their cherished aspirations; and that we were setting up another Act of Parliament which was not accepted by anyone. Let us take the matter as it stands. I agree that it is unfortunate that Nationalist opinion does not accept this Amending Bill, but, at any rate, there is one section of Irish opinion that does accept it. What is the position with regard to the Act of 1914? Can any of my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite name anybody in Ireland who accepts it—anybody? The vast majority of Irish opinion has repudiated it. Even my hon. Friends who sit opposite and represent Nationalist opinion do not believe in it. There is no Irishman so poor as to do reverence to that Act which is supposed to fulfil the aspirations of Ireland.
  It is perfectly true that in 1914 the Act was accepted by those who at that time represented Irish opinion; but we must take facts as they are. If that Act had been put into operation, what would have happened? Nationalists in Ireland would have treated it with scorn and contempt. Northern opinion would have resisted it. That is all that would have happened in regard to that Act. What is the good of talking about that Act as if it were the fulfilment of the aspirations of any section of Irish opinion—either in Ireland or in any quarter of the globe? My hon. Friend behind me who spoke was quite certain that he has discovered a moderate measure—I use his own words—a moderate measure which would satisfy Irish opinion. Why has he kept this information secret? I have been panting for the news. There is none of my right hon. Friends here who would not regard this revelation with joy.
  Mr. JOHNSTONE: May I explain— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
  9.0 P.M
  The PRIME MINISTER: And this revelation came to my hon. Friend alone!
  168
  This is a revelation which has dawned upon him, which has been shining upon his intelligence. He has unfairly, unpatriotically, kept it until this moment, and has not even at this stage condescended to tell the Committee what it is. I should like to know what it is. If there is a scheme of this kind in my right hon. Friend's custody or anywhere else, the Government would be delighted to put into operation a moderate measure acceptable to Irish opinion. The hon. Members who represent the Labour party find it difficult to reconcile differences amongst themselves, and they have very judiciously withdrawn discussion to another sphere. They went over to Ireland with the idea that they were going to get Irish opinion behind them upon some scheme that would be acceptable to the Labour opinion of this country, and what did they find? They found that the proposals which received acceptance in Ireland were proposals that even they could not countenance. There is no Labour Member who proposed anything which would be acceptable to Sinn Fein in its present frame of mind. What is the good of talking of the Act of 1914? Can either of my right hon. Friends point to a single leader of Irish opinion—
  Captain W. BENN: You destroyed them, because you betrayed them.
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend ought to know that you do not advance any cause by stupid rudeness. It is very easy to fling charges of that kind, but the problem is difficult enough. It cannot be solved by mere hot-brained interjections. Let us discuss it in all calmness for it is a matter of vital importance, not to parties, but to the Empire. Is there a single leader of Irish opinion of any section who will get up and say that he will be satisfied with the Act of 1914? Is there one? What is the use, then, of taunting us about abolishing an Act which nobody in Ireland wants? My hon. Friend has talked about the pledges of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) given in 1914. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley gave a later pledge than that, and my hon. Friends were then Members of the Government. It was a pledge that under no conditions would he assent to

  169
  anything that would involve the coercion of Ulster. Is that not a pledge which must also be respected? That is a pledge which would have been inconsistent with the enforcement of the Act of 1914, and the fact that he had given definite pledges of that kind was the reason why my right hon. Friend undertook to introduce an amending Bill to the Bill of 1914.
  My hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend have dealt purely in phrases. I ask them now, What is their proposal? This is ours. What is the good of ignoring what the proposal is? This proposal may not go the whole length of what Irish opinion demands, but it goes as far in the direction of self-government as the great race to which my right hon. Friend belongs demands for its own country. Scotland asks for nothing more in the way of the recognition of its nationality, or in the way of the powers of self—government, nay, it does not ask as much as this Bill confers upon Ireland. What is the good of treating this as if it were a sham and a farce when it is conferring upon Ireland greater powers than my hon. Friend's constituents ask for the most sensitive and proud nationality in the British Empire.
  Mr. JOHNSTONE: The disease is not so acute in Scotland.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I know how acute the disease is, but acute diseases are not always cured by violent means. You must get remedies which are adequate, and the remedy which would be adequate for Scotland and Wales would be equally adequate here. The grant of powers which would recognise the nationality of the people, and which would recognise their rights to self-government in matters of domestic concern would be equally efficacious here if you could get the people to work them. Do not let us have any delusions as to what the position really is. We are not abolishing the Act of 1914 without substituting something else which confers enormous powers on the Irish people. My hon. and right hon. Friends talk as if Sub-section (2) stood alone, but it does not come into operation except as part of the Bill which confers great powers. If we had brought in a Bill purely to abolish the Act of 1914, it would have been open to this criticism, but you must own that you are not prepared to pass anything which Irish opinion would accept. My right hon. Friend has given me the answer. At the present
  170
  moment Irish opinion would not accept that.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: It is quite clear that the vast majority at the present moment are demanding a republic, which I certainly am not prepared to grant.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a valuable and straightforward statement from my right hon. Friend, and a very useful one. That is what I am trying to point out. It is no use talking about satisfying the demands and aspirations of the Irish people. In their present inflammable condition of mind there is no proposal you can put forward which would be acceptable to the people of this country and also acceptable to the people of Ireland. The only thing this Parliament can do is to consider what is the best method in the judgment of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole, and what are the best proposals for the government of Ireland.
  I do not despair of an improvement in opinion in Ireland. I think things will improve, but they will only improve when it has become quite clear to the Irish people that the people of Great Britain can never consent to the extreme demands which are put forward. They are a practical people in the long run They have moments of great excitement and great exultation, and in those moments it is probably idle to expect them to assent to practical proposals. But they are a shrewd and sagacious people. When you deal with them in their own business affairs you realise what a very practical people they are and I have no doubt that when they weigh and balance the wild phrases which are used sometimes in this House, and oftener outside, phrases which give them the idea that there are parties in the State who will give them much more than the present Government—when they begin to realise that the people of America are not going to give them support in a demand for an independent republic in Ireland—a very important factor—when they realise that the people of this country mean to put an end to crime and outrage in Ireland, then, I think, the practical good sense of the Irish people will recover its original control over opinion. When it does I do not despair of their accepting the only measure of self-government which the people of this country could accede.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Not this measure.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Well, certainly not the measure of 1914.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Not this measure.
  The PRIME MINISTER: We are now discussing the abolition of the 1914 measure. That is the proposal at the present moment. It will not be the measure of 1914.
  Captain W. BENN: Why not?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In the first place, nobody wants it. There is no section of opinion in Ireland that will accept it. There is a very formidable section of opinion in Ireland that would not consent to work it. There is a pledge given by every party in the State, including the section to which my right hon. and now learned Friends belong—a definite undertaking—that it will not be enforced against the opinion of the people of Ulster. The Labour party was also committed, because there were representative members of that body in the Government who gave that pledge. Further under the Act of 1914 Ireland would be bankrupt at the present time. It is an absolutely unworkable Act of Parliament. It would have to be recast financially before it could ever be put into operation. My right hon. Friend, in asking us not to repeal the Act of 1914, is asking us to keep alive an Act of Parliament which would be quite unworkable at the present moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) said that he would like to know what are the new financial proposals. We are postponing the financial proposals, because we have undertaken to give consideration to certain representations made from Ireland. I agree with him that, if there were a desire in Ireland to settle this old controversy, if men of all sections in Ireland said, "Well now, let us settle this old feud, let us shake hands; we are willing to come in as partners in the British Empire with the other nations." The people of Great Britain would not enter into the consideration of the problem in a niggardly or parsimonious spirit.
  There would be so much gain, even financially, to Britain in having this controversy settled. The burden of maintaining order by an exceptional display of force is a financial burden, and even from the point of view of finance it would
  172
  be well for the people of the United Kingdom—it would be good business—to treat Ireland magnanimously. Apart from that, it would undoubtedly add so much to the strength of the Empire. It would add so much more to the prestige of the Empire. It would give a sense of unity, a sense of co-operation, of common purpose, among all the people of these islands, upon whose common action the future of humanity depends so much, and never more so than at this moment. It would be worth while considering the problem in a more liberal spirit if there were a comradeship, a, friendship, if there were hand-shaking, and they said: "Let us come into this Empire upon terms of peace, and upon terms of recognition of our nationality." Then the problem would be a different one. That is not the problem. The problem is that of an Ireland which declines to consider anything except the impracticable, which declines to consider anything except what is destructive of the whole power of the Empire.
  Captain W. BENN indicated dissent.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am discussing the question with my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean), who is taking a practical view. He knows that the proposition of Ireland now is an impracticable one. There is no section in this House who would agree to it. I am sanguine enough to believe that soon the Irish genius, the Irish commonsense, will realise that it is impracticable, and that they will seek to build upon the only foundation upon which they can raise a permanent structure of liberty in Ireland.
  Sir E. CARSON: The Debate upon this Amendment has really become a Second or Third Reading Debate, because, after all, as a matter of commonsense, the passing of this new Government of Ireland Bill involves the repeal of the Act of 1914. Therefore, in using the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman opposite used, he was really using arguments against the passing of this Bill.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Hear, hear!
  Sir E. CARSON: Has he considered what was the position of the Government or of any Government? I am not talking of this Government. The

  173
  Act of 1914 is upon the Statute Book. It comes into law automatically the moment that peace has been accomplished, which we hope may be any time, though I am bound to say that I see signs that it will be some little time yet before we see that accomplished. What did he propose that the Government should do? I am not enamoured of this Bill. I have never professed to be enamoured of it. I have taken the action that I have in regard to it solely in the interests of the country and of the Empire; not because I like it, but because I see no other way out of the impasse. Does my right hon. Friend opposite imagine for a moment that they ought to have allowed the Act of 1914 to come into operation? Is that his proposal? Let me say, as regards that proposition, that, in the first place, it could not come into force for the simple reason, if he looks through the Bill, he will see that there are certain Clauses in it which, although you might call and summon the Parliament together, you could not carry out because, by reason of the Franchise Act, you have so changed the franchise that there is actually no franchise under the Act which could become available. Secondly, as the Prime Minister has said, Ireland would be absolutely in a state of bankruptcy if you set up a Parliament with the financial Clauses of that Act. Thirdly, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend this question: Does he desire that the Act should be set in motion without carrying out the pledges which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) made when he put his Act of 1914 on the Statute Book? Is that his position? Or the pledges which he made in 1916, in regard to Ulster, when he said that the coercion of Ulster was unthinkable and impossible? Does he wish to throw these pledges overboard? No one has come forward in the whole of the controversy on this Bill of the Government, no one has ever come down to this House on behalf of the Liberal party, the free Liberal party, and told us how they propose to carry out the pledges which they themselves have made. They have treated them as if they had never been made. They have spoken of the Act of 1914 as if it satisfied these pledges and would carry them out. But if that Act was carried into force, would it carry out those pledges? I say the Act of 1914
  174
  did not, and could not, carry out those pledges. What else could they have done? What less does this Bill give than the Act of 1914? Nothing less. If it is to pass, it is the only way in which we can carry out these pledges. That is what we say in this Bill, that the only way to carry out these pledges is to set up in Ulster a separate Parliament rather than, as we have always asked, and would ask to-day, that six counties should be kept in this Parliament, leaving them as they were under the Act of Union. That is the difference between that Act of 1914 and these proposals. What is the alternative to this Bill? We have been told, I do not know how many times, of the great ability which is concentrated in the Independent Liberal party; we have been assured that they are able to solve any question. But with all that great ability not a single member of it has come down here and made any solid suggestion which would carry out their ideas or their pledges. Instead of that, we have occasionally had an excursion of a genial character from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) and of an insolent character from the hon. Gentleman who sits beside him. [Interruption.]
  Sir D. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given expression to a remark applied to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who sits beside me (Captain W. Benn), which, so far as I am aware, Sir, is not one which is in Order.
  Sir E. CARSON: If that is so I at once withdraw it, and will substitute the word "irrelevant." I again say, what is the position? You cannot put into force the Act of 1914 because it has got no legs. The law says that it must come into force when we have peace, but as a matter of fact it cannot. There was no other way to deal with the pledges which were made except by bringing in a Bill like this or by breaking them, and that, I think, is what the right hon. Gentleman is now contending for. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) has not joined very often in these Debates, but I am sure I know what he would say if he was here. He would say "Only trust to the great principles of Liberalism, not only because in the past they have solved all the difficulties of the country,

  175
  but also because in trusting to them and to the Act of 1914 you will once more call them into being and all the pledges that we have given will be found to have been absolutely carried out. Therefore," he would say, "trust in these great Liberal principles." That is what he would say, but what is the real alternative to this Bill? I do not think that anyone has been found. I wish a better one could be found, it would have a better chance in its infancy. Something has been said about some other Bill. What Bill? No doubt some hon. Friends will say, "A Bill which would satisfy Irish aspirations." What Bill would satisfy Irish aspirations? Is it a Republic? Is that the only alternative? No one from Ireland has said that there is any other alternative. There is none that I know of. No one comes from any section in Ireland and proposes any other. Nobody comes from any section of the Labour party and proposes any other alternative. No one comes here from any section of the Liberal party and proposes any other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, yes!"] Perhaps some hon. Member will say what it is. They have not put it down on the Order Paper.
  Major ENTWISTLE: Yes, Home Rule with county option.
  Sir E. CARSON: What Home Rule?
  Major ENTWISTLE: Dominion Home Rule.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have allowed a great deal of latitude in the discussion of this Bill and the Act of 1914, but I cannot allow it to go so far as the discussion of every other possible Bill.
  Sir E. CARSON: All I am saying is that no other proposal has been made. Why has not the hon. Member put down his Amendment on the Order Paper? Why if he has a better proposal has he not let us hear about it? But that has not been suggested. What they have preferred is the tactics of running away and then to abuse the Government because they do not argue out what might have been argued out if they had stayed here. Anything is good enough to beat the Government with, but that is not practical politics. If they really have a suggestion which would be attractive to those multitudes outside the House who are burning to show their dislike of this Bill, they would not have
  176
  adopted the policy of running away. They would have been in their place here, day after day and night after night, putting all their Amendments before us and trying to bring them to bear upon the people of the country. This is the only alternative; there are only the two. I do not know if there are even two; but these are before us at any rate. The two proposals: either this Bill or a republic. There is no other; this Bill or a republic. I doubt whether this Bill will not lead to a republic eventually. That is why I dislike it so much, but at all events it is here to stay that demand. It is the only Bill which so far as we know it is possible to give to Ireland, and there is no other policy except a policy which I could understand, and that is, to face the facts and to say we are prepared to give Ireland everything what she demands, to give her her fullest demand. That would be one way, but instead of that we are told that there are all these great ingenious schemes which these Gentlemen have up their sleeves or in the archives of the remains of the Liberal Party preserved there for the purpose of bringing them out at some future time. That being so, you come back to this, that this Bill is a substitute for the 1914 Act, plus the promises that were made at the time that that Bill was put on the Statute Book. It is an attempt to carry out those promises. I am sorry the Bill carries them out in the way it does, because I would far sooner have left Ulster as it is under the Union in this Parliament. The reason why it was thought better to do it in this way was, I imagined, in order that they might say they were granting Home Rule to the whole of Ireland. Much as I dislike it, just as I did in 1916, I have fallen in with the arrangement and have done my best to lead the people of the North of Ireland to give this Parliament a trial. I will continue to do so. I hope at the same time that the Government, having put forward these proposals and having turned men's minds seriously upon them, at all events in the North of Ireland, will persist in them until they become law.
  Mr. RAFFAN: If the Debate were a mere contest of wits and a desire to make debating points, I should not have ventured into the arena, and I should not have endeavoured for a single moment to contest the speech either of the Prime Minister or of the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), who is one of

  177
  the most powerful debaters in this House. The Prime Minister in his observations repeatedly taunted my hon. and gallant Friends with indulging in phrases only and with shutting their eyes to the facts of the situation. I should like the House itself to face facts and to face the facts behind the speech of the Prime Minister. We are told that the Act of 1914 cannot be put into operation without amendment. That is a very easy debating point. It is quite true that in the history of nations, as in the history of individuals, lost opportunities do not come back again, and it is equally true, no doubt, that if legislation is to take place with the Act of 1914 as its basis, amendments will be necessary. I venture to say there is no Imperial task during the lifetime of the oldest Member of this House better worth pursuing than the task of the reconciliation of the British and Irish democracies. That would have been possible in 1885, and it would have been possible at various other times when the Liberal party put forward proposals for a settlement, proposals which would have been accepted, and gratefully accepted, by the Irish people in those days. If they had been allowed to operate we would not have been in the position in which we find ourselves to-day. If, when the 1914 Act was first proposed, long before the War broke out, it had not been rejected by another place, I venture to say that the people of Ireland, living under self-government, would to-day have been as attached to the British Crown as are the peoples of South Africa, of Canada, and of Australia. The difficulties in South Africa were probably greater than the difficulties in Ireland in 1914. It is because the people of Ireland have ceased to believe in the genuineness of the efforts which are made in this House, because they have ceased to believe, by reason of hope long deferred, that there is a real earnestness and sincerity in the desire for reconciliation, that the present state of feeling has grown up which makes the Irish problem so extremely difficult to deal with.
  What was the Prime Minister's next debating point? He asked, what party is there in Ireland in favour of the Act of 1914? What party in Ireland, I would ask, is in favour of the Measure which we are now endeavouring to put on the Statute Book? There is no party in its favour in the South or in the West of
  178
  Ireland, and even this afternoon the Members on the Ulster Benches have intimated that they would have preferred to see this Measure withdrawn rather than have it passed into law. Under these circumstances what is the use of taunting us with the statement that there is no body of Irish opinion in favour of the Act of 1914 when it is impossible to find any representative body, however humble, in Ireland which is supporting this Bill? The Prime Minister has told us that the people of Scotland would hail a Measure of this kind as applied to Scotland with great pleasure. I venture to say that the people of Scotland and the people of Wales equally would reject a Measure of this kind if applied to either of those countries, for the same reason that the majority of the people of Ireland reject this Bill. They would reject it because, whatever else they might differ about, they would not agree to the partition of either of those countries. I venture to say that no measure of Home Rule for Scotland which proposed the partition of Scotland would meet with favour.
  Captain ELLIOT: Nonsense!
  Mr. RAFFAN: I do not complain of the courtesy of that interruption, but perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will explain why it is nonsense.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot enter on a discussion about Scotland. It is quite true the Prime Minister made the reference referred to, but discussion on it would be completely out of order.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I am perfectly certain that any proposal of the kind would be rejected by an overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland, and if my hon. Friend will agree at the next Election to make the main plank in his platform Home Rule for Scotland, with partition, I will give up my present seat and come down there and fight him.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member promised to limit himself to only one phrase.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I will leave it there for the moment; we will see at the General Election. Whether it is Scotland, or Wales, or Ireland, no nation whose history and traditions go back through the centuries would ever agree to any measure of

  179
  self-government which proposed to partition that nation permanently. The one point which the Prime Minister evaded so skilfully during the whole of his speech, the one defect of his measure as compared with that of 1914, is that this present measure partitions Ireland, and partitions Ireland permanently. The Act of 1914, whatever its other defects, and whatever amendments it may need, begins by treating Ireland as a unit.
  Mr. PALMER: You are never going to coerce Ulster?
  Mr. RAFFAN: I am extremely sorry, but the Deputy-Chairman has his eye upon me. I do not propose to coerce Ulster. I do not suggest that it is necessary that the new Parliament should function for the whole country immediately upon its introduction, but I do suggest that the Act of 1914, with a system of County Option, which would allow counties desiring to do so to withdraw for the time, would, at any rate, hold out the promise of ultimate union. What is the alternative? It is to give to the people of Ulster a Parliament for which they have never asked, a Parliament which they said, only this afternoon, they are prepared to do without. The hon. and gallant Member for Mid-Antrim (Major O'Neill) has stated repeatedly in this House, as a reason why there should not be included in the Ulster Parliament the non-Protestant part of Ulster, that they desire to make quite sure that they have the power to prevent Union with the Southern Parliament for all time.
  Mr. MOLES: If my hon. Friend desires to put correctly the hon. and gallant Member for Mid-Antrim, he ought to read his speech, which was entirely to the contrary effect.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The discussion is getting wider and wider, and I must ask the hon. Member to assist the Chair, and not to develop the argument in that direction.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I appreciate that, and I need hardly say that I am always desirous of keeping within, not only the letter, but the spirit of your ruling. I am sure you will allow me to plead in extenuation, that I am endeavouring to reply to two powerful speeches in which these points were raised, and, if I am not keeping myself strictly to the Amendment, I have
  180
  endeavoured to keep very strictly to the points which have already been raised.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I quite appreciate what the hon. Member says, and I merely asked him to assist the Chair. In replying to the two speeches, which were rather wide, but which the Committee generally agreed to hear, the hon. Member was getting wider and wider, and that is where the danger comes in. I am, therefore, obliged to ask him to keep nearer to the Amendment.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I appreciate that, and am endeavouring to keep as close as I can. After all, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, we do want to face the facts; we do not want to deal with phrases only. There is no limit to the Prime Minister's power of moving this House, but it is beyond even his power to galvanise a corpse into life. When he taunts us by asking what is our alternative, I suggest that this Bill, which he is endeavouring to carry through the House, is a Bill which cannot possibly function, and that he himself has not the slightest hope that it will be put in operation over the greater part of Ireland. The Leader of the House has never hidden from the House the reason why he wants this Bill passed into law. He says, that when people come here from Canada and from Australia the first thing they always ask is, "Why do you not give Home Rule to Ireland?" and he desires to have an answer to that. If we are to deal with facts and not with phrases, if we look ahead for the next few years with this Bill upon the Statute Book, there is no Member of this House who does not look forward with shrinking and dread to what is to happen. In the case of the 1914 Act, it is, of course, necessary, because of the lapse of time, if for no other reason, that there should be Amendments made. I do not profess to speak for all my hon. Friends, although I do not know that any of them differ from me, but I, for one, would be prepared to honour the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, that any county desiring to withdraw should have the opportunity of doing so. That is a totally different thing from a proposal to set up a Parliament, over a part of Ireland, which will permanently preclude any hope of reconciliation. I do venture to suggest that, however small our numbers may be when we go into the

  181
  Division Lobby, history will justify the action of the Liberal party to-night, as it did in 1885 and in 1914. What we are standing for is that there should be an indication to the people of Ireland that we still retain a desire to reconcile the Irish and the British democracies, and that we are willing that that reconciliation should take the form of giving the fullest grant of self-government to the whole people of Ireland.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is again getting very general.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I can only again apologise, and say that I was endeavouring to deal with the points raised by the Prime Minister and right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn. As it seems to be impossible to deal with those points completely, if I am to be kept strictly within the limits of Order, and if your ruling is that the Prime Minister and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn are privileged persons, I shall not further continue my remarks.
  Major ENTWISTLE: The point we make in opposing this Sub-section is that the Bill will never come into operation, and that if the Sub-section is left as it is there is nothing going to take the place of the present Home Rule Act, and this Bill will have no other practical effect than simply repealing the Act of 1914. We are asked what alternative we have to offer, and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) said no single member of the Liberal Party had ever suggested any alternative. I contradict that statement, and say the alternative has been mentioned over and over again, and, so far as it could be done within the limits of the wording of the Bill in Committee, Amendments have been put down which prove what that alternative is. It is the one that I interjected in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and that is a measure of Dominion Home Rule, interpreted to exclude a Republic—the widest form of Government consistent with Ireland being within the Empire—and the right for any county in Ulster to exclude itself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Permanently?"] Permanently if they like. It is self-determination for those counties. It has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) himself as an alternative, as fulfilling the pledges which he has given.
  Captain ELLIOT: This is rather an important point. I think it is quite definite. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was for a six years' exclusion, and not for a permanent exclusion at all. That is the point at issue.
  Major ENTWISTLE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may be perfectly right, but I am perfectly willing to leave that indefinite, and I have no doubt my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) would also be agreeable to that. After all, what does it come to? It does not affect the question of principle, because after six years, if the House of Commons thought fit, it would continue the exclusion of Ulster. The only difference is that after six years the matter will have to come up for reconsideration, whereas if it were left indefinitely, it would have to come up for reconsideration until some of the counties actually took action. I submit that that is a matter of very small moment. It is not correct to say that no alternative has been offered, and, more than that, the alternative that we suggest would be acceptable to the whole of Ireland, except the few Members representing some of the counties of Ulster. What would they have under that alternative? You have the power of any single county excluding itself. You do not get a separate Parliament. That is a very material distinction. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) has said they do not want a Parliament. "Leave us in Britain." So they cannot object to the fact that there is no separate Parliament. That may be not a very practical distinction, but it is a most important one from the sentimental standpoint and from the Nationalist standpoint, which we have to consider so much in dealing with Irish affairs. Then what would be the practical distinction between what the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept and this alternative? The most it would come to would be that under the system of county option only four counties would exclude themselves, whereas under this Bill you would have the exclusion of six counties. The alternative that we suggest would be accepted by the whole of Ireland except a few counties of Ulster. It has been said that no Irishman in this House has given any alternative. I am certain that the Naitonalist Members would accept a measure of Dominion Home Rule with county option.
  Mr. MOLES: No.
  Major ENTWISTLE: I am quite confident that if that were offered to them as a genuine offer they would accept it, and if that were offered to Ireland the extreme Sinn Feiners would disappear as a force that matters. In fact it would kill the Sinn Fein movement. I have spoken to one or two men who were members of the Conservative or Unionist party. They happened to be broad-minded people who had been to Ireland and seen and conversed with Sinn Feiners, and they have come back with that opinion too. What is the objection to that? Let us assume for a moment that there would be some measure of success in this alternative.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am unable to see how this arises on the Amendment at present before us, which is to leave out Sub-section (2) of Clause 70. The hon. Member seems to be discussing the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: On that point of Order. I do not for a moment dispute the correctness of the view which you are taking at the moment, but when you were out of the Chair the Debate ran upon very wide lines and the Prime Minister himself really covered the whole range of the subject. I daresay my hon. and gallant Friend is perhaps just stepping over the line, but I merely wish to inform you of the very wide lines on which the Debate proceeded when you were away with the assent of the Committee and the active participation of the Prime Minister.
  The CHAIRMAN: I had taken the precaution of informing myself of what had occurred in my temporary absence. I agree that the Debate had gone rather wide, but I do not think as wide as the present speech is going. I can admit references to what the Prime Minister said, but beyond that I do not think I can go.
  10.0 P.M.
  Major ENTWISTLE: The right Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) taunted us on this side with having no alternative, deliberately asked us what our alternative was, taunted us with not having attended the House, having taken no part in the discussion, and put no Amendments down showing what our alternative was, and that sort of challenge was allowed to be sent across the House when all the time
  184
  he must have known that within the rules of debate and the drafting of the Bill it was impossible to make this proposal quite definite. The point I was making, and I submit it is in order, is that this Sub-section (2) ought not to be passed until there is an Act which will come into operation. This Sub-section, instead of being worded "The Government of Ireland Act, 1914, is hereby repealed" should read "The Government of Ireland Act, 1914, shall be repealed as soon as this Act comes into operation." That is important. This Bill will not come into operation because of the new Clauses which the right hon. Gentleman is to propose. Therefore, if you are going to have this Clause at all we ought to have an alternative which would get the support of the vast majority of people in Ireland. The practical effect of that would be that the Ulster Members would have four counties instead of six. Are they prepared to fight to the death in order to include two counties which by a free vote refuse to be included? Such a position is impossible and incredible. If the Government agree to our course there would be no fight, all the pledges would have been fulfilled and you would have an alternative Bill which would have full assent and a reasonable chance of success and which could replace the 1914 Act. Before we allow this Act to pass in its present form we should have the words inserted suspending the repeal of the 1914 Act until the present Act come into operation.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I very heartily support the Sub-section which has been challenged. I regard it as one of the most valuable provisions of the whole Bill. If this Section had not been incorporated I do not think the Bill would have secured a Second Reading. It certainly would not have had my vote. The hon. Member (Major Entwistle) has raised a perfectly clear issue, and it is exceedingly desirable that it should be raised and debated. We understand that hon. Members opposite have an alternative policy in reply to the challenge of the right hon. Member for Duncairn. Their alternative is Dominion Home Rule.
  Mr. RAFFAN: With county option.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: With county option for the north-eastern counties.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Any counties.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: Let us clearly understand the issue. Your policy is Dominion Home Rule with county option for any county in Ireland. Will the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have pinned their colours to the mast of Dominion Home Rule be good enough to investigate this one point? Will they deny, or can anyone who accepts the principle of Dominion Home Rule deny, that that means in fact, if not in theory, the right to absolute secession and separation? You may say what you please of Dominion Home Rule, but there is no responsible person in this country or in any of the Dominions who would not be prepared to accept the proposition that implicit in Dominion self-government is the right to secede.
  Mr. RAFFAN: When the Nationalist deputation was here from South Africa the Prime Minister told them in the clearest fashion that secession would not be permitted, and that the question of South Africa being attached to this country was a settled question.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I would be the very last person to suggest that any of our Dominions—Canada, South Africa, Australia, or New Zealand—has any desire to exercise that right of secession. That is not my point. I am certain that no part of the Empire beyond the sea would desire to exercise that right. My point is that if they desire to exercise it, there is no person in this country who would deny them the liberty to do so. If that be so, I want to put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they are prepared to accept the same implicit condition in regard to the Dominion Home Rule which they would give to Ireland. If they are not, it is not Dominion Home Rule in the sense in which we apply it to every other part of the Empire. My hon. Friend opposite went a great deal further than that. He was, if I may say so with great respect, courageous enough to assert—I presume with a great knowledge of conditions in Ireland—that this settlement which he and the party opposite are proposing would be acceptable to the whole of Ireland, except to hon. Members sitting on the Benches here (the Ulster Members).
  Major ENTWISTLE: And those whom they represent.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: He said that Dominion Home Rule would be accept-
  186
  able to the whole of Ireland, deprived of the right of secession which is desired by a great part of the people of Ireland to-day. I have now an intimate knowledge of Ireland for the last thirty years, and have always recognised that there was a considerable party in Ireland who were in favour of secession. That party is very much enlarged to-day.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is following the line that I have just been deprecating, as going far beyond the scope of this Amendment. The only question is whether this Sub-section is rightly placed in this Bill.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I bow to your ruling, the justice of which I recognise absolutely, but I was endeavouring very feebly to meet the argument which has been advanced from the other side. I admit I have no right to do so, but the Committee will acknowledge that my attempt to do so was not altogether unintelligible, but, bowing to your ruling, I merely reiterate my own strong conviction that the Clause which we are discussing is one of the most valuable in the whole Bill. I am one of those who are still not afraid to describe ourselves as staunch Unionists. I do not think that I have ever concealed that, and when we come to the Clause which of the whole Bill is dearest to the heart of a staunch Unionist, I am glad to have an opportunity of expressing my concurrence with that Clause.
  Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I listened to the speech of the Prime Minister with very considerable interest. I think it has been remarked that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith), is not here to-night, I understand that my right hon. Freind has a very important engagement to-night. I would point that it is the Government that settles the business day by day, and that, while it may not be convenient for my right hon Friend, the Member for Paisley, to be here, there is no excuse for the leaders of the Government not being present, seeing that they have fixed the business of the day. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the House is present to listen to the Debate.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Prime Minister has already spoken.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: But he does not do the House the courtesy of remaining to hear what is said in reply to him. While I do not expect that the Prime Minister would deign to reply to any observations of mine, I would like to ask a question to which the House has a right to require an answer. I am not in the habit of finessing with my questions. I understand from the Prime Minister's speech that there was a certain degree of optimism about. From what cause does that optimism arise? We know perfectly well that there are some indefinite negotiations going on. One speaker has indicated that the Prime Minister and the Labour people might be able to suggest a form of agreement between the Government and Sinn Fein. What is going on between the Government and Sinn Fein to-day? I think we ought to know something about it, for it is a matter of great importance. We have been told that perhaps the fact that the railwaymen are going on strike in Ireland may really be a blessing; it may be the means of settling the whole of this controversy. I believe that certain of the leading railwaymen are in Ireland today. Are they there with the object of bringing the Government into touch with Sinn Fein?
  The CHAIRMAN: That raises a question which clearly will not be relevant to this Amendment.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: With great respect, I suggest that if these negotiations are going on we should not repeal the 1914 Act now, before we have some knowledge of what is taking place in Ireland. I will leave that, however. I take exception to a remark made by the last speaker. He seemed to think that no Member on this side of the House had a right to speak on a Bill of this kind unless he had an intimate knowledge of Ireland. I have no knowledge of Ireland, but I know a great number of Irishmen, and have a great number of intimate friends, Irishmen, in my own constituency, and I know how bitterly the Irishmen in England resent the suspension of the Government of Ireland Act. I believe that the suspension of that Act was the killing of the constitutional Home Rule movement in Ireland. I do not care whether it was the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) or the Prime Minister who was concerned. They were both in the same
  188
  Cabinet at the time it was done. At that time, if the Ulstermen had been able to come to the Government and say, "We require these guarantees, or these conditions," they could have got any conditions they required put into that Bill. What would satisfy Ireland in bygone days will not do so to-day. Nothing will satisfy Ireland to-day but the very broadest measure of Home Rule that you can possibly give short of separation. To reserve all these various services shows what a sham this Bill is. It is no broad measure of Home Rule. Is this the measure which the Prime Minister is going to offer to the Sinn Feiners through the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). There seems to be some doubt as to whether I am entitled to discuss the question of Home Rule with county option, and I am not going to do so. There appears to be on the other side a disposition to believe that a county can permanently exclude itself from a Home Rule scheme, but as the years go by and as people change and as thought changes, counties may reverse their decisions. I do ask the Minister in charge to tell us if there are any negotiations going on with Sinn Fein, and, if so, to let us know what they are.
  The CHAIRMAN: This discussion makes it doubtful whether this Amendment ought to have been admitted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) moved a specific Amendment on Clause 1, which was debated and decided, and we cannot, on Clause 70, reverse the decision which was arrived at. Any discussion must be within those limits.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: I would urge again that we ought to know whether there are any negotiations going on. The Prime Minister said distinctly that there were indications that there was a better feeling in Ireland, and this gave an indication that something was going on. If that is so, surely it is relevant to know what that something is.
  The CHAIRMAN: It may be on some other occasion, but we are dealing now with legislation, and not with matters of that kind.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) welcomed this particular Subsection repealing the Act of 1914, and

  189
  went so far as to say that he and some of his Friends would not be prepared to support the Government on this Bill, but for that particular Sub-section. It is a peculiar thing that when this Bill was first printed and read and digested in Ireland, considerable opinion over there put it on record that the only real object the Government had in bringing forward this Bill was to pass this particular Subsection and to get rid of the Act of 1914. That, I take it, is what we are discussing to-night. We of the Liberal party, which has been referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson) with a good deal of chaff, have been able to say when we are asked about the state of Ireland, that we did in the past try very hard to settle the Irish problem in the Act of 1914. We admit here quite freely that circumstances have changed, and that very great Amendments would be required to that Act, but until we can be certain that this Bill is going to be accepted by any great body of public opinion in Ireland—and apparently it has only been grudgingly accepted even by the right hon. and learned Member for the Duncairn Division, who can speak for about four counties of North Eastern Ulster—and is going to be accepted by Irish opinion in Australia, Canada, and the United States, we have no right in honour to repeal the Act of 1914.
  I do not wish to make any party point at all. I honestly do not. I often do try to make party points, but I am simply speaking now as a very humble Member of the English House of Commons. All over the world to-day our enemies are accusing us of breaches of faith, not only in this particular respect, but in many others, and this will be one more charge levelled against us. It will be said that an Act on the Statute Book was passed after tremendous Constitutional struggles, and because the complexion of this House and of the Government changed, and because the right hon. and learned Member for the Duncairn Division and his friends were able to put up some sort of talk, we then repealed the Act which we were pledged most solemnly to the Irish people to carry through. We have been reminded in this Debate of pledges given by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and others that Ulster was not to be coerced. Might I remind the
  190
  Committee that most solemn pledges were given to Ireland that this Act would be put into operation, and that Irishmen went to the colours on that understanding, that when the War was over finally the Act would be put into operation? When there is, I do not like to call it a danger of peace, but that is apparently the way the Government have looked at it—perhaps the danger has receded in the last few days—but when there is a chance of getting peace somewhere with some of our many enemies, and when automatically this Act of 1914 will come into operation, down comes the Government with this Bill, which they force through, admitting that it is unacceptable to the Irish people, but right at the end is this Clause repealing the Act of 1914. I ask hon. Members, things being what they are, to hesitate long before they repeal this Act. Let us, at any rate, suspend this particular Clause for some time to see whether some arrangement cannot be made. If negotiations are not going on at the present time with the Sinn Fein leaders, they ought to be. We have had to negotiate with our mortal enemies in the late War, and with Krassin. We said we were not going to negotiate with Sinn Feiners, and if we are not—
  The CHAIRMAN: This is beyond the scope of the present Amendment.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This Bill does not offer a way out of the present impasse. The right hon. and learned Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) has said himself that he thinks this Bill is going to lead to an Irish Republic. Of course, when it passes through its stages, I suppose its Unionist friends will raise that bogey as a means of holding up the Bill, and, therefore, until we see some better way out, we have no business, if we have any regard for the honour of this country, to repeal the Act of 1914. I submit that our honour is most closely touched, and the thing which will be repeated throughout the Empire, and in the United States, will not be the fact that the Prime Minister himself believes that this Bill will one day, in the far distant future, be of some benefit to Ireland, but the fact that this House of Commons has used it is a smoke-screen to cover up their dark deeds.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That Subsection (2) stand part of the Clause."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 16.

  Division No. 163.]

  AYES.

  [10.30 p.m.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Mount, William Arthur

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Murchison, C. K.

  Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Neal, Arthur

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Goff, Sir R. Park

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

  Astor, Viscountess

  Gould, James C.

  Norton-Griffiths, Lleut.-Col. Sir John

  Atkey, A. R.

  Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

  Palmer, Charles Frederick(Wrekin)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Parker, James

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Gregory, Holman

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Barnett. Major R. W.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Perring, William George

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Philipps, Sir Owen C.(Chester, City)

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

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Pratt, John William

  Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

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

  Prescott, Major W. H.

  Blair, Reginald

  Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

  Purchase, H. G.

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Hanna, George Boyle

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.

  Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

  Rankin, Captain James S.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Reid, D. D.

  Briggs, Harold

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Remer, J. R.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

  Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Roberts, Sir S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Hinds, John

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

  Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

  Hood, Joseph

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Campbell, J. D. G.

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

  Shaw, William T.(Forfar)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Simm, M. T.

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

  Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Clough, Robert

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Stewart, Gershom

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Jesson, C.

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Sugden, W. H.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Colvin, Lieut.-Colonel Richard Beale

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

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

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

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

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)

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

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Dixon, Captain Herbert

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Vickers, Douglas

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Waddington, R.

  Edgar, Clifford B.

  Lloyd, George Butler

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

  Edge, Captain William

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Waring, Major Walter

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Lonsdale, James Rolston

  Whitla, Sir William

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

  Lorden, John William

  Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

  Lynn, R. J.

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Farquharson, Major A. C.

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Fell, Sir Arthur

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

  Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Mallalieu, F. W.

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Younger, Sir George

  Forrest, Walter

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Mitchell, William Lane

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Moles, Thomas

  Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Gange, E. Stanley

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  NOES.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Johnstone, Joseph

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

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

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

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

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  MR. G. Thorne and Mr. Raffan.

  The Committee divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 16.

  Division No. 164.]

  AYES.

  [10.38 p.m.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

  Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Mount, William Arthur

  Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Murchison, C. K.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Neal, Arthur

  Astor, Viscountess

  Goff, Sir R. Park

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

  Atkey, A. R.

  Gould, James C.

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

  Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Parker, James

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gregory, Holman

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Barnett, Major R. W.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Perring, William George

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Philipps, Sir Owen C.(Chester, City)

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

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Pratt, John William

  Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Prescott, Major W. H.

  Blair, Reginald

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

  Purchase, H. G.

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith

  Hanna, George Boyle

  Rankin, Captain James S.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

  Reid, D. D.

  Briggs, Harold

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Remer, J. R.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

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

  Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hinds, John

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

  Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Hood, Joseph

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Campbell, J. D. G.

  Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

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

  Simm, M. T.

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

  Clough, Robert

  Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Sugden, W. H.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Jesson, C.

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

  Colvin, Lieut.-Colonel Richard Beale

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Talbot, G. A.(Hemel Hempstead)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

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

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

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

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)

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

  Vickers, Douglas

  Dixon, Captain Herbert

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Waddington, R.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

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

  Edgar, Clifford B.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Waring, Major Walter

  Edge, Captain William

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Whitla, Sir William

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Lonsdale, James Rolston

  Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

  Lorden, John William

  Wilson, Daniel M.(Down, West)

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

  Lynn, R. J.

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Farquharson, Major A. C.

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

  Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

  Fell, Sir Arthur

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

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Mallalleu, F. W.

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

  Forestler-Walker, L.

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Younger, Sir George

  Forrest, Walter

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Mitchell, William Lane

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Moles, Thomas

  Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Gange, E. Stanley

  Molson, Major John Eisdale Ward.

  NOES.

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Benn, Captin Wedgwood (Leith)

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

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesborough, E.)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Galbraith, Samuel

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

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Thomson, T. (Middlesborough, West)

  Tellers For The Noes.—

  Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Raffan.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Major BARNES: We on this side of the Committee must protest against the unseemly haste with which the Government are conducting the funeral proceedings of the Home Rule Act of 1914. I think the
  194
  Government might have been content to give us more time. It is a very short Clause and consists of few words, but it puts a period to a whole generation of Liberal effort and two generations of the work of Irishmen in this House. Therefore I think we might have had more time, especially when one remembers the

  195
  Home Rule Bills of the past. If I am not incorrect, they took 60 or 70 days. If we compare that with the few days given to this Bill they cannot be regarded as commensurate with the importance of the subject. No better illustration could be given of the lack of appreciation by the Government of the real importance of this question than the fact that after a couple of hours they closured the Debate on this Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: To criticise the application of the Closure would be a reflection on the action of the Chair, and I cannot allow criticism of that nature.
  Major BARNES: I apologise for having in any sort of way appeared to ciriticise the action of the Chair, and I offer as an excuse my recent acquaintnace with the proceedings of this House. I am anxious, in the short time that it is possible to discuss this Clause, to keep very strictly within the bounds of Order. I do not know whether or not I am precluded from dealing with any point that might have been raised during the discussion of the Amendment which has just been dealt with. I want to know whether it might not be possible to discuss the question of leaving the Clause out altogether. Here we are standing, not at the end, but perhaps in the middle period of the Bill. There are some Clauses which are being postponed. I understand that, on the Report stage, it will be possible further to amend the Bill. I want to know whether, even if in the Committee stage, it is not possible to review what has taken place in the Committee, we may not leave out this Clause altogether. No doubt we can amend the Bill once more on the Report stage and so bring it into accord, even though we have left out the whole of this Clause. It may be said that an extraordinary situation would be created if we decided not to pass this Clause now, because, if it is not passed, the Government of Ireland Act of 1914 would not be repealed, and we should have passed these Clauses setting up two Parliaments, and at the same time refused to repeal the Act setitng up one Parliament for Ireland. Still, I think that extraordinary situation could be brought within bounds on the Report stage. There is still open to the Government an alternative which they might adopt which would save the Bill, and at the
  196
  same time keep the whole situation more in accord with the facts. Strangely enough, that alternative is one suggested by the Prime Minister himself. We on these Benches have been criticised because we have no alternative. It may be we have none, but the right hon. Gentleman has one, which I believe would have been acceptable, not only to this country and to Ireland, but to this House, some parts of which, I fear, are even more irreconcilable than parts of Ireland. It would have brought about a real settlement of the Irish Question. That alternative is to be found in a letter the right hon. Gentleman addressed to the Lord Privy Seal on the 7th November, 1918, and this is how he described it—
  "Eighteen months ago the Government made alternative proposals for the settlement of the Irish problem. It offered either to bring Home Rule into immediate effect—"
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Are we not discussing the repeal of the Act of 1914?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was in the middle of a sentence, and I must hear him further before I can decide that point.
  Major BARNES: I was trying to argue that this Clause should not stand part of the Bill. I am trying to show how the situation which would be created if the Committee took that view could be met by adopting the alternative which the Prime Minister himself proposed. The words which the right hon. Gentleman used are these—and perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I repeat them, because, by reason of the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member, the sense of them may have been lost to the Committee—
  "Eighteen months ago the Government made alternative proposals for the settlement of the Irish problem. It offered to bring Home Rule into immediate effect while excluding the six Northern Counties of Ulster from its operation and setting up at the same time a Joint Council which will be prepared to extend the legislation of the Irish Parliament to Ulster."
  That was one alternative. The other was to set up a Convention. The second was adopted, but unfortunately the Convention found themselves unable to arrive at an agreement, and the Prime Minister continued in his letter—

  197
  "In these circumstances I claim the right to bring the settlement into effect based on the first of these alternatives."
  That was the proposal of the Prime Minister himself, apparently acquiesced in by the Lord Privy Seal. How different is the proposal of the Bill? That is not to set up an Irish Parliament excluding Ulster from its operation, and providing a Joint Council which might extend the legislation of the Irish Parliament to Ulster, but—
  The CHAIRMAN: That is the very question we decided on the first Amendment to Clause 1.
  Major BARNES: I am sorry if I have transgressed the rules of Order. It is difficult for a new Member to appreciate fully the technicalities of Parliamentary procedure, but it did appear to me that that argument, which, in view of its source, seems to me to be an important and weighty one, might well have induced the House to consider whether this Clause should really stand part of the
  Bill, and whether the adoption by the Government of a proposal which does imply a considerable revision of what they have had in mind and have brought before the House, is not unusual, even in the proceedings of this House. On more than one occasion, when the Government have committed themselves very fully to a policy, they have made considerable modifications, but they have only done so when the suggestion has been made by Members of considerable position and weight. If I had had the advantage of the experience and distinction which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn possesses, I should not have been so hopeless as I am of success.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 15.

  Division No. 165.]

  AYES.

  [10.59 p.m.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

  Elliot, Capt. Waiter E. (Lanark)

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvii)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Astor, Viscountess

  Farquharson, Major A. C.

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Atkey, A. R.

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Forrest, Walter

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Barnett, Major R. W.

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis F.

  Locker- Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

  Gange, E. Stanley

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)

  Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

  Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

  Lonsdale, James Rolston

  Blair, Reginald

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Lorden, John William

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Lynn, R. J.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Gould, James C.

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

  Briggs, Harold

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Gregory, Holman

  Mallalieu, F. W.

  Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Mitchell, William Lane

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Moles, Thomas

  Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Campbell, J. D. C.

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Hanna, George Boyle

  Neal, Arthur

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

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

  Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

  Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Clough, Robert

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Palmer Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Parker, James

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Parry, Lieut.- Colonel Thomas Henry

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hinds, John

  Perring, William George

  Colvin, Lieut.-Colonel Richard Beale

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hood, Joseph

  Pratt, John William

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

  Prescott, Major W. H.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

  Purchase, H. G.

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Rankin, Captain James S.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

  Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Reid, D. D.

  Dixon, Captain Herbert

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Remer, J. R.

  Edgar, Clifford B.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

  Edge, Captain William

  Jesson, C.

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Whitla, Sir William

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

  Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

  Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

  Simm, M. T.

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Tryon, Major George Clement

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

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

  Vickers, Douglas

  Younger, Sir George

  Stewart, Gershom

  Waddington, R.

  Sturrock, J. Leng

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Sugden, W. H.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  NOES.

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

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

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Entwistle, Major C F.

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

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Johnstone, Joseph

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Raffan.

  Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 16.

  Division No. 166.]

  AYES.

  [11.8 p.m.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

  Forrest, Walter

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransoms

  Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Gange, E. Stanley

  Mitchell, William Lane

  Astor, Viscountess

  Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

  Moles, Thomas

  Atkey, A. R.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Mount, William Arthur

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gould, James C.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Neal, Arthur

  Barnett, Major R. W.

  Gregory, Holman

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

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

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

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

  Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Parker, James

  Blair, Reginald

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Perkins, Waiter Frank

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

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

  Perring, William George

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

  Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hanna, George Boyle

  Pratt, John William

  Briggs, Harold

  Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

  Prescott, Major W. H.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Rankin, Captain James S.

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Reid, D. D.

  Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Remer, J. R.

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Hinds, John

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

  Campbell, J. D. G.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Hood, Joseph

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Clough, Robert

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Simm, M. T.

  Cockerlll, Brigadier-General G. K.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Jesson, C.

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydv11)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Sugden, W. H.

  Dixon, Captain Herbert

  Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Doyle, N. Grattan

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

  Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

  Edgar, Clifford B.

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Edge, Captain William

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Elliot, Capt. Waiter E. (Lanark)

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Thomson, F. C. Aberdeen, South)

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

  Lonsdale, James Rolston

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Farquharson, Major A. C.

  Lorden, John William

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Vickers, Douglas

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

  Lynn, R. J.

  Waddington, R.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

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

  Forestier-Walker, L.

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

  Waring, Major Walter

  Whitla, Sir William

  Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

  Younger, Sir George

  Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

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

  Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley

  Ward.

  NOES.

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

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

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Galbraith, Samuel

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

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Raffan.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

  RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise further payments, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for the salaries and allowances of Resident Magistrates in Ireland and to amend the Law relating thereto."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Colonel GRETTON: This Resolution calls for explanation. These are not days for new expenditure. I suggest that expenditure in Ireland is waste of money unless the Government take steps to support the decisions which these magistrates give. It is useless appointing magistrates unless the Government supplies that force or that authority which is necessary to support the magistrates. What sum of money is required and how is it proposed to use it? We ought not blindly to vote any money.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The sum of money asked for is £8,000 and the object of the Bill is to increase the salaries of resident magistrates by a comparatively small sum. Indeed, an hon. Member opposed the Bill on the ground that the increase of salary proposed was too small. They are all existing resident magistrates. Upon appointment it is proposed to give them a minimum salary of £500 a year, rising to £700. When hon.
  202
  Members consider the risks that these men run and the efficient way in which they discharge their duties, they will agree that the salary is not extravagant. At present they receive a minimum of —425, and that sum was fixed as far back as 1874, since when no increase has been granted to them. The matter was discussed fully in Committee on Friday, and from all parts of the House there was appreciation of the services rendered by these gentlemen.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Of course I freely recognise the great services of these gentlemen in Ireland, but I do not think that the learned Attorney-General has answered the question put to him. Before we vote this money I think we ought to be told by the Government whether they see any probability in the near future of some sort of law and order being maintained in Ireland.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is hardly relevant to the increase of the salaries of magistrates.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I put it to the House that we are at any rate voting an increase of money for these resident magistrates and I suggest to the Government that, things being as they are, it would be much better if these magistrates could be sent, say, to Mesopotamia, where they might at any rate earn their pay, instead of remaining in Ireland where this money—although I do not grudge it to the unfortunate gentlemen—brings no adequate return to the country.
  Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: I would like to ask the representative of the Irish Government whether, when the Government of Ireland Bill becomes law, it will or will not affect this proposal, and whether in the interim it is necessary to introduce a proposal for increased ex-

  203
  penditure. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of £425 as a pittance for a magistrate. Of course, it is a pittance. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had in mind the salary of an hon. Member of this House. It exceeds that by £25 per annum. The method of the Government, in coming down at twenty past eleven at night, and voting £8,000 or £10,000, or it may be £2,000,000 or £26,000,000, as was the case the other night, does not give hon. Members the opportunity of doing that which they might conceive to be their duty. If there is a Division I shall vote against giving Irish resident magistrates more than £425 on principle. If resident magistrates have to suffer on a question of principle they will not be the only people in Ireland or out of it to do so. The Government will have their way so long as this House is constituted as it is. The points made have not been replied to. It strikes me as amazing that at the particular moment when these magistrates, through no fault of their own, are utterly incapable of carrying on operations, the Government should come down and ask for this increase.
  Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I understand representations have been made to the Government not so much with regard to the minimum salary of these Resident Magistrates, but as to the maximum, and they object to be limited to a maximum of £700 per year. I have it on good authority that the increase now proposed is only £25 a year. You expect these men to carry on arduous duties, and you are not adequately paying them. I think the Government ought to withdraw this Resolution and recast it altogether. The Resident Magistrate is a man who rather reminds me of the tradesman who employs a girl cashier and pays her 15s. per week and wonders why she is not honest. The Resident Magistrate has to be above suspicion and above the fear of being corrupted by the people he has to deal with. A salary of £700, which is about £300 in pre-War value, is not fair to Resident Magistrates. I hope hon. Members who represent Ireland in this House, and who are the only Irish Members to honour this Assembly with their presence, will demand that so long as this system continues, and I hope they will bring it to an end as soon as possible, these men should be paid a fair wage.
  Mr. PALMER: I join in the appeal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel P. Williams) that the Government should withdraw this Resolution and improve the conditions for the men who do great and wonderful services in Ireland. I object to the Resolution also on the ground that until the Government can give proper security for the Courts in Ireland, that it is waste of money to pay any magistrate a penny. From everything we hear we know that the King's Writ is not running in Ireland, and magistrates are unable to do their work. I think if the Government would withdraw the Resolution and give us an assurance that they will do their best to see and protect magistrates, so that they can do their work, they will be doing a service. I agree that this is a mean and contemptible increase in the salaries of men who do their work in very grave and difficult circumstances. I am for economy, but I think that to economise in this way is not fair to men who are serving their King in Ireland. If the Resolution is taken to a Division, I shall vote against it.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and that Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Sir Hamar Greenwood, and Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland do prepare and bring it in.

  RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) BILL,
  "to amend the Law relating to the Salaries and Allowances of Resident. Magistrates in Ireland," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

  SHERIFFS (IRELAND) (SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES).
  Resolution reported.
  "That, for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to the offices of sheriff and under-sheriff in Ireland, and for other purposes incidental thereto, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of annual sums not exceeding two hundred and fifty pounds each to under-sheriffs and of increased salaries not exceeding forty pounds per annum each to process servers who are also bailiffs."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. HENRY: The Bill for which this Resolution is required is a short Bill to increase the salaries of under-sheriffs in county boroughs and counties in Ireland. The total increase, so far as the Imperial Treasury is concerned, in connection with sheriffs, amounts to a sum of £362.
  HON MEMBERS: Agreed, agreed!
  Lieut.-Colonel KENWORTHY: It is not only a matter of £362. If hon. Members had given the right hon. Gentleman time they would have learned that there is about £4,000 which will have to be paid by the local governing bodies in Ireland. I would point out that we are offering sheriffs, who, it was stated the other day by the Government, must be people of position, and who are not allowed to practice at the Bar, the magnificent sum of £200 to live on. I think it is too bad of hon. Members to shout the Irish Attorney-General down before we have heard the whole story. I should have liked to hear whether the local governing bodies in that country are to pay this money, and whether these men are to starve while waiting for distraint upon the local bodies which can be resisted and fought out. In addition to the money, there is a very serious matter of principle involved to which we on this side object very strenuously. Up to now these under-sheriffs have been appointed by the sheriffs, and now the power of appointment is to be vested in the Lord Lieutenant. As many appointments as possible ought to be made by the local bodies, and as few as possible left in the hands of a bureaucratic central government like Dublin. It is not the Lord Lieutenant, but some permanent official, who has grown old and mildewed in the Service, who will make the appointments. The men appointed will be of one political colour. Later on there will be officials of a different outlook, and they will only appoint men who have the other point of view, which is equally objectionable. We are objecting to this on principle, and we shall vote against it.
  Mr. BILLING: I have been anxious to make out what the hon. and gallant Gentleman was trying to get at. From what I understood, he objected strongly to this House passing any Money Resolution, because it was not really £300, but
  206
  thousands of pounds, which we should have to find on account of the local governing bodies not recognising British rule. In the same breath he suggests it is unsound that those bodies should be prevented from appointing the under-sheriffs. It sounds somewhat of a political paradox. But I object from a different point of view. It has been suggested that, unless we pay these men well, we cannot expect honest service. I do not like that point of view at all. You might just as well say that, because a Member of this House is only paid as much as a railway guard, you cannot expect honest legislation from this House. I take exception to the inference that it is necessary to pay a man a large sum of money to make him honest. On the other hand, I do object, and I think other hon. Members ought to join me in objecting, to the taking of Financial Resolutions after eleven o'clock at night, when only 20 per cent. of the Members are in the House.
  Captain W. BENN: This Resolution—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]—increases the pay of the under-sheriffs and transfers the appointment from the High Sheriff to the Lord Lieutenant. But supposing later the local authorities refuse to pay, do we incur any contingent liability? The matter is an important one. Where are we to understand the liability falls?
  Mr. HENRY: The liability falls upon the Imperial Exchequer.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are these officers to starve, or what is going to happen?

  BLIND PERSONS [PENSIONS AND EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported,—
  "That it is expedient to make such provision out of moneys provided by Parliament as is required for paying such pensions to blind persons who have attained the age of fifty as, under the Old Age Pension Acts, 1908 to 1919, they would be entitled to receive if they had attained the age of seventy, and any expenses incurred by any Government Department and the expenses incurred by the local pensions committees up to an amount approved by the Treasury in connection therewith in pursuance of any

  207
  Act of the present Session to promote the welfare of blind persons."
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question porposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I very much regret that the Government, after the long and important Debate which took place on Friday, have not seen their way to widen this Resolution. The Bill now before Parliament is very much in advance of anything that has yet been done for this unfortunate class; this Resolution gives us a still further opportunity of doing more. The Government respond to arguments put forward that they could not go further than proposed because of the expense. Whether these people were above or below 50 years of age the Government's response for further aid was the expense and the need for economy. This Resolution will absolutely tie us when we come to consider the Bill. Under it it will not be possible to give any pension to any person under 50 years of age, however deserving. The result will be that many blind people will have to go to the Poor Law. I know from long experience that boards of guardians are protesting against this. I appeal to the Government even now so to modify this Resolution that blind people under 50 may obtain their pension, at least if they can show that they are of good character and that they are unable to earn their own living. It is really a scandal, when we are going to attempt to deal with this blind question, if we are going to deal with it in such a way as to leave the blind person whom I have just described to the Poor Law instead of giving him, or her, the pension to be given to the person over 50 years of age. I hope the Government will make this small concession. The amount involved will be very smll, because it is only occasionally that a blind person is unable not to do something; and it will apply to people who have become blind, and perhaps for various reasons, age and what not, are unable to learn a trade. These are the people who will have to go to the Poor Law. If the Government could extend their Resolution to meet these cases it would only be a small additional cost, but it would meet a point of principle upon which there is a very widespread feeling throughout the country that there is no blind person of respect-
  208
  able character who should be obliged to apply to the Poor Law.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I wish to join in the appeal which has been made to the Government to withdraw this Resolution. The Government say that they are entirely sympathetic towards these appeals, but there is no consistency in the position which they take up. The blind person is equally dependent for support upon others, whether his age is 30, 40 or 50, and therefore the Government have no case. If you admit that the affliction of blindness is worthy of support from the common purse, it is equally necessary before the age of 50 is attained. The Government now fall back upon the calls upon their funds, but the other evening they were quite prepared to ask the House to indulge in an expenditure of £3,000,000 in connection with some fantastic arrangement for the Army. If they can afford to spend a sum like that for dressing the Army in scarlet they can afford a much less sum in order to bring relief and some measure of happiness to those devoid of sight. Therefore, I ask the Government to reconsider the matter. In Committee upstairs our hands are tied in regard to this Money Resolution so far as Amendments are concerned, and we had the same difficulty on the Unemployed Insurance Bill. I appeal to the Government, and to the sympathy which I know that the right hon. Gentleman possesses, to reconsider the matter, and to see if the Treasury cannot find a few thousand pounds more which are necessary to bring comfort to those who are so deserving.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am rather interested to know who is representing the Treasury. I see the Patronage Secretary present and also one of His Majesty's Household, but I do not see any representative of the Treasury. I see the Lord Privy Seal and the Leader of the House, and I wish to ask them if something can be done to give some assurance that the Government are going to deal with the blind under the age of 50. On a former occasion the Government were kind enough to closure me when I was making that point, and at that time the Parliamentary Secretary gave a broad hint that it was difficult at that moment to make any declaration to relieve our anxieties and wishes on this sub-

  209
  ject of the blind. There has since been time to consider the matter, and I hope the Lord Privy Seal can now give us some sort of assurance that this matter is going to be dealt with. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Williams) spoke of blind people being able to earn some sort of livelihood, but owing to the economic conditions of to-day that is just what they cannot do. It is a fact that blind people who, before the War, could earn some sort of a living by making mats and brushes cannot do so now owing to the rise in the cost of living and the fact that there are many more people to-day doing that sort of work. The cost of living has gone up, but owing to some economic cause that I cannot understand, the prices of the articles which blind people make have not risen.
  Mr. SUGDEN: I am sorry to contradict the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but that is only partly true.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I know my hon. Friend has taken very great interest in the blind. He is the Secretary of a small Committee, of which I am a member, who try to help the blind, but I have it from the officials of the Blind Union that is the case, and they give me facts and figures. I admit that it may be only partially true, but the fact remains that many blind men and women who could keep body and soul together before the War are finding the greatest difficulty now. Under these circumstances, it is perfectly iniquitous to limit it to 50 years of age, and I draw the attention of the House to the extraordinary meanness of the way in which the pension, which at best is only 10s., is limited when the blind person, through some legacy, charity, or his own exertion, has some small income. A person who has 5s. 6d. per week only gets 8s. Is that the sort of treatment we want to give to our unfortunate fellow citizens who have lost their sight? As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) pointed out, we can contemplate spending £3,000,000 on military vanities and fineries, and we can spend enormous sums on commitments abroad for most questionable purposes to which, I believe, the great mass of the people are opposed. I particularly refer to our terrific expenditure in Mesopotamia. We are spending millioms out there and on housing and land schemes, and now, when appeals are made from all
  210
  parts of the House for a little more generosity towards the blind, we are told that the country cannot afford it. It is pitiable hypocrisy; it is meanness of the worst description; and, as I voted against this Resolution on Tuesday, I shall certainly vote against it to-night on Report.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): My hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken might have made himself a little more familiar with the proposals of the Government which he so freely condemns. I noticed that he had got the amounts wrong, and he was also wrong with regard to the proposals of the Government.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Might I ask what the right hon. Gentleman expects when he takes the Resolution at ten minutes before twelve o'clock?
  Dr. ADDISON: I expect an hon. Member who ventures to criticise to inform himself of the proposals. This is one of a number of proposals for the benefit and assistance of blind persons as part of a considered and thought-out scheme which is indicated in the other Clauses of the Bill. For instance, this Resolution relating to blind persons over fifty years of age is founded upon this in the main, that we find that blind persons, as a rule, below the age of fifty, can get the benefits of the training institutions, hostels, homes, and other establishments which the local authorities have power to set up under the other provisions of the Bill, and in respect of which they will receive a grant of 50 per cent. of the expenditure. The concessions which the local authorities can give to blind persons under fifty years of age are only limited by the soundness of the scheme properly approved. Our aim is to assist blind persons to help themselves. There is nothing to prevent the authorities supplementing their earnings. That is the basis of the grant we now give of so much per head for training blind persons, and this fact has been lost sight of entirely in the criticisms to which the House has just listened. A large proportion of the blind of the country are fifty years and over, and all those over can get more than 10s. per week. They are not prejudiced in any way because they may have a private income of a few

  211
  shillings weekly. The new scheme under which the old age pension may go up to as much as 19s. per week will apply in exactly the same way, and with the same qualifications and the same machinery in every way, to blind persons. This is the first considered scheme for assisting blind persons as a whole. It has been put forward irrespective of party, and it is beside the mark, because it does not do everything in exactly the way hon. Members want, to condemn the whole thing. It is a great advance on anything which any Parliament has ever proposed, and I think we are thoroughly justified in getting this scheme into working order, and in seeing what facts may be revealed and how the scheme may be strengthened as experience ripens. The great thing is to begin operations.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly deal with the point I raised?
  Dr. ADDISON: I have done so. I pointed out that a blind man under fifty could get training and there were various ways of helping him provided for in the Bill.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: But my point was in regard to men who could not be trained and could not possibly earn a living.
  Dr. ADDISON: If the hon. Member will read the second Clause of the Bill he will see that these people can be dealt with in various ways. The Clause is exceedingly wide.
  Major BARNES: Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal will tell us something about it. I believe he was not able to be present during the whole of the Debate on Friday, but no doubt he has had a report of it and has been informed that most intense interest is taken in the Bill, that the Debate was prolonged and had to be closured at the finish. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has been informed that the general opinion was that the Government should reconsider their proposal. It is not suggested that the right hon. Gentleman is not doing all he can on the matter, but there was a suspicion that he was not being backed up as he should be by hon. Members behind. A strong hope was expressed on Friday that
  212
  the Government would withdraw their Resolution and came forward with more generous proposals. There may be a Division taken on this Report stage, and votes of hon. Members might be affected by the knowledge of the Government's real views. Had they decided that this was the fullest extent to which they could possibly go at this time? If they were told that, then many hon. Members might be induced to vote for the resolution on the principle that a half loaf was better than no bread at all. If we can be assured by the Lord Privy Seal that the Cabinet has given careful consideration to this matter, and had come to the conclusion that this Bill represents the fullest extent to which they are prepared to go, it may induce hon. Members to exercise patience for a further period of time.
  Captain W. BENN: It is a pity one point at least has not been more sympathetically considered by the right hon. Gentleman. We realise that a great step forward has been made. The Government has the credit for having made the first comprehensive coherent proposal for dealing with this painful and pitiful subject. But there is one feature about the proposal which is open to grave criticism. In allotting Old Age Pensions, a very rigid inquiry into means is made. That may be very desirable, but the Old Age Pension is in rather a different category from a pension on account of blindness. Is it really necessary that the same very searching questions should be put and the same scale of grading adopted as in the case of the Old Age Pension? I suggested on Friday that if the Government could have seen their way to postpone the consideration of this they might have given us an estimate of the cost. What would be the additional cost supposing you said, "As regards the people who receive the pension we will ask no questions and allot them 10s." Is it a very larger sum? I am very 10th to press for more money, and I am sorry to have to discuss a new annual charge of £250,000 at 12 o'clock. I am sure it was never contemplated under the rules that such a thing should be reserved for midnight discussion. But are we asking for a very large sum of money if we ask for the raising of the inquiry as to means, because if it is a concession which could be made, it would be welcomed, as we welcome the whole

  213
  proposal as one step in a very desirable direction.
  Major ENTWISTLE: The Minister of Health said Clause 2 gives wide enough powers to deal with the blind under the age of fifty. The Clause merely contains permissive powers for a local council to provide workshops, hostels, houses, or other places. The criticism has been offered over and over again that these are purely permissive powers, that there is every likelihood that local authorities will not be able to finance the schemes, and that we shall get a similar position to what we have had in housing, a difficulty in getting things done, and in reality the powers conferred by Clause 2 are a very poor substitute for what has been asked. The request we make is a very small one. What possible answer can there be to the claim that these people under the age of 50, who cannot earn their living, should have some provision made for them? I am informed by the hon. Member (Mr. Sugden) that the cost would be about £160,000. That is a small matter when weighed with other things, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) will give us some assurance on the line that has been asked for, and that provision will be made for this small class of persons.
  12 M.
  Mr. CHARLES PALMER: I would join in the appeal to the Leader of the House. I took some part in the discussion on Friday, and moved the closure which secured the passage of the Resolution after making a very earnest appeal to the hon. Gentleman in charge that the Government might take a more generous view of this particular part of the Bill. I think we should all go home somewhat happier and more contented in our minds if he would say that the Government would reconsider the matter, and at the earliest possible moment see if they could make a more generous contribution.
  Sir R. NEWMAN: I know every hon. Member is as sympathetic to the blind as anyone else. There is no question of want of sympathy on any side of the
  214
  House. I should like to press on the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not enlarge the Financial Resolution somewhat. I imagine the whole object is to bring into the scope of the Bill blind people under the age of 50 who cannot maintain themselves. I am the last person to advocate any extravagant expenditure which would entail increased cost on to taxpayers or ratepayers, who at present have very heavy duties and responsibilities placed upon them. In my opinion, the maintenance of the blind is not a question for the localities, but for the whole nation, and therefore it is not really extravagance. The money has to be found. The ratepayers cannot pay more to maintain these people, and someone must maintain them. If the scope of the Resolution could be so enlarged, the Government might later on bring before the House a measure which would more adequately meet the demand.

  PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  PENSIONS INCREASE [MONEY],
  Committee to consider of authorising the provision, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of increased pensions to certain persons (King's Recommendation signified), this day.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Nine minutes after Twelve o'clock.

  CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL PARTIES).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL PARTIES).
INDIA.
  ARMY SCHOOLMASTERS.
  ARMY SCHOOLMASTERS.
  ROYAL ARMY VETERINARY CORPS (OFFICERS' PAY).
  ROYAL ARMY VETERINARY CORPS (OFFICERS' PAY).
  ARMY OFFICERS' WIDOWS AND DEPENDANTS (PENSIONS).
  ARMY OFFICERS' WIDOWS AND DEPENDANTS (PENSIONS).
IRELAND.
  SINN FEIN PRISONERS, WORMWOOD SCRUBS (VISITORS).
  SINN FEIN PRISONERS, WORMWOOD SCRUBS (VISITORS).
  MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION, CLARE CASTLE CHURCH (COMPENSATION).
  MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION, CLARE CASTLE CHURCH (COMPENSATION).
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL (MODEL SCHOOL TEACHERS).
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL (MODEL SCHOOL TEACHERS).
  PRISON APPOINTMENTS (DEPUTY- GOVERNORS AND GOVERNORS).
  PRISON APPOINTMENTS (DEPUTY- GOVERNORS AND GOVERNORS).
  BRITISH AND IRISH STEAM PACKET COMPANY (DISPUTE).
  BRITISH AND IRISH STEAM PACKET COMPANY (DISPUTE).
  "LABOUR GAZETTE."
  "LABOUR GAZETTE."
  BANK CLERKS (UNREST).
  BANK CLERKS (UNREST).
  GAS INDUSTRY (DISPUTE).
  GAS INDUSTRY (DISPUTE).
SCOTLAND.
  WHALE-HUNTING, SHETLAND.
  WHALE-HUNTING, SHETLAND.
BRITISH ARMY.
  RE-CLOTHING (OFFICERS' MESS DRESS).
  RE-CLOTHING (OFFICERS' MESS DRESS).
  RATION ALLOWANCE (SERGEANT C. TREES, LABOUR CORPS).
  RATION ALLOWANCE (SERGEANT C. TREES, LABOUR CORPS).
ROYAL NAVY.
  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (MERCHANT SHIP- BUILDING).
  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (MERCHANT SHIP- BUILDING).
  PRIZE MONEY.
  PRIZE MONEY.
  MECHANIC AND TORPEDO RATINGS (TRADE UNIONS).
  MECHANIC AND TORPEDO RATINGS (TRADE UNIONS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (MR. C. F. WORLDING, WISBECH).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (MR. C. F. WORLDING, WISBECH).
  OFFICERS' WIDOWS (PENSIONS).
  OFFICERS' WIDOWS (PENSIONS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (SECOND-LIEUTENANT T. A. LLOYD).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (SECOND-LIEUTENANT T. A. LLOYD).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  METAL FILERS, WOOLSTON.
  METAL FILERS, WOOLSTON.
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION (BUILDING TRADE).
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION (BUILDING TRADE).
PEACE TREATIES.
  OCCUPIED GERMAN TERRITORY (SUPPRES SION OF NEWSPAPERS).
  OCCUPIED GERMAN TERRITORY (SUPPRES SION OF NEWSPAPERS).
  GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN PROPERTY (BRITISH CREDITORS).
  GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN PROPERTY (BRITISH CREDITORS).
  MESOPOTAMIA (WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS).
  MESOPOTAMIA (WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS).
  HUNGARY (HEJJAS DETACH- MENTS).
  HUNGARY (HEJJAS DETACH- MENTS).
FINANCE BILL.
  CONVEYANCES (INCREMENT VALUE DUTY STAMP).
  CONVEYANCES (INCREMENT VALUE DUTY STAMP).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (LIVE STOCK SHOWS).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (LIVE STOCK SHOWS).
  SEA POLICIES (STAMP DUTY).
  SEA POLICIES (STAMP DUTY).
  COAST RECLAMATION, BLUNDELL- SANDS.
  COAST RECLAMATION, BLUNDELL- SANDS.
HOUSING.
  RURAL DISTRICTS, IRELAND.
  RURAL DISTRICTS, IRELAND.
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (FINAN CIAL POSITION).
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (FINAN CIAL POSITION).
TRANSPORT.
  LONDON OMNIBUSES (NEW TYPE).
  LONDON OMNIBUSES (NEW TYPE).
  RAILWAY ANNUITANTS.
  RAILWAY ANNUITANTS.
  FRUIT PICKERS, SCOTLAND (RAILWAY FARES).
  FRUIT PICKERS, SCOTLAND (RAILWAY FARES).
  MILITARY LORRIES (CONVEYANCE).
  MILITARY LORRIES (CONVEYANCE).
  RAILWAY CLEARING HOUSE (STATISTICS).
  RAILWAY CLEARING HOUSE (STATISTICS).
  RAMSGATE AND HOLYHEAD HARBOURS (FLAG).
  RAMSGATE AND HOLYHEAD HARBOURS (FLAG).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  MR. WOODHOUSE (SPEECH).
  MR. WOODHOUSE (SPEECH).
  REQUISITIONED BACON (CLAIMS).
  REQUISITIONED BACON (CLAIMS).
  NEW ZEALAND CHEESE AND BUTTER.
  NEW ZEALAND CHEESE AND BUTTER.
  MILK (PROFITEERING ACT).
  MILK (PROFITEERING ACT).
AGRICULTURE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION SOCIETY (GRANTS).
  AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION SOCIETY (GRANTS).
  HARVEST BEER (LICENCES).
  HARVEST BEER (LICENCES).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  MUNITIONS OF WAR (EXPORTS).
  MUNITIONS OF WAR (EXPORTS).
  UNITED STATES AND CUBA (PREFERENTIAL TRADE).
  UNITED STATES AND CUBA (PREFERENTIAL TRADE).
  BRUSH MAKING (FOREIGN COMPETITION).
  BRUSH MAKING (FOREIGN COMPETITION).
  RUSSIAN FLAX AND ITALIAN HEMP.
  RUSSIAN FLAX AND ITALIAN HEMP.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT (FOREIGN PRINTED MATTER).
  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT (FOREIGN PRINTED MATTER).
  COAL EXPORTS, SOUTH WALES PORTS.
  COAL EXPORTS, SOUTH WALES PORTS.
GOVERNMENT OFFICES (STAFFS AND ACCOMMODATION).
  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (LEGAL BRANCH).
  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (LEGAL BRANCH).
  VALUATION DEPARTMENT, INLAND REVENUE.
  VALUATION DEPARTMENT, INLAND REVENUE.
  LOCAL FOOD OFFICES.
  LOCAL FOOD OFFICES.
  POST OFFICE (PRIVATE LETTER BAGS).
  POST OFFICE (PRIVATE LETTER BAGS).
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (TAXATION).
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (TAXATION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NORTH BRITISH AND MERCANTILE INSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  EXMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL.
  SEAHAM HARBOUR DOCK BILL.
  Read 3a and passed.

SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL.
UPPER MERSEY NAVIGATION BILL.
WREXHAM DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
WOOD GREEN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed and returned to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, very few words will be needed to explain the objects of this Bill. This measure has the same aim, and is dictated by the same necessity, as the Tramways (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill which your Lordships passed a few weeks ago. This

903
Bill applies to ports and harbours in the same way as that did to tramways. The immediate necessity for it is the Report of a Committee of Inquiry, presided over by Lord Shaw, into the wages of transport workers. The Committee reported last March and recommended an increase of wages up to 16 s. a day, and they added a clause to their Report as follows—
"The powers of many of the port and harbour authorities concerned to impose tolls and charges are regulated by Statute. If effect is given to the recommendations contained in this Report these authorities may find it necessary to have their powers amplified. The Court accordingly recommends that the Government should give immediate for the enactment of the alterations found necessary in the statutory powers of such authorities."
It is in pursuance of that recommendation that the Government is introducing this Bill. On April 19 a deputation of dock employers and transport workers waited on the Ministry and urged the introduction of legislation on these lines. Both the employers and the workmen agreed that the increased wages should be paid from May 10, but the employers insisted that this payment should be dependent on obtaining powers to levy increased charges and so pass on to the public the new financial burden.
It is difficult to estimate the full extent of this concession, but it is calculated that the port of London alone will have its expenses increased to the extent of £35,000 a week, or £1,820,000 a year. If, therefore, some measure of this kind is not passed it would be impossible for these statutory companies to continue their business. The Bill follows the same lines as the Tramways Bill. Clause 1 enacts that the increased charges shall not be more than is sufficient to allow an undertaking to be carried on, if the undertakers are a public body not trading for profit, without loss, and, if the undertakers are private owners, to provide for interest on loaned capital and a reasonable return on share capital. The second subsection arranges, in order that all interests may be properly safeguarded, that questions of increase of rates and charges shall be referred to the Rates Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Transport. That is the purpose of the Bill, whose Second Reading I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Permitted increases in rent.
2.—(1) The amount by which the increased rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies may exceed the standard rent shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be as follows, that is to say:—

(a) Where the landlord has since the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen incurred, or hereafter incurs, expenditure on the improvement or structural alteration of the dwelling-house (not including expenditure on decoration or repairs), an amount calculated at a rate per annum not exceeding six, or in the case of such expenditure incurred after the passing of this Act, eight per cent. of the amount so expended:

Provided that the tenant may apply to the county court for an order suspending or reducing such increase on the ground that such expenditure is or was unnecessary in whole or in part, and the court may make an order accordingly;

(b) An amount not exceeding any increase in the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of rates over the corresponding amount paid in respect of the yearly, half-yearly or other period which included the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, or in the case of a dwelling-house for which no rates were payable in respect of any period which included the said date, the period which included the date on which the rates first became payable;

(c) In addition to any such amounts as aforesaid, an amount not exceeding fifteen per centum of the net rent:

Provided that, except in the case of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies but the enactments repealed by this Act did not apply, the amount of such addition shall not during a period of one year after the passing of this Act exceed five per cent.;

(d) In further addition to any such amounts as aforesaid—

(i) where the landlord is responsible for the whole of repairs, an amount not exceeding twenty-five per cent. of the net rent; or

905

(ii) where the landlord is responsible for part and not the whole of the repairs, such lesser amount as may be agreed, or as may, on the application of the landlord or the tenant, be determined by the county court to be fair ant reasonable having regard to such liability.

(2) At any time or times not being less than three months after the date of any increase permitted by paragraph (d) of the foregoing subsection the tenant or the sanitary authority may apply to the county court for an order suspending such increase, and also any increase under paragraph (c) of that subsection, on the ground that the house is not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation, or is otherwise not in a reasonable state of repair.
The court on being satisfied by the production of a certificate of the sanitary authority or otherwise that any such ground as aforesaid is established, and on being further satisfied that the condition of the house is not due or not wholly due to the tenant's neglect or default or breach of exfores agreement, shall order that, the increase suspended until the court is satisfied, on the report of the sanitary authority or otherwise, that the necessary repairs (other than the repairs, if any, far which the tenant is liable) have been executed, and on the making of such order the increase shall cease to have effect, until the court, is so satisfied.
(3) Any transfer to a. tenant of any burden or liability previously borne by the landlord shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as an alteration of rent, and where, as the result of such a transfer, the terms on which a dwelling-house is held are on the whole less favourable to the tenant than the previous terms, the rent shall be deemed to be increased, whether or not the sum periodically payable by way of rent is increased, and any increase of rent in respect of any transfer to a landlord of any burden or liability previously borne by the tenant where, as the result, of such transfer, the terms on which any dwelling-house is held are on the whole more favourable to the tenant Clan the previous terms, shall be deemed not to be an increase of rent for the purposes of this Act: Provided that for the purposes of this section the rent shall not be deemed to be increased where the liability for rates is transferred from the landlord to the tenant, if it corresponding reduction is made in the rent.
(4) On any application to a sanitary authority for a certificate or report under this section a fee of one shilling shall be payable, but if the authority as the result of such application issues such a certificate as aforesaid, the tenant shall be entitled to deduct the fee from any subsequent payment of rent.
(5) For the purposes of this section the expression "rates" includes water rents and charges, and any increase in rates payable by the landlord shall be deemed to be payable by him until the rate is next demanded.
(6) Any question arising as to the amount of any increase of rent permissible under this section shall be determined on the application either of the landlord or the tenant by the county court, and the decision of the court shall be final and conclusive.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "expenditure On the," to insert "necessary reconstruction, partial replacement." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment that stands in my name on the Paper to the effect that there should be added to the words "improvement or structural alteration" the words "necessary reconstruction, partial replacement." This is to meet the cases of which, I am afraid, there are a good many now in our country districts, where it has become necessary, owing to the dilapidated state of cottages which it has been impossible to repair during the war, to reconstruct or partially reconstruct such cottages for the increased comfort of the tenants. I suggest that in those cases it ought to be possible to make all reasonable expenditure upon them and to obtain from the tenants some interest upon the expenditure by way of addition to the rent.
I may point out that there is a proviso to this subsection which makes it quite impossible in any case for the landlord to undertake expenditure which is not really necessary and to claim front the tenant the interest upon such capital expenditure, Consequently there is a safegaurd against unreasonable expenditure; and as it is in the best interests of the tenants that the cottages should be made habitable, especially in districts where there have been large subsidences owing to mining operations beneath the surface, I hope the noble Viscount will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, after ("the") insert ("necessary reconstruction, partial replacement").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (VISCOUNT ASTOR): We are in entire sympathy with the object of the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment, but I understand that the words on the Paper are unnecessary, and that "necessary reconstruction" or "partial replacement" would, in fact, be covered by the words now in the Bill—"structural alteration." Either the alteration of the house would be covered or else the house would be a new one and so not included in the Bill. I understand that the words are not necessary to meet the noble Lord's object.
LORD BLEDISLOE: If that is the legal advice given to the noble Viscount, I do not see how I can press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is very important. Is my noble friend quite sure about it?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: So I am advised.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The first three Amendments standing in my name are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 33, at end insert ("thereafter").
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("due or not wholly ") and insert ("wholly or partly").
Page 3, line 40, leave out ("more") and insert ("not less").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD) moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert: "For the purposes of this section the expression 'repairs' means any repairs required for the purpose of keeping premises in good and tenantable repair, both structural and decorative, and any premises, in such a state shall be deemed to be in a reasonable state of repair, and the landlord shall be deemed to be responsible for any repairs for which the tenant is under no express liability."
The noble and learned Lord said: The noble Viscount has asked me to move this Amendment because the matter dealt with is somewhat technical in character. Reading through this clause one must, I think, be conscious that it would be desirable that the term "repairs," which is a very important one in the clause, should be defined. There is no such definition at present, and although the broad conception is familiar enough to those who are likely to have to administer this law, it would be a convenience, and it would be no inconvenience, that there should be a definition.
It is proposed, therefore, here to adopt a definition, as this Amendment in effect does, which takes advantage of the familiar legal construction of the term "good and tenantable repair." To lawyers these words are very familiar. They have frequently been interpreted in this House. The words of paragraph (d) would almost certainly be held, as they stand, to refer to
908
cases where the landlord is responsible to the tenant for repairs. At least I so construe them. But the landlord ought certainly to be entitled to an increase of rent in respect of repairs for which he has no legal responsibility but which he has to carry out, and does carry out, to preserve the property. As your Lordships know, at common law the landlord is not liable to the tenant, but the tenant is liable to the landlord. I have carefully examined these words, and have no hesitation in recommending the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have no criticism to make upon what the noble and learned Lord has said. So far as I am capable of judging, which is very little, everything is quite correct, but he did not make reference to one phrase in the Amendment "both structural and decorative." I am a little doubtful as to the word "decorative." Your Lordships will recollect that under the Bill a landlord is not entitled to raise the rent even within the limits that are provided by the Bill, unless, in popular language, the cottage or the house is put into good repair. That is perfectly fair and proper. But when you come to consider what good repair is, it is rather important that we should distinguish between "structural" and "decorative," because it might easily be that a house was fit for human habitation in every respect but it might require a little paint or a little paper, and I doubt whether it is wise to forbid the landlord to raise the rent at all, according to the policy of the Bill, until all the decoration is absolutely put into apple pie order. If the noble and learned Lord could give your Lordships some assurance that the word "decorative" did not imply what we have suggested, I should have nothing to say; but, as they stand, the words sound to me rather wide.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Marquess understands, "repair" has always been held to relate not only to structural alterations but to putting those parts of the premises which are more properly described as decorative, in proper order on the conclusion of a tenancy. If one limited it here simply to the case of structural repairs I am not sure that one would not find oneself involved in some very considerable inconvenience.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My suggestion, so far as it was a suggestion, was simply to leave out those words so that it would read "good and tenantable repair."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My own view, given on the spur of the moment, is that it means exactly the same. But I should like to consider that more carefully, and I will do so between now and the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Viscount said: We propose to transfer this subsection to Clause 12, on page 12 of the Bill, after line 22—that is to say, the definition of "rates" will apply not only to Clause 2, but will be applicable to the whole Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 12 to 15, leave out subsection (5).—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "as to the amount of any increase of rent permis sible." The noble and learned Lord said: This again is a technical Amendment and must be read together with the second Amendment on page 4, line 17. The first Amendment is to leave out from "arising" in line 16 to "under" in line 17; and the second is in line 17, after "under" to insert "subsection (1), (2) or (3) of." The effect of this will be to leave it to the County Court to determine any question arising under the whole of the section instead of under subsection (4), which is not included, and not merely any question as to the amount of any increase of rent permissible. I have no hesitation in recommending this proposal to your Lordships. The County Court is the best court to determine the questions of fact that alone arise under the section, and it is not, in my experience, desirable to submit appeals upon matters of fact to the High Court. Your Lordships have the assurance of knowing that there never has been a time in which the ability of our County Court Judges was so generally recognised.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 16, leave out from ("arising") to ("under") in line 17.
910
Page 4, line 17, after ("under") insert ("subsection (1), (2), or (3) of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON moved, after subsection (6), to insert the following new subsection—
"(7) Any order as to the proportion of wages payable as rent made by the Agricultural Wages Board under the Corn Production Act, 1917, and any Act amending the same, shall be snbject to the provisions of this section."
The noble Earl said: I ventured to say a word on this question on the Second Reading of the Bill, but I was obliged to leave the House to fulfil a public engagement, and I do not believe that anything was said by the noble Viscount in regard to it. I do not think you could have in this Bill a greater hiatus than that the whole question of agricultural labourers' cottages should be left practically outside the scope of the Bill. When Your Lordships consented to the measure which dealt with corn production I do not think it was ever supposed that those who had to fix the wages would undertake, as they did, to lay down a standard rent for the whole of the cottages with which they were dealing—a standard rent which had nothing. whatever to do with the class of cottage, or the state of the cottage, or the size of the garden attached to it, or with any of the matters which come into holding or taking a house. They laid down what in some parts of the country is regarded as a fairly high standard of wages, and said that for all eases the same should apply—that there should be a reduction not exceeding 3s. a week for the cottage which went as part of the wages. That has been the cause of very great injustice and of a great want of proportion and it has, I submit, been entirely against public policy.
It has been against public policy for this reason. If you say to the ordinary owner, especially to the tenant farmer, "It is quite immaterial what kind of house you give your labourer, he will pay you the same whatever it is; the sum which is allowed you is one which will not enable you to keep any cottage in repair, therefore you had better not attempt it." The whole object of this Bill is that we should endeavour to get owners not merely to work up to a fair standard, but even to do progressive work in the matter of housing; and that is absolutely defeated by the Coin Production Act. As I understand it,

911
reading the two Acts together, the effect will be this. On one side of the road you will have a comparatively small cottage which is not let to an agricultural labourer. The owner of that cottage, who has had perhaps 4s. a week for it, may add on to it 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. On the other side of the real you have a roomy cottage with a large garden, for which the owner gets 3s. a week, but he can make no addition to the rent under this Bill. This interference with contract is in itself a thing to be avoided. I believe it is one of the most fatal barriers to reconstruction and good feeling, and if it is necessary let us at all events endeavour to make it fair as between the different classes of these cottages.
Your Lordships will see that in the clause with which we are dealing there are a number of points besides that of rent which file not dealt with at all under the Corn Production Act. Take paragraph (a), which is specially calculated with a view to inducing the landlord to make the proper additions to these houses and to spend capital. Under the Corn Production Act capital so expended makes no return whatever. I ventured on the Second Reading to give an experience which I think is common to a good many of your Lordships in this matter. One of my tenants came to me and said that the Government required him to plough up a good deal of pasture, and that it was absolutely impossible for him to house the necessary labour unless I would make additions to his cottages. I did maize additions to two cottages—two rooms to each—and they cost me £150 apiece, although the work was done with great economy. Naturally I did net expect any return on that capital, nor did my tenant get any return. He was allowed to charge 3s. as before; the only person who got any, advantage was the man to whose house the addition was made, who promptly let the rooms for 10s. apiece, and proceeded to get a considerable addition to his wages at the expense of the landlord. That is exactly what must occur in every case in which capital expenditure is made, unless we are allowed, as I propose, to bring all rents fixed by the Corn Production Act under this section. I think it is quite evident that if these measures are to he passed which interfere with contracts, you must try and interfere with such equality as you can, and not by one Act destroy the objects which you
912
have done your very best to achieve by another Act. For this reason I commend the Amendment to the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, after subsection (6) insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Midleton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether the noble Earl can help me at all. These matters are technical and difficult, and I have been reading a later Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl—namely, Clause 12, page 15, line 7—and it appeared to me that the later Amendment was put down really in connection with and almost as pat of the Amendment which he has just moved. I do not know whether he can tell me whether I am right.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: They are to an extent to be read together, but on this particular Amendment I wanted to raise the whole question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether the noble Earl would think it convenient at this stage to say anything about the second Amendment.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Perhaps I might explain to the noble and learned Lord. This Amendment has the object of bringing all rents under the Bill. The other Amendment has the object of providing for the extremely difficult cases in which no rent has ever been paid for the cottage. If no rent has ever been paid for the cottage, then certainly I think it must be reckoned as having been paid on some system; and in the second Amendment I suggest a system, which perhaps some of your Lordships may improve upon—namely, that it should be taken at the very moderate figure of one-eighth of the wages. If it were one-eighth of £1 in old days it would be 2s. 6d., and if one-eighth of £2 at the present day, 5s., and so forth.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was, I think, right in saying that the two Amendments are closely connected in their object. The first Amendment, as the noble Earl has told us, attempts to provide than an order of the Wages Board, authorising a reduction of 3s. on account of the cottage, should be subject to the increase permitted under Section 2; and as I understand the second Amendment, its object would be to

913
exclude the operation of subsection (7) of Clause 12 from cottages occupied by agricultural labourers, and bring such cottages under the general terms of the Bill, with a standard rent equal to one-eighth of the wages.
Dealing with the second Amendment, apparently it amounts to fixing the permissible reduction at one-eighth notwithstanding any order to the contrary by the Agricultural Wages Board. The first observation I would venture to make about these Amendments is that I have a very clear view that they would not and could not come within the scope and title of this Bill. The effect of the proposal really is—and especially is this true of the latter part of the second Amendment—to introduce very grave modifications in an earlier Act of Parliament by means of a Bill which purports to be a measure dealing with restrictions upon increases of rent and mortgage interest, and I should certainly gravely doubt whether Mr. Speaker would rule these Amendments to be within the scope of the measure. Of course, your Lordships' practise in such matters does not depend on the ruling of an individual, but upon the decision which will be taken by your Lordships as a whole.
Apart from the technical point of view, I am not sure that the Amendments are not really misconceived. If these Amendments were adopted, and supposing that everything he asks for in the Amendment were adopted, would the noble Earl's position really be bettered? I greatly doubt it, for this reason, that if the Agricultural Wages Board wished to defeat the whole purpose of the noble Earl they could easily do it. If they reduce the permissible reduction they can very largely defeat the proposal of the noble Earl, and in the second place they could increase the wages. If they reduced either the permissible reduction or increased the wages—it is in their power entirely to do so—they would defeat the noble Earl's purpose. Another consequence which I cannot believe is in his mind would, I think, also clearly follow, and it would be this, that agricultural cottages occupied under the conditions in question would come within the general terms of the Bill, including, of course, the provisions giving security of tenure. I do not think that that is the object of the noble Earl, and it is doubtful whether to bring these cottages within tile scope of the measure would have a result which any section of opinion would desire.
914
I quite see what the noble Earl wants, though it is extremely difficult by Amendment of the Bill to give it him effectively. The matter is extremely technical, and I cannot profess to be expert upon this subject. The suggestion I would make to him is this, and I hope that he will not take it as a suggestion which is intended to give him encouragement, but I myself would be very glad if he would discuss this matter with the very capable and experienced draftsman who is responsible for these matters, and if the discussion proved fruitful it might be possible for the noble Earl to carry the matter further.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether I rightly understood my noble and learned friend in the very important observation that he made when he said that cottages for which no rent is charged, and that are let as part of the bargain under which employment is arranged, are outside this Act altogether. Did the noble and learned Lord say that?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In that case, I do not know that my noble friend need press the matter any more, because none of these cottages come within the Act at all. If it had been otherwise I should have liked to point out to the noble and learned Lord that there is no reason to suppose that the Wages Board would set themselves to oppose the wishes of Parliament or to circumvent them. They would no doubt accept whatever direction were given to them. But as these cottages are outside the Act it does not seem worth while to press the matter further.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I hope, all the same, that my noble friend will accept the offer of the noble and learned Lord to discuss the matter with him. I agree that it would not be in accordance with public interest that these particular cottages, which are as much tied to a particular occupation as Downing-street is to the occupation of the Prime Minister, should be brought within the scope of this Bill. Nevertheless the other point which my noble friend raised is a very real one. The extraordinary position taken up by the Central Wages Board that a cottage of this kind, however good, is worth only 3s. a week. is a matter that requires to be

915
gone into, because it may be let to a cowman or carter or shepherd whose wages have been raised to 60s. a week. To fix the rent as low as 3s. a week discourages land owners from improving these cottages. Therefore I hope my noble friend will accept the offer to discuss the matter without prejudice.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I quite realise the spirit in which the noble and learned Lord has met me, but I most earnestly hope that these cottages will either be taken outside both Bills or will be dealt with under this Bill. So long as they are dealt with under the Corn Production Act this mischief and injustice will continue, as also will what I regard as an extraordinarily retrograde action. I should like the noble and learned Lord to discuss the matter to see if we cannot arrive at a conclusion before the Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Should I be right in taking it that this would apply to the connected Amendment—the second Amendment of the noble Earl?
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Permitted increase in rate of mortgage interest.
4. The amount by which the increased rate of interest payable in respect of a mortgage to which this Act applies may exceed the standard rate, shall be an amount not exceeding one per cent. per annum:
provided that—

(a) the rate shall not be increased so as to exceed six and a-half per cent. per annum; and

(b) except in the case of a dwelling house to which this Act applies but the enactments repealed by this Act did not apply, the increase during a period of one year after the passing of this Act shall not exceed one-half per cent. per annum.

LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after "annum" and immediately before the proviso, to insert "or where the standard rate is 4 per cent. or less, an amount not exceeding 2 per cent. per annum." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will notice that this clause permits an increase in the rate of mortgage interest not exceeding 1 per cent.
916
as compared to the rate which was payable at the date of the outbreak of war. My object in this Amendment is to meet the ease of that very large number of persons whose whole income depends upon interest payable on the mortgage of real property, and to enable such persons, where the rate of interest has been 4 per cent. or less before the war, to obtain now an increase of 2 per cent. instead of the 1 per cent. contemplated by this clause as drawn.
The clause does not seem in any way to take into account the present value of money or the present rate of interest payable on and obtainable from gilt-edged Government securities. The clause as drawn is very hard, bearing in mind the provisions of Clause 7, which prevent any mortgagee calling in a mortgage under any circumstances and consequently of reinvesting, as other citizens have the opportunity of doing, their money at a high rate of interest in gilt-edged securities. It certainly seems very hard on this large class of persons if they are not going to be allowed either to realise on their mortgages or to gain an increase in the rate of interest beyond the paltry rate of 4 per cent. or less. It is not exaggerating to say that there are a certain number of persons in this country to-day who are receiving 4 per cent., or even in some cases only 3½ per cent., on capital which they have lent to the owners of property, while they themselves are borrowing for their own and their families' requirements at no less than 7½ per cent., or one ½ per cent. above the current bank rate. I hope that the noble Viscount will see his way to make this concession, especially in view of the fact that there is a proviso which prevents in any case the interest obtainable in such cases exceeding 6½ per cent., and by no possibility can the acceptance of my Amendment enable any interest to be received in excess of 6 per cent.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 12, after ("annum") insert ("or where the standard rate is four per cent. or less, an amount not exceeding, two per cent. per annum").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The question as to what should be done in regard to the rate of interest on mortgages was gone into very fully by the Committee presided over by the noble Marquess opposite. As the noble Lord who moved the Amendment will have noticed, the reasons which caused

917
them to make the recommendation which we have adopted and incorporated in the Bill are very fully set out on page five of the White Paper. If by any chance the Government were to accept the proposal contained in this Amendment it would upset the basis and the balance of the Bill as now drafted. There is a very close and intimate relation between the rate of interest on mortgage and the rent that the landlord is entitled to as owner of the house. I need not go into this in any detail. My noble friend will realise that in many eases the landlord has a mortgage on his house, and if my noble friend's Amendment wore accepted and the rate of interest over and above that permitted in the Bill were authorised, there would have to be allowed an equivalent increase in the rent. In the White Paper half per cent. interest was taken as representing 5 per cent. of rent. That is to say, if we were to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, the figure of 15 per cent., which is in paragraph (c) of Clause 2, would have to be altered probably to 25 per cent., and the total addition of the permitted increase in rent, instead of being 40 per cent., would be 50 per cent. That would upset the balance of the Bill, and therefore I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment of my noble friend.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Although I am not convinced, I do not desire to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Restriction on right to possession,
5.—(1) No order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which this Aet applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be made or given unless—

(a) any rent, lawfully due from the tenant has not, been paid, or any other obligation of the tenancy (whether under the contract of tenancy or under this Act) so far as the same is consistent with the provisions of this Act has been broken or not performed; or

(b) the tenant or any person residing with him has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the premises for an immoral or illegal purpose, or the condition of the dwelling-house has in the opinion of the court deteriorated owing to acts of waste by or the neglect or default of the tenant or any such person, or

918

(c) the tenant has given notice to quit, and in consequence of that notice the landlord has contracted to sell or let the dwelling-house or has taken any other steps as a result of which he would in the opinion of the court be seriously prejudiced if he could not obtain possession; or

(d) the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself, or for any person bonâ fide residing or to reside with him, or for seine person in his whole time employment or in the whole time employment of some tenant from him, and (except as otherwise provided by this subsection) the court is satisfied that alternative accommodation reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available; or

(e)the landlord is a local authority or a statutory undertaking and the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the purpose of the execution of the statutory ditties or powers of the authority or undertaking, and the court is satisfied as aforesaid as respects alternative accommodation; or

(f)the landlord became the landlord after service in any of His Majesty's forces during the war and requires the house for his personal occupation and offers the tenant accommodation on reasonable terms in the same dwelling-house, such accommodation being considered by the court as reasonably sufficient in the circumstances; or

(g) the dwelling-house is required for occupation as a residence by a former tenant thereof who gave up occupation in consequence of his service in any of His Majesty's forces during the war;

and, in any such ease as aforesaid, the court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such judgment.
The existence of alternative accommodation shall not be a condition of an order or judgment on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (d) of this subsection—

(i) where the tenant was in the employment of the landlord or a former landlord and the dwelling-house was let to him in consequence of that employment, and he has ceased to be in that employment; or

(ii) where the court is satisfied by a certificate of the county agricultural committee, or by the Ministry of Agriculture, that the dwelling-house is required by the landlord for the occupation of a person engaged on work necessary for the proper working of an agricultural holding; or

(iii) where the landlord gave up the occupation of the dwelling-house in consequence of his service in any of His Majesty's forces during the war; or

919

(iv) where the landlord became the landlord before the thirtieth day of September nineteen hundred and seventeen, or, in the case of a dwelling-house to which section four of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1919, applied, became the landlord before the fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or in the ease of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies but the enactments repealed by this Act. did not apply, became the landlord before the twentieth day of May nineteen hundred and twenty, and in the opinion Of the court greater hardship would be caused by refusing an order for possession than by granting it.

(2) At the time of the application for or the making or giving of any order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any such dwelling-house, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, or in the ease of any such order or judgment which has been made or given, whether before or after the passing of this Act, and not executed, at any subsequent time, the court may adjourn the application, or stay or suspend execution on any such order or judgment, or postpone the date of possession, for such period or periods as it thinks fit, and subject to such conditions (if any) in regard to payment by the tenant of arrears of rent, rent, or mesne profits and otherwise as the court thinks fit, and, if such conditions are complied with, the court may, if it thinks fit, discharge or rescind any such order or judgment.
(3) Where any order or judgment has been made or given before the passing of this Act, but not executed, and, in the opinion of the court, the order or judgment would not have been made or given if this Act had been in force at the time when such order or judgment was made or given, the court may, on application by the tenant, rescind or vary such order or judgment in such manner as the court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in section one hundred and forty-three of the County Courts Act, 1888, or in section one of the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, every warrant for delivery of possession of, or to enter and give possession of, any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, shall remain in force for three months from the day next after the last clay named in the judgment or order for delivery of possession or ejectment, or, in the case of a warrant under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, from the date of the issue of the warrant, and in either ease for such further period or periods, if any, as the court shall from time to time, whether before or after the expiration of such three months, direct.
(5) An order or judgment against a tenant for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house or ejectment therefrom under this section shall not affect the right of any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sublet, before proceedings for recovery of possession were commenced, to retain possession under this section or be in any way operative against any such sub-tenant:
Provided that any sub-tenant so retaining possession shall upon the making of such order, or the giving of such judgment against the tenant, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord
920
on the same terms as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (I) (b), after "premises," to insert "or allowing the premises to be used." The noble Viscount said: I understand that convictions usually are granted where the premises have been allowed to he used for these purposes.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, after ("premises") insert ("or allowing the premises to be used").—(Viscout Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHANDON LORD SHANDON moved, at the end of subsection (I) (d), to insert "If the landlord shall be a public or charitable institution or the trustees thereof, the court shall also be satisfied that the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the carrying on of such public or charitable purposes."
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment has been put down to carry out a suggestion I made during the Second Reading debate. Accepting the views of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that the last provision in Clause 5 would only apply to trifling matters, the construction of the section remains this. In the case of an ordinary landlord the only thing that has to be dealt with is that the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself, or for a person bona fide residing or to reside there, or a person in his whole time employment or in the whole time employment of some tenant of his, and the Court is satisfied that alternative accommodation, reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available. That completes the requirements with regard to an ordinary landlord. Then the next subsection deals with a special class of landlord, the local authority or a statutory undertaking, and in that case, in addition, the Court must be satisfied that the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the purposes of the execution of the statutory duties on the part of the authority.
Now there are a vast number of associations. Some of them are under Statute, but they could not be called in any sense statutory undertakings. There are also private associations, some bound by a special statutory provision, limited companies and others, and these would in-

921
clude, not merely companies for profit, but companies who have acted under a special licence of the Board of Trade, and who might be charitable or otherwise so long as they did not make profit. These are left in the sante position as ordinary landlords. From actual knowledge I made the suggestion that these are exactly the class of institutions and people that ought to have a similar restriction with regard to the taking up of dwelling-houses as other statutory undertakings, and that it is not unreasonable to provide that the Court should be satisfied, in the case of a public or charitable institution or the trustees thereof, "that the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the carrying on of such public or charitable purposes." It is astonishing, when you are dealing with trustees, how very little mercy or compassion they have, owing to their corporate position, with regard to tenants, and how well they like to have a symmetrical disposition of the buildings under their control, with offices that can be communicated with by telephone, and the rest of it, I suggest that they ought to be placed in exactly the same position, in common fairness, as a statutory undertaking. That is the object of the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page line 15, after ("available") insert ("if the landlord shall be a public or charitable institution or the trustees thereof, the court shall also be satisfiet that the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the carrying on of such public or charitable purposes").—(Lord Shandon.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I hesitate, in view of the noble and learned Lord's legal knowledge, to suggest that the words which he is recommending are not necessary. Subsection (d) deals with a case where a dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation, or for any person bona file residing with him. It is the next subsection which deals with local authorities or statutory undertakings.
LORD SHANDON: It is not with regard to occupation at all. It is the provision with regard to "a person in his whole tinge employment." In that case it is not necessary that he should want to live there himself or that any person residing with hint would require the house, but any person who is in his whole time service. He might be a doctor, he might be art engineer, he might be anything. It is to that that I direct attention.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: But I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that a charitable trust would be in the same position as a statutory, undertaking or the local authority in the next subsection.
LORD SHANDON: I never like to state things very positively, but I do not think so, and I would ask the noble Viscount, if that is the only basis of his objection, to make inquiries pending the Report stage, because my Amendment is not put down in any hostile spirit.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I certainly will look into it. Perhaps I might also, in addition, explain that the statutory undertaking or the local authority contemplated and covered by the next subsection is very frequently obliged to carry out certain undertakings authorised by Parliament—shall we say, the making of a road; and it was in order to enable them to carry out that particular object, sanction for which Parliament had given specifically, that they were authorised to get possession of houses, as covered in this subsection, in order that they might be able to pull them down and carry out their undertakings. But that is quite a different position from a charitable trust, which is a body of public interest, but is not at all in the same position as a local authority would be that had to make a road. However, as I promised the noble and learned Lord, I will see whether the point which he has in wind should be further considered on Report.
LORD SHANDON: Having regard to what the noble Viscount says, I do not press the Amendment, but I am distinctly of opinion, though I may be wrong, that it is necessary to insert the words, and I shall bring it up again on Report, if necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, at the end of sub-section (1) (i), after "employment" to insert "otherwise than in consequence of a strike or lock-out." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is put down to carry out an undertaking given by my right hon. friend the Minister of Health that, in case of a man losing employment owing to a strike, he should be protected from victimisation.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 41, after ("employment") insert ("otherwise than in consequence of a strike or lock-out").—(Viscount Astor.)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I am surprised that the noble Viscount, in such a matter-of-course tone, urged an Amendment which, I think, is contrary to our whole tradition and to the public advantage. Conceive what is really intended. Strikes, as we deeply regret, are not now by any means confined to cases in which great principles are at stake, and in which, if there was an attempt at a general eviction by the owner, there would probably be a great deal of public feeling which, in itself, would, as in the past, render it almost impossible for such eviction to be carried out. But we hear every day of much smaller strikes, of strikes affecting a small business or a single body. In those strikes not merely are the men who feel themselves aggrieved forced to come out, but a number of other men who are often not in sympathy but belong to the same union are forced to suspend their employment. Then the noble Viscount, or rather the right hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill, proposes that, no matter how impossible the position may be in which the employer is left, those men are to be allowed to keep their houses until it pleases them to come to a fresh arrangement, or even while they arE carrying on another business in another employment.
Take any obvious case. I noticed the other day a strike in which a large number of horses had to be tended, and the horse-tenders were resident in the place. Does the noble Viscount really propose that the unfortunate owner, who has simply said he is unable to pay more and who call find other men to take the employment, should be unable to house those other men to enable them to perform their duties? Or take what is going on now in Ireland. Take the case of the refusal to move troops, which is an attempt to paralyse the whole action of law and order in Ireland. Does the noble Viscount propose that a stationmaster should be allowed free residence at his station as long as he chooses while the men who have actually to be there to perform the work must either camp out or come from afar in order to do it?
I might multiply instances to show that this proposal is really far too drastic, and a highly undesirable one to put into the Bill. It is the assertion of a principle against which I for one will contend—namely, that in these questions of disputes any injustice may be done to the employer rather than that any weapon in the hands
924
of the employed should be in any way diminished in value. That is not a fair principle to lay down. Is it the fact that if men are provided with houses with a view to their carrying out certain employment, and if for private reasons they think it necessary to go on strike, therefore the whole of the work of the owner or employer should be paralysed? It is well known that during the railway strike last October large numbers of horses were neglected, and their sufferings were obviated only by a number of people coming in voluntarily and doing work which they had never done before. Knowing the great power in the hands of those who think it necessary to order a strike I think we ought to leave this question—which has hitherto, as far as I know, not been one in which the employers have pressed their rights too far—to the operation of natural laws and conditions. I warn the Government that they are overweighting this Bill. We have been hoping, at this period so long after the cessation of hostilities, to get back to normal conditions; but if the Government are going to introduce words into this measure which will cause a tremendous revolution in the relations between employers and employed they will do serious damage. I therefore move to leave out the words "strike or" from the Amendment.
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
Leave out the words ("strike or") from the Amendment.—(The Earl of Midleton.)
LORD JOLCEY: I am not quite prepared to deal only with the question of strikes. I think that the power given here to enable a man to retain possession of a house after he has changed his employment will cause serious difficulty in the North of England. As your Lordships know, it is the custom there to give free houses as part of their wages to the miners; thus no question creates more difficulty and unpleasantness if these houses are not available for the use of the men working at the particular mines for which the houses were built. It is possible under the Amendment for a man to retain possession of a house after he has given up his employment at the particular pit for which the house was built and either work at some other pit or work as an industrial insurance agent, and he can simply snap his fingers at the employer. It is a most unfortunate thing this His Majesty's Government do not see

925
the injustice of this matter, and I feel sure that it will create considerable difficulty in the counties of Durham and Northumberland unless some provision is made whereby the employer can get the house which belongs to him and which was built for the purposes and for the use of his own workmen. How many men are working at the pits to-day under great difficulties because there are not sufficient houses for them, and they have sometimes to travel considerable distances to their work? The Government is always talking about increasing the production of coal. Surely it will help to increase the production of coal if you give a man a house close to his work. I feel sure that unless some provision is made to give the employer possession of the house for his own special workmen it will lead to considerable difficulty and have an effect very different from that which His Majesty's Government think.
LORD STRACHIE: I think it would be of interest to the House if the noble Viscount informed us of the exact reason for this suggested introduction. He has said that an undertaking was given by the Minister of Health to introduce this Amendment here. He did not say whether it was an undertaking given in the other House. As a matter of fact, the House of Commons was apparently satisfied with the Bill as it now stands otherwise some Amendments would have been moved. It would be interesting to know the genesis of this Amendment. Was it a deputation to the Minister of Health?
THE EARL OF DESART: I desire to support my noble friend Lord Midleton. It seems to me that the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount is an endeavour to create the most extraordinary vested interest I ever came across. It is not only a vested interest in the house but in the man's employment. Supposing there is a strike. A man alleges by this that he is not satisfied with his wages and, therefore, not satisfied with his position. The landlord may say, "I cannot afford to increase your wages or to improve your position." The result is that the man ceases to be willing to undertake the employment on the terms on which it is available, but this Amendment suggests that, although this condition of things has arisen, the man is still entitled to live in the house, which he occupies only in consequence of his employment, although
926
he has ceased to be in that employment. I cannot follow it. Unquestionably it will create an extraordinarily complicated situation. As the Bill at present stands, it is. simply that the man occupies the house as long as he is in the employment, and leaves it when he ceases to be in the employment. When you get to strikes and lock-outs you have questions of merits, and so on, to deal with. I am certain that not only is the proposal inherently unjust and inconsistent with the purpose of this clause, but it will tend to create a great deal of unnecessary feeling.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The noble Lords have asked when the undertaking was given. In another place, both on Committee stage and on Report, the question was raised of the position of tenants in cases of strikes, and various proposals were put forward by the Labour Party. It was in order to meet the point so far as my right hon. friend felt he could do so, that these words were proposed. They did not entirely meet the request as submitted by the Labour Party, but they were suggested with the object of clearing up the position so far as my right hon. friend felt he could do so. I am sure we should all agree that the greatest care has to be exercised in eases of strikes where public feeling may run high on both sides; that the Government ought to do nothing in any way to increase the bitterness, or what may be the bitterness, of feeling at that moment, and that it should be the aim of the Government, while being fair and just to all parties, so far as they are able not to allow anything to be done which would increase the bad feeling, because if that takes place when there is electricity in the air what may be a small strike is apt to spread and become very serious. Because of that my right hon. friend gave the undertaking that he would, so far as he could though not entirely, meet the points put forward. That is why the Amendment is put down.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess I am exceedingly sorry that the Government have made this suggestion. It is entirely outside the scope of the proposals of their Bill, and it is a course which was not in any way contemplated by the Committee. Your Lordships will realise that the Bill, if I may use a colloquial phrase, screws up to a high point the necessity of finding alternative accommodation in the general case. Alternative

927
accommodation is not to be accepted which is not thoroughly suitable. Undoubtedly it will be a very difficult thing in many cases to find alternative accommodation which will come within the conditions insisted on in the Bill. I do not complain of that. I recommended it in the general case, because I think, if you are to give security of tenure, it is right, if you allow people to be turned out at all, that they should have equivalent accommodation.
It was suggested to us, What are you to do in the case of houses which are held by employees for the specific object of their employment? In that case the employer is certainly entitled to recover the use of his houses and so we recommended an exception which the Government have adopted. Where the employee holds a cottage absolutely because of his employment, then, if he ceases to be in that employment, he must make room for his successor. That is common sense and common equity. It has nothing to do with the reason for which he is turned out. The fact is that he has gone. My noble friend has made suggestions. What is an employer in the shape of a railway company to do if the railway servant, who is living in a house belonging to the company because of his work on the railway, ceases to be in the employment of the company? Are they not to have the right to recover the house? Of course they are, and it is obviously
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
equitable. They must do so, even if they cannot provide the alternative accommodation of the high standard which the Bill proposes, or at all. So far as the employer is concerned he must work the railway, and whether a man leaves his employment because of a strike or a lock-out or any other reason makes no difference; the railway has to be worked and the employer must have the cottage. I do not agree with my noble friend behind me in his Amendment to the Amendment. My opposition would be to the Government Amendment altogether. I would not make the distinction. It seems to me to be a clear, lucid principle that where an employee ceases to be in the employment for which he holds the cottage he should make way for his successor. Although I am a great supporter of the Bill, I cannot support the Government in this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: After what has passed I think it would be more advisable if, instead of moving out the two words which I ventured to propose should be omitted, we voted against the whole Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Dewar, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hylton, L.

Astor, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Bradford, E.

Finlay, V.

Sinha, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Peel, V.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Annesley, L. ( V. Valentia.)

Teynham, L.

Reading, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NON CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Waldegrave, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Somerset, D.

Yarborough, E.

Faringdon, L.

Sutherland, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Chilston, V.

Greville, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Hastings, L.

Killanin, L.

Knollys, V.

Lawrence, L.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Methuen, L.

Lindsay, E.

Aberdare, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Stigo.)

Lindsey, E.

Armaglidale, L.

Mowbray, L.

Lovelace, E.

Balfour, L.

Rotherham, L.

Lucan, E.

Bledisloe,

Roundway, L.

Midleton, E. [Teller.]

Cheylesmore, L.

Saltoun, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Sandys, L.

Selborne, E.

de Manley, L.

Savile, L.

Stanhope, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Strachine, L.

VISCOUNT ASTOR: The next Amendment which stands on the paper in my name is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 2, leave out from ("or") to ("that") in line 3, and insert ("of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1) (ii), after "or," to insert "pending the formation of such Committee." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether the House realises that in this case the authority of the Minister of Agriculture will not be exercised at all after the formation of these committees.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 2, after ("or") insert ("pending the formation of such Committee").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The Amendment which I desire to move next is to leave out lines 21 to 26—the proviso at the end of subsection (5)—on page 8 of the in order to transfer them to Clause 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, leave out lines 21 to 26.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have not put down the Amendment which I hope I may be able to move on Report, but in order to prevent the Government and your Lordships thinking that the matter Ras omitted or that I was not playing quite fair with the House in reserving for Report, I will mention it in one sentence. It has reference to subsection (2) of Clause 5. That is the subsection which gives an elastic power to the County Court Judge to refrain from using his authority in granting an ejectment order or recovery of possession in a variety of ways. He is entitled to delay matters, but there is no direction given to him as to what sort of subject he is to consider when he uses such power. I am very much afraid that the mere poverty of the tenant will hardly be one of those questions which. he may think it right to take into consideration.
The Committee on this Bill, the Report of which is in your Lordships' hands, recommended that in the special case where
930
the income of the tenant had not increased or had barely increased since 1914, the County Court Judge should have power to refuse recovery of possession even if the increased rents were not paid. The Committee were aware that it was a strong proposal, but I think I ought. to tell your Lordships that the letters which reached us from very poor tenants were of the most pitiful kind. A very large number came from old people who have lived in the same house for years, whose income has not increased nominally since before the war, and, therefore, has been greatly reduced owing to the fall in the value of money and the increase in taxation. These people will be quite unable in many eases to bear the burden of the new increases which are permitted by the Bill, as well as the increased rates, which are rising every day.
We thought that in tins special circumstance relief ought to be given. I shall try to ask your Lordships to consider actual words when the Bill is dealt with upon Report, and I hope the Government will receive them favourably. I am quite sure I should be asking your Lordships nothing more than any good landlord would do in the management of his own property when he had to deal with cases of this kind.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, towards the end of proviso (ii), to leave out "sum" and insert "portion of the principal sum secured." The noble Viscount said: This is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 39, leave out ("sum") and insert ("portion of the principal sum secured").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Restriction on premiums.
8.—(1) A person shall not as a condition of the grant, renewal, or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies require the payment of any fine, premium, or other like sum, or the giving of any pecuniary consideration, in addition to the rent, and where any such payment Or consideration has been made or given in respect of any such dwelling-house under an agreement made after the twenty-fifth day of March nineteen hundred

931
and twenty, the amount or value thereof shall be recoverable by the person by whom it was made or given:
Provided that, where any agreement has been made since the said date but before the passing of this Act for the tenancy of a house to which this Act applies, but the enactments repealed by this Act did not apply, and the agreement includes provision for the payment of any fine, premium, or other like sum, or the giving of any pecuniary consideration in addition to the rent, that agreement shall, without prejudice to the operation of this section, be voidable at the option of either party thereto.
(2) A person requiring any payment or the giving of any consideration in contravention of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the court by which he is convicted may order the amount paid or the value of the consideration to be repaid to the person by whom the same was made or given, but such order shall be in lieu of any other method of recovery prescribed by this Act.
(3) This section shall not apply to the grant, renewal or continuance for a term of fourteen years or upwards of any tenancy.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to leave out "to which this Act applies" and insert "where either the annual amount of the rent or the rateable value does not exceed three hundred pounds." The noble Lord said: Clause 8 refers to the restriction on the payment of premiums on the letting of houses. I may say, in passing, that the limit of rent in London is £105. I want to tell the House quite frankly that several of my own very poor relations have found themselves necessarily working in London during the last few months with no possibility of getting suitable houses or accommodation without paying, if I may say so, some iniquitous premium demanded by those with houses or flats to let. If £105 is the limit for this purpose, I venture to say it is wholly inadequate to cover the cases of injustice which are prevalent in London and some provincial towns to-day, in the case of persons of moderate means, who necessarily must work in that area, and who are unable to obtain suitable accommodation without paying a very large sum by way of premium before entering into occupation. For that reason I desire to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, leave out ("to which this Act applies") and insert ("where either the annual amount of the rent or the rateable value does not exceed three hundred pounds").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I quite realise that many people are placed in a very difficult
932
position because of the premiums which are exacted from them, but I am afraid that the Amendment suggested by the noble Lord would alter the whole basis of the Bill. We have tried to go as far as we can to deal with hard cases. The Bill deals with smaller premises, and I am afraid it would be quite impossible to take premiums as separate from rent. I do not know whether he wishes me to argue it in detail, but his Amendment would alter the whole basis of the Bill, and at this stage the Government could not possibly consider doing that. I must therefore resist the Amendment.
LORD BLEDISLOE: In the circumstances I cannot press the Amendment, but by leave of the House I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether the head of his Department will consider introducing separate legislation.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I will see that the matter is considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9, 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Application and interpretation.
12.—(l) For the purposes of this Act, except where the context otherwise requires:—

(a) The expression "standard rent" means the rent at which the dwelling-house was let on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, or, where the dwelling-house was not let on that date, the rent at which it was last let before that date, or, in the case of a dwelling-house which was first let after the said third day of August, the rent at which it was first let:

Provided that, in the case of any dwelling-house let at a progressive rent payable under a tenancy agreement or lease, the maximum rent payable under such tenancy agreement or lease shall be the standard rent; and where at the date by reference to which the standard rent is calculated the rent was less than the rateable value the rateable value at that date shall be the standard rent;

(b) The expression "standard rate of interest" means in the case of a mortgage in force on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, the rate of interest payable at that date, or, in the ease of a mortgage created since that date, the original rate of interest;

933

(c) The expression "net rent" means, where the landlord at the time by reference to which the standard rent is calculated paid the rates chargeable on, or which but for the provisions of any Act would be chargeable on the occupier, the standard rent less the amount of such rates, and in any other case the standard rent;

(d) The expression "rateable value" means the rateable value on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, or, in the case of a dwelling-house or a part of dwelling-house first assessed after that date, the rateable value at which it was first assessed;

(e) The expressions "landlord," "tenant," "mortgagor," and "mortgagor" in-chide any person from time to time deriving title under the original landlord, tenant, mortgagor, or mortgagor;

(f) The expression "landlord" also includes in relation to any dwelling-house any person, other than the tenant, who is or would but for the Act be entitled to possession of the dwelling-house, and the expressions "tenant and tenancy" include sub-tenant and sub-tenancy, and the expression "let" includes sub-let; and the expression "tenant" includes the widow of a tenant dying intestate who was living with him at the time of his death, or where a tenant intestate dies leaving no widow any member of his family so residing with him, any question as to which member of his family, in the case of more than one so residing, is to be the tenant to be decided in default of agreement by the county court;

(g) The expression "mortgage" includes a land charge under the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897.

(2) This Act shall apply to a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling, where either the annual amount of the standard rent or the rateable value does not exceed—

(a) in the metropolitan police district, including therein the City of London, one hundred and five pounds;

(b) in Scotland, ninety pounds; and

(c) elsewhere, seventy-eight pounds;

and every such house or part of a house shall be deemed to be a dwelling-house to which this Act applies:
Provided that—

(i) this Act shall not, save as otherwise expressly provided, apply to a dwelling-house bona fide let at a rent which includes payments in respect of board, attendance, or use of furniture; and

(ii) the application of this Act to any house or part of a house shall not be excluded by reason only that part of the premises is used as a shop or office or for business, trade, or professional purposes; and

(iii) for the purposes of this Act any land or premises let together with a house shall, if the rateable value of the land
934
or premises let separately would be less than one quarter of the rateable value of the house, be treated as part of the house, but subject to this provision this Act shall not apply to a house let together with land other than the site of the house.

(3) Where, for the purpose of determining the standard rent or rateable value of any dwelling-house to winch this Act applies, it is necessary to apportion the rent at the date in relation to which the standard rent is to be fixed, or the rateable value of the property in which that dwelling-house is comprised, the county court may, on application by either party, make such apportionment as seems just, and the decision of the court as to the amount to be apportioned to the dwelling-house shall be final and conclusive.
(4) Subject to the provision of this Act, this Act shall apply to every mortgage where the mortgage property consists of or comprises one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies, or any interest therein, except that it shall not apply—

(a) to any mortgage comprising one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies and other land if the rateable value of such dwelling-houses is less than one-tenth of the rateable value of the whole of the land comprised in the mortgage; or

(b) to an equitable charge by deposit of title deeds or otherwise.

(5) When a mortgage comprises one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies and other land, and the rateable value of such dwelling-houses is more than one-tenth of the whole of the land comprised in the mortgage, the mortgage may apportion the principal money secured by the mortgage between such dwelling-houses and such other land by giving one calendar month's notice in writing to the mortgagor, such notice to state the particulars of such apportionment, and at the expiration of the said calendar month's notice this Act shall not apply to such part of the said principal money as is apportioned to such other land, and for all purposes, including the mortgagor's right of redemption, the said mortgage shall operate as if it were a separate mortgage for the respective portions of the said principal money secured by the said dwelling-houses and such other land, respectively, to which such portions were apportioned:
Provided that the mortgagor shall before the expiration of the said calendar month's notice be entitled to dispute the amounts so apportioned as aforesaid, and in default of agreement the matter shall be determined by a single arbitrator appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institute.
(6) Where this Act has become applicable to any dwelling-house or any mortgage thereon it shall continue to apply thereto whether or not the dwelling-house continues to be one to which this Act applies.
(7) Where the rent payable in respect of any tenancy of any dwelling-house is less than two-thirds of the rateable value thereof, this Act shall not apply to that rent or tenancy nor to any mortgage by the landlord from whom the tenancy is held of his interest in the dwelling-house, and

935
this Act shall apply in respect of such dwelling-house as if no such tenancy existed or ever had existed.
(8) Any rooms in a dwelling-house subject to a separate letting wholly or partly as a dwelling shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as a part of a dwelling-house let as a separate dwelling.
(9) This Act shall not apply to a dwelling-house erected after or in course of erection on the second day of April nineteen hundred and nineteen, or to any dwelling-house which has been since that date or was at that date being bona fide reconstructed by way of conversion into two or more separate and self-contained flats or tenements; but for the purpose of any enactment relating to rating, the gross estimated recital or gross value of any such house to which this Act would have applied if it had been erected before the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, and let at that date, shall not exceed—

(a) if the house forms part of a housing scheme to which section seven of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, applies, the rent (exclusive of rates) charged by the local authority in respect of that house; and

(b) in any other case the rent (exclusive of rates) which would have been charged by the local authority in respect of a similar house forming part of such a scheme as aforesaid.

(10) Where possession has been taken of any dwelling-houses by a Government department during the war, under the Defence of the Realm regulations, for the purpose of housing workmen, this Act shall apply to such houses as if the workmen in cocupation thereof at the passing of the Act were in occupation as tenants of the landlords of such houses.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "calculated," to insert "no rent was payable or where". The noble Lord said: This particular clause includes a definition of standard rent, and it goes on in the proviso to the first subsection to say that "where at the date by reference to which the standard rent is calculated the rent was less than the rateable value the rateable value at that date shall be the standard rent." I desire to move this Amendment to provide for the cases where no rent at all is payable; that is, in the case which is so common in our country districts, where a cottage is let to a farm servant or estate employee as part of his remuneration. In such cases, of course, it is quite clear that there are current expenses to be met by the landlord in respect of these premises, and it is not unfair to ask that in such cases, and indeed all cases covered by the latter part of this proviso, the annual value shall be taken as the basis and not the rent which in the cases I have mentioned is probably non-existent, or, if existent, is
936
far below the economic value of the premises. The Amendment is really two-fold, First of all it is intended to cover cases where no rent at all is being paid, and secondly, to make the basis for the purposes of this Bill, in the case of such premises, the annual value and not the rateable value as contemplated in this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 9, after ("calculated") insert ("no rent was payable or where").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think my noble friend must have been out of the House when the Lord Chancellor told us that no house on which no rent was payable is within the scope of the Bill.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: That is so.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Then I do not desire to persist in my first Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.>
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the end of subsection (1) (a), to leave out the first "rateable" and insert "ascertained annual" and to leave out the second "rateable" and insert "annual." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is peculiarly applicable to country districts. Rateable value is based upon rent, and where the rent is below the economic value the rateable value is far less than what would represent the annual value to the occupant.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 10, leave out the first ("rateable") and insert ("ascertained annual") and leave out the second ("rateable") and insert ("annual").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord would make the subsection read as follows: "Provided that … where … the rent was less than the ascertained annual value the annual value at that date shall be the standard rent." We have a definition of
"rateable value," but there is nowhere that I know of any definition of "ascertained annual value." I am not quite sure what he has in mind by those words. That is the first difficulty. I do not know whether my noble friend contemplates giving us subsequently a definition of what is meant by those words.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My answer is, Id certum est quod Certum reddi potest. if the annual value is not yet ascertained, I suggest that it is only, equitable in such cases that it should be ascertained.
VISCONT ASTOR: It is rather difficult to discuss the inclusion of words the meaning of which we do not know. I am not aware on what basis he contemplates defining "ascertained annual value." Rateable value is to be arrived at in a defined way. If the noble Lord has any definition which he would like to submit to the House on Report stage we might consider it, but otherwise it is very difficult to accept a basis which we do not understand.
TEE EARL OF MIDLETON: There is a little difficulty about using the words "rateable value," because it cannot be fair where the landlord does the whole of the repairs. The rateable value is below the annual value, or the real value, on the assumption that a certain number of repairs. have to be executed by the tenants, and therefore it would not be fair, say, in London for a house to be valued up to the full, because, the tenant would be paying on the repairs which he himself was making; but where you have the landlord making the whole of the repairs it is not fair to take the rateable value as the measure of the rent. Supposing the rateable value is £10 and the annual rent £15, the difference is supposed to go in such repairs as the landlord is making from year to year; and then the noble Viscount conies down, and, especially in the case of Ireland in a subsequent clause, treats the rateable value as being the rental value, from which any increase of rent is to start. I am not sure that the words "rental value" are the best ones to use, but I hope before the Report stage that the noble Viscount will re-consider the question, because as it stands it means, especialy in the case of Ireland, that a very low rental value will be established—one far below what is the current rental value.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: If the noble Earl can think of words or of a definition we will consider it on the Report stage.
LORD BLEDISLOE: As the noble Viscount is obviously sympathetic, perhaps the matter will be considered before the Report stage.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: If there is to be an alteration in the expression "rateable value," may I ask the noble Viscount to take care that a corresponding definition is put into the Scottish clauses, because in them there is a definition of rateable value but not of any other kind of value.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I hope the noble Lord will not take it that I have committed the Government to alter the subclause. I have only suggested that if the noble Lord could put forward a definition it would be considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, after line 22, insert:
("(d) The expression 'rates' includes water rents and charges, and any increase in rates payable by a landlord shall be deemed to be payable by him until the rate is next demanded;").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My next Amendment is mainly drafting. It makes it clear that where the tenant dying intestate is a widow the case shall be provided for. We here make it clear that we want to deal not only with a man dying but with a woman dying intestate, so that the house should go to such member of the tenant's family as would naturally acquire the premises.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 39, leave out from ("was" ) to ("be") in line 4, of page 13, and insert (" residing with him at the time of his death, or where a tenant dying intestate leaves no widow or is a woman, such member of the tenant's family so residing as aforesaid as may").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, at the end of subsection (1) to insert—
"(h) The expressions 'statutory undertaking' and 'statutory duties or powers' include any undertaking, duties or powers, established, imposed or exercised under any order having the force of an Act of Parliament."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is intended to make it clear that Clause 5, subsection (1), paragraph (e), applies to Provisional Orders. This, I think, makes the intention of that clause quite clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, after line 7, insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (2) (iii), after "for the purposes of this Act any land," to insert "stables, pig-sties, farm buildings or other". The noble Lord said: My object is to make it perfectly clear that cottage-holdings shall not come within the restrictive provisions of this Bill; that where there is a small holding consisting mainly of buildings, as these cottage-holdings do, being run on an economic basis, and out of which the tenant is earning a livelihood, the rent should not be restricted to the detriment of the landlord who has provided the proper equipment. The word "premises" is, of course, a very vague expression, and it seems to me that it would be advisable to insert the words "stables, pig-sties, farm-building or other like erections which are adjacent to the holding and form part of the dwelling-house". I want to make it clear for this purpose that even though they are under the same roof these erections shall be regarded as part of the industrial section of the occupation and not as part of the domestic side of the premises. It is for that purpose I move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 26, after ("land") insert ("stables, pig-sties, farm-buildings or other").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am advised that it would be unwise to insert these words, and that the word "premises" includes stables, pig-sties and farm-buildings. I might point out that chicken-houses have been omitted from the Amendment. It is better to have the one word "premises" and to take it as including all these other buildings, than to have the words of the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in proviso (iii) to leave out "one quarter" and insert "one eighth "The noble Earl said: This Amendment is not on the Paper, and the reason I move it is this. This clause is a very difficult one to grasp. We must have in the last words of this sub-clause "shall not apply to a house let together with land other than the site of
940
the house." if we did not have that in it would apply to farm-houses with five hundred acres. On the other hand, we do not want to exclude a cottage merely because it has a garden attached to it. Therefore, it is very difficult to know where to draw the line. I am advised that as this is drafted it includes a small holding as defined in the Small Holdings Act, and therefore it might occur that a county council would have every conceivable reason from the point of view of cultivation and food production to wish to get rid of one of its tenants, and not be able to do so because the definition of small holding was included within this Rent Restriction Bill. If "one eighth" was inserted for one quarter" it would not come under the Small Holdings Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 29, leave out ("one quarter") and insert ("one eighth").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 19, at beginning insert ("rateable value of the").
Page 14, line 25, leave out from ("to") to ("such") in line 26, and insert ("the mortgage so far as it relates").
Page 14, line 36, leave out ("Institute") and insert ("Institution").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 20, after ("erected") insert ("or so reconstructed").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Before this clause becomes part of the Bill, I should like to ask a question upon a matter which has only been brought to my notice this afternoon. It concerns the Ministry of Transport as well as the Ministry of Health, under whose auspices this Bill has been promoted. It has been represented to me that the effect of this clause particularly, and the Bill as a whole, will be to destroy an agreement made by the Ministry of Transport with the Railway Companies on March 20 this year. I do not know whether I ought to move this now without notice, but I will read my proposed clause, and if it is not possible to accept it now I shall move it on the Report stage.

941
I propose to move, at the end of Clause 12, the insertion of the following: "This Act shall not apply to any house or station apartments provided by any railway company in England, Scotland, or Wales whilst occupied by men of the grades mentioned in a Memorandum of Agreement dated the 1st March, 1920, relating to rates of pay and conditions of service of station masters, goods agents, yard masters, assistant station masters, assistant goods agents, assistant yard masters and passenger and parcels agents who are required to live therein, and which Agreement is the subject of a direction from the Minister of Transport under the provisions of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919."
The point of the matter is that before this Agreement was made, the Agreement of March last, the employees of the grades to which it refers in many cases were housed in houses or station apartments provided by the companies at a nominal rent. The Agreement provides that these men shall in future pay rent according to the local value of the house or apartment, because otherwise inequalities would result from the fact that some servants of the company, while receiving the scale rates of pay, will also get the additional advantage of lower rented houses. The Bill, unless suitable provision be made, will prevent this agreement from being carried out, because, of course, the railway companies under this Bill cannot alter the terms of a tenancy, and we have no doubt whatever that it will result in fresh complications for the revision of the scales of pay which have been settled.
I am not anxious to raise trouble, I am only anxious to point out that in the opinion of the railway company this Bill, unless care is taken on this point, will raise trouble between the different grades of employees concerned, some of whom have the advantage of these free houses, and some of whom have not, and who, under the Agreement, are to equalised. I am entirely in the hands of the noble Viscount whether I shall move the clause now, or simply give notice, and move it when the Report stage is taken.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I think it will be for the general convenience, both of the House and of the Government, if the noble Lord would move this on the Report stage.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Application to business premises.
13. This Act shall apply to any premises used for business, trade or professional purposes as it applies to a dwelling-house, and as though references to "dwelling-house" and "dwelling" included references to any such premises, but this Act in its application to such premises shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—

(a) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section five:

"(d) the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for business, trade or professional purposes, and (except as otherwise provided by this subsection) the court is satisfied that alternative accommodation, reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects is available";

(b) Paragraph (i) of the same subsection shall not apply;

(c) Sections nine and ten shall not apply.

VISCOUNT ASTOR: The next Amendment is really drafting to bring Clause 13 in line with Clause 12 (2) where the word "house" is included with "dwelling-house."
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 39, after ("dwelling-house") insert ("house").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to insert the following new paragraph—
"(a) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section (2):—
(c) In addition to any such amounts as aforesaid, an amount not exceeding fifty per centum of the net rent."
The noble Marquess said: We now come to a very important clause in the Bill. As introduced in another place, the Bill had no reference to business premises, but upon the Committee stage the Government were defeated in the Standing Committee, and the decision of the Standing Committee was retained in the Report stage. I very much regret that the House of Commons took that view, and I feel a very strong conviction that, if the matter had come before the House itself at a reasonable hour and not very late at night, and if the whole case could have been stated, they would have come to a different conclusion. The difficulties in the way of including these

943
premises business increase the more one considers them.
I have put down the Amendment, not because I think that the Clause ought to be passed with that Amendment, but as indicating to the Government the only d rection in which I think a compromise of any sort could be arrived at, but really my invitation to His Majesty's Government is to allow us to drop the clause altogether. May I indicate one of the immense difficulties in the way of Clause 13 even if my Amendment were accepted? Under the policy of the Bill the landlord has the right of throwing the burden of any increased rates upon the tenant. The Government have not put in the necessary consequential Amendments—we could, of course, do that on Report—under which, in the case of business premises comprised in one building, the rateable value could be apportioned as between different business premises.
Conceive how unwieldly that would be. Every one of these composite buildings in the City of London would require to go to the County Court Judge in order to have the rateable value apportioned as between the various business premises, with scores of tenants, because otherwise it would be impossible to carry out the policy of the Bill. The landlord could not throw the cost of the increased rates upon the business tenants unless the rateable value was apportioned, and therefore in every single case, not only in the City of London but throughout the country, the County Courts will be overwhelmed with applications to apportion the rateable value—a very difficult process, requiring a great deal of care as between the various business premises. I say that because I am still hopeful that the Government will agree to drop the Clause altogether.
Now I come to the Amendment itself, an Amendment which I offer as, to me, the only possible direction in which a compromise could be achieved. I would direct your Lordships' attention to the evidence which was given before the Committee of which I was a member. It is quite clear in regard to those who came to speak for the business premises—the Town Tenants' League, for example—that what they cared for was security. They did not come to ask for low rent. They were quite in a different position from the ordinary occupier of a dwelling-house. What they wanted was to prevent their being turned out. And if your Lordships
944
look at the evidence of the witness of the Town Tenants' League on page 116 and page 118 you will find what I say is accurate.
That is not the only consideration. There is also the consideration that the occupier of the business premises has the power of passing on the increased rent to the public, and he will do so in any case. Therefore, he will be paid twice over if the Clause goes through as it stands; he will be paid in respect of the limitation of rent which the Bill imposes, and also the higher prices which he charges to the public. Let me just show your Lordships how this arises. Here was a witness, a Mr. Briscoe, who spoke for the All-Ireland Town Tenants' League, and in Question 2,693 he was asked with reference to this raising of the rent, "You do not suggest that the shopkeeper will suffer?" and he replied—
"The shopkeeper will suffer, of course, if he continues to sell at the same price, but he will not. Let me give you an instance. There is a shop in X—.street, Dublin I know all about the place because the offices of our organisation, the Town Tenants' League, was there before the place was destroyed during the Easter Week Rebellion. I was in this shop the other evening, buying a pair of gloves, and I was talking about the price of gloves to the proprietor. 'Well,' he said, 'Mr. Briscoe, considering the rent I have to pay I cannot sell you them cheaper.'"
So you will see that the amount of the rent reacts immediately upon the price. That is the evidence as regards shopkeepers. Here is the evidence as to business premises. This was the anonymous witness I mentioned the other day. He was anonymous because he was afraid of being victimised. We knew his name but agreed not to publish it. He was asked—
"And I suppose to some extent as rent rises that would increase prices, would it not? (A) Undoubtedly. (Q) So that a part of this, I do not say all of it, would he transferred to the public? (A) Yes, transferred to the public undoubtedly."
So you see that the occupiers of business premises have the power, by their own witnesses, of passing it on to the public. Your Lordships will observe that in the quotations I have made I have not quoted the landlord witnesses but the tenant witnesses—the people who came for relief—and they said they could pass it on to the public; and, what is more, they will pass it on to the public whatever you enact in the Bill. Even if you restrict the rent, they will continue to pass on

945
to the public something which they themselves do not have to pay; it will be pure gain to them. They will pass it on in the from of increased prices and fees. I do not blame them. It is fair and right. But I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that this is a very strong reason why we should not treat the occupiers of business premises upon the same footing as the occupiers of dwellings.
I come now to the actual form of the Amendment. What I suggest there is that, instead of the 15 per cent. increase which is chargeable in the case of the tenant of a dwelling, it should be 50 per cent. That is to say, 50 per cent., which, added to the increased charge for repairs, would be 75 per cent. 25 per cent. is charged for repairs in any case, and to that would be added 50 per cent. What defence have I for that figure? If your Lordships will look at the evidence again you will see this anonymous gentleman, who came forward to ask us to relieve him, was asked—
"(Q) I suppose you admit that some inorease of rent would be natural?—(A) Quite.
"(Q) How much ought it to be?—(A) I think a reasonable increase is 50 per pent."
That is, 50 per cent., as I take it, upon the standard rent. 50 per cent. on the standard rent was found to be, roughly speaking, 75 per cent. of the net rent. That is to say, an increase on the standard rent of 50 per cent. would be equivalent to an increase on the net rent of 75 per cent. In all the calculations we worked upon that footing. Therefore, if I am correct. in my interpretation of the evidence, the 75 per cent. I offer is what this gentleman himself suggested. One member of our Committee was rather astonished that the witness should go so far as to say a reasonable increase was 50 per cent., so a little later he asked the witness—
"Do you not think that an increase of office rents of 50 per cent. would be very unreasonable or objectionable?—(A) I do not."
Is not that the case complete? Here is a man who comes forward and asks for relief. We asked him how much relief he wanted and he said, "I want 50 per cent, upon the standard rent," which is 75 per cent. upon the net rent; and 75 per cent. is the figure I have put in my Amendment. I suggest that, if this figure were inserted, at any rate no grievance as to increase of rent could arise during the very short period winch, as I believe, ought to be allowed before this question is dealt with fully.
946
He would, of course, have complete security of tenure during the period, and pay only as much rent as he himself said he ought to pay. As I have said, this will be sufficient during the very short period which ought to elapse before the matter is dealt with on a big scale. I have dealt with that in the next Amendment on the Paper, and I suppose I must not anticipate it. But your Lordships will understand, in a word, that the only period which ought to be dealt with is that which must elapse before the Select Committee, appointed to deal with the whole matter, report. As soon as they report the question ought to be looked at in the light of their report, and, therefore, we ought not to deal with that period at all but only with the period until then. I submit that the only proper line which a compromise could take is that I have suggested; but for my part, and for the reasons I have stated, I should far prefer to see Clause 13 disappear from the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 2, insert the said new paragraph.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The noble Marquess has only briefly outlined the history which has led up to the inclusion of Clause 13 in the Bill. He has reminded your Lordships that the inclusion of business premises was not part of the recommendations of his Committee; that the inclusion of business premises was not part. of the Government's Bill as originally drafted, but that Clause 13 was put in as the result. of the very strongly expressed desire of the House of Commons. The feeling in the House of Commons for the inclusion, in some way or other, of business premises was so strong that the issue was not raised again by the Government on Report stage. Therefore, whatever the Government may feel about the general merits of exclusion, and I do not think there is substantially a great difference between the noble Marquess and ourselves, we think that in view of the expressed feeling of the other House it would be out of the question to attempt to drop Clause 13.
We have then to consider what Amendment, if any, should be made to Clause 13. The noble Marquess, as he has done right through in the preparation of this Bill, has materially assisted the Government by proposing Amendments. That has facilitated our task considerably. I confess that when I looked at the noble Marquess's

947
Amendment this morning I thought he had intended to word it, "that the following paragraphs should be substituted for paragraphs (c) and (d)." In other words, I thought. he meant the increase to be from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent., and not from 40 per cent. to 75 per cent. I was wondering when I saw it whether, owing to some error, paragraph (d) had been omitted; because your Lordships will readily understand that there is a great difference between an increase from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. and an increase from 40 per cent. to 75 per cent. Had the noble Marquess so drafted his Amendment I should have been prepared to accept it, because I think that it would then have been in a shape acceptable to another place.
There was another suggestion that I was going to make on a subsequent Amendment, but perhaps I had better deal with one Amendment at a time. We have to be very careful not to legislate for special or exceptional cases, but to try to deal with general cases. I have not had the advantage of being on the Committee which took evidence, but I have received at least one deputation on this point, and. I feel that if the figure 40 per cent. were altered to 50 per cent. instead of 75 per cent. we should, in fact, be meeting a very real and general grievance. I do not say that in that way we should meet special cases, such as the one quoted by the noble Lord to-day and on the occasion of the Second Reading. I think also that we should then send the Amendment to another place in a form which would he more readily accepted there. I am afraid that the Government could not accept the increase to 75 per cent., but if, by any chance, the noble Lord who moved the Amendment could see his way to make the alteration I have suggested, then we should be able to accept it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I cannot be responsible for recommending your Lordships to accept a figure of that kind. I think it would be absurd to do so in the face of the evidence we have received. I have quoted one witness only, but I could have quoted another on the same point, who said that an increase of 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. would do a great deal of good. They want security; they do not care about rent; they pass that on to the public. if the Government do not accept the Amendment it is no use
948
pressing it. I shall simply vote against the clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "Provided that this section shall not apply in any case where the landlord bona fide requires possession of the premises for the purposes of a rebuilding scheme." The noble Lord said: I think this proviso speaks for itself. I suggest that it is very undesirable to hold up building schemes as the result of the inclusion in this Bill of business premises. My proviso, of course, does not refer to dwelling-houses, but to business premises only. It is confined to the one clause—Clause 13. Your Lordships are probably aware of the very great shortage of business premises especially in the City of London. The only way to increase the business premises is to pull down the existing premises and to rebuild them on a larger scale, much higher and in big blocks. I hope that any tenants who had been dispossessed because of a building scheme will obtain accommodation later on in the new block. One can easily conceive the case of a long row of business premises, the bulk of which would be outside the scope of the Bill, but in the middle of which there is one which comes under this Bill. Unless that one could be got hold of the whole of the building scheme would be held up for three years. I have heard of instances in the City of London where already big firms are prepared to find very large sums of money to re-build considerable areas of business premises. I cannot for a moment think that His Majesty's Government or any one else would wish to hold up the re-building of these premises. Therefore, I sincerely hope that my noble friend in charge of the Bill will see his way to accept my proviso.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before my noble friend replies, I desire to move an Amendment to the Amendment. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the importance of this proposal. I see a great authority like Lord Faringdon in the House and I hope we may hear something from him. I am not exaggerating when I say that there is no possible means of expansion of premises in the City of London except by

949
re-building or re-modelling existing premises. You cannot spread out the City further for the purposes of the business for which the City exists, and the extraordinary difficulty of finding accommodation is every day hindering business, and, consequently, hindering the expansion of trade and diminishing the revenue. If this Bill passes in its present form, it will almost entirely stop the possibility of increasing accommodation in the City of London. I do not think that is an over-statement, because, as my noble friend has said, almost the only way of increasing that accommodation is by pulling down the older buildings and erecting larger and better-arranged premises in their place.
But, in my opinion, his Amendment does not go far enough, because there is another method by which this expansion of premises is achieved, and that is by the remodelling and re-construction of existing buildings. Therefore, I propose after the word "purposes" to insert the words "of substantial alteration or" so that if my Amendment be accepted, the Amendment would read—
"Provided that this section shall not apply in any case where the landlord bona fide requires possession of the premises for the purposes of substantial alteration or of a re-building scheme."
If this Amendment, or some such Amendment, is not accepted, two things will happen. All possibility of the extension of accommodation in the City of London will be stopped and there will be a great increase of unemployment, because nobody can go about the City of London to-day without seeing a lot of these schemes in operation and a great many men employed on them. If the Amendment is not passed, all similar schemes, of which there are many, will be made impossible, and these two very unfortunate results, which must be for the public evil, will follow.
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
After the word ("purposes") insert the words ("of substantial alteration or").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to put it on the Paper on Report stage, probably in another part of the Bill. I will consider the point which the noble Earl has just made as an Amendment to the Amendment to see if that can be included too.
LORD DYNEVOR: If my noble friend Lord Selborne is satisfied, so far as I am concerned I accept the suggestion.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think it is quite a reasonable proposal. I hope my noble friend understands my point. There are two ways of increasing accommodation. One is to pull down every part of the existing structures and to re-build, and another is to re-model the existing structures.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, at the end of the clause, to insert—
("(2) The application of this Act to such premisesas aforesaid shall not extend to a letting or tenancy in any market or fair where the rent or the conditions of tenancy are controlled or regulated by or in pursuance of any statute or oharter."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is suggested at the instance of the City Remembrancer. It has been pointed out that the application of the Act to business premises is not suitable for markets; that the rent of markets in London and also elsewhere is fixed by statute; and that in order to meet the City of London and other places where markets are in existence this Amendment is necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, after line 12, insert the said new subsection.—( Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, That Clause 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not desire to make another speech, but I will state in a moment or two why I venture to think that it would be better to strike this clause out. There is, first of all, the fact that the Government have proposed and appointed a Select Committee, which is actually engaged in dealing with the whole subject and will report within a very short time. In the second place, the remedy which the House of Commons has put in is not the remedy, or anything like the full remedy, for which the applicants have asked. In the third place, the Government do not see their way to

951
accept even the conclusions of the evidence which was submitted on behalf of the applicants and to insert them in the Bill. And, lastly, they have not been able to produce—no doubt they may be able but they have not yet done so—any answer to the arguments which I advanced, a little out of order I admit, as to the immense difficulty of dealing with rating in the case of business premises; because the fact of the insertion of this clause without sufficient thought, and very late, or against the views of the Government, has made the House of Commons ignore the difficulty of having to apportion the rateable value over all these premises which are involved. For all these reasons I think the best course your Lordships can pursue is to strike out this clause. If, before the next stage of the Bill is reached, the Government can produce a concession of sufficient importance on the points I have mentioned to make it worth the whole of your Lordships to deal with it again, it will be possible to deal with it then. As it stands, I am satisfied the clause ought to be struck out of the Bill.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I can only repeat what I said just now, that I very much regret that the noble Marquess was not able to accept the Amendment I suggested to his Amendment because I believe, had that been possible, there would have been agreement between the two Houses. I sincerely trust that your Lordships will not strike this clause out of the Bill, because, undoubtedly, there is a very strong feeling in another place that it should be included. It was inserted in order to meet the very real hardship which was put before the
Government, before the noble Lotd's Committee, and before Members of Parliament as a whole. I think the noble Marquess is a little optimistic in hoping that the Select Committee will have reported with such rapidity that the Amendment can be included in the shape in which it was on the Paper. Even if it could have been included in the shape in which it was on the Paper—namely, ending "lapsing in January, 1921"—I would have suggested to the noble Marquess that the period should have been extended to June, 1921. I think it would be very inadvisable that this House should strike out this clause.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment. I can assure him that he would not have found me difficult as to a month or two or, indeed, as to a pound or two in the other Amendment. But it was clear that the Government were not prepared to meet me in anything like the spirit necessary.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am sorry the noble Marquess does not think he was met in the necessary spirit. We thought an increase of 40 to 50 per cent. was reasonable. We felt that we could not accept 40 to 75 per cent, and I should very much regret this question being pressed to a Division, because, if by any chance the clause was struck out of the Bill, it would only delay the proceeding of the Bill as a whole.
On Question, whether Clause 13, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhad, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Dewar, L.

Bradford, E.

Astor, V.

Hylton, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Knollys, V.

Meston, L.

Lucan, E.

Peel, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Lytton, E.

Shandon, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Vatentia.)

Sinha, L.

Strafford, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Fartquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NON-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Midleton, E.

Balfour, L.

Morton, E.

Charnwood, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Selborne, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Northampton, M.

Stanhope, E.

Faringdon, L.

Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Chilston, V.

Mowbray, L.

Grey. E. [Teller.]

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Lovelace, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Rotherham, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Askwith, L.

Saltoun, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 13, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Conditions of statutory tenancy.
15.—(1) A tenant who by virtue of the provisions of this Act retains possession of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies shall, so long as he retains possession, observe and be entitled to the benefit of all the terms and conditions of the original contract of tenancy, so far as the Caine are consistent with the provisions of this Act, and shall be entitled to give up possession of the dwelling-house only on giving such notice as would have been required under the original contract of tenancy:
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in the contract of tenancy, a landlord who obtains an order or judgment for the recovery of possession of the dwelling-house or for the ejectment of a tenant retaining possession as aforesaid shall not be required to give any notice to quit to the tenant.
(2) Any tenant retaining possession as aforesaid shall not as a condition of giving up possession ask or receive the payment of any sum, or the giving of any other consideration, by any person other than the landlord, and any person acting in contravention of this provision shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the court by which he was convicted may order any such payment or the value of any such consideration to be paid to the person by whom the same was made or given, but any such order shall be in lieu of any other method of recovery prescribed by this Act.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (1), after "tenancy" and immediately before the proviso, to insert "or, if no notice would have been so required on giving not less than three months notice." The noble Viscount said: As the clause stands a statutory tenant can only give
such notice as would have been required under the original contract of tenancy. He is restricted by the word "only." The words I suggest make it possible where there is no provision in the original tenancy, to give a three months notice. That is the object of the Amendment.
Amendment noved—
Page 17, line 8, at end insert ("or, if no notice would have been so required on giving not less than three months notice").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved to add the following new subsection—
"(3) Where the interest of a tenant retaining possession as aforesaid is determined, either as
954
the result of an order or judgment for possession or ejectment or for any other reason, any subtenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sublet shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued."
The noble Viscount said: These are certain words omitted from Clause 5, and we are inserting them here.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 24, insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Minor amendments of law.
16.—(1) Section three of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, shall, except so far as it relates to the metropolis, have effect as though for the limits of value specified in that section there were substituted limits twenty-five per cent. in excess of the limits so specified, and that section and section four of the same Act shall have effect accordingly.
(2) It shall be deemed to be a condition of the tenancy of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies that the tenant shall afford to the landlord access thereto and all reasonable facilities for executing therein any repairs which the landlord is entitled to execute.
(3) Where the landlord of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies has served a notice to quit on a tenant, the acceptance of rent by the landlord for a period not exceeding three months from the expiration of the notice to quit shall not be deemed to prejudice any right to possession of such premises.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: The section of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, to which reference is made created a compound householder, who pays no rent and is quite unsconscious of the increase of rents when it takes place—an institution which has been responsible snore than anything else for making irresponsible citizens, especially in rural districts, and destroying all interest on the part of such persons in local government. Such persons have no interest whatever to check extravagance on the part of local authorities, or indeed, when elections take place, to vote for those who favour reasonable economy of rate expenditure. I may say in passing that, so far as I am aware, this system is condemned by every political party and has no merits in the eyes of any one except, possibly, the rate collector of the

955
local authority. I think I am right in saying that the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act was largely passed to save trouble to the local authorities in the case of what are commonly called "void" houses on large estates, which at certain times are unoccupied. "Voids" are practically non-existent at the present time, and that particular reason for perpetuating this system does not exist.
Under the Act of 1869 an assessable value of £8 was the limit in rural districts within which the compound system could be agreed upon and subsequently enforced. If the present system is left alone the compounding system seems likely to disappear altogether, as such low assessable values, even if they now exist, will gradually cease to exist in view of the much higher annual value which will come to represent the value of the cottage to the cottage tenant. Now this sub-section (1), which provides for an increase in the assessable limit in the case of such tenancies, will have the effect of perpetuating the compounding system. In view of the, so far as I know, unanimous opinion that the compound householder is an anachronism, and that the system does not tend to produce responsible and self-respecting citizens and ought to be abolished, I hope your Lordships will not approve of the insertion of this sub-section, which, by enlarging the limit, will perpetuate this vicious system.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, lines 25 to 30, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Bledisloe.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I suggest that on this Bill we ought not to go into the question whether the system of compounding is an anachronism, as the noble Lord has just said, or an anomaly, as he said on the Second Reading. We are trying to protect the occupiers of certain small houses. If by any chance the noble Lord succeeded in carrying his Amendment he would not abolish the compounding system. It would still exist, and the only result would be that a certain amount of hardship would be created. I do not say I differ from him on his general views, but I do say that this is not the time or place to remedy that. The clause in the Bill follows the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the noble Marquess opposite. That Committee went into the matter very fully and they thought it necessary that this increase should be made to prevent hard-
956
ship, and therefore I suggest that the Amendment should not be accepted.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think that that is a fair way of putting it. I would say that this Bill quite unnecessarily, and outside its purpose, drags in this question of compounding, and just as it is about to die a natural death, to the political advantage of the country, gives it a new and artificial lease of life. This clause is specially designed to continue a system which is dying in the natural course of events, and with great deference to the Committee over which my noble friend presided I think it is very unfortunate that the Government should have dragged this matter into the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I am in the position of agreeing with the Government and not with my noble friend, and perhaps I should state why I am in that very singular position. The effect of this Bill is to raise the rent to the extent of 30 per cent. immediately, and 40 per cent. next year. There are a great number of rents which are just below the compounding limit. When this Bill is passed and the 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. is imposed they will be brought above the compounding limit. What will be the effect of that? The effect will be that the burden of rates upon the particular piece of property will go up, because under the compounding system there is a reduction in the burden which rests upon particular premises or land. By means of the compounding system an allowance is made which is for the financial benefit of all parties. I know the argument of my noble friend, and I will deal with it in a moment. Relief is given to the rating authority by the compounding system, because they do not have to collect the rates themselves, and therefore they get rid of that expenditure. It is good also for the landlord and tenant, because they get a reduction in rates. Therefore, financially, it is good for all parties. What is the objection on the other side? It is that the compounding system is a bad system. I agree that it is a bad system, but if my noble friend had tried, as I have, he could have got rid of the difficulties of compounding without a change in the law. It is an arrangement the landlord can make if he pleases.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Not if the tenant refuses to agree.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have gone into it in my private capacity, and I know it can he clone though I admit there are great difficulties. The point is that Parliament is to be allowed to impose upon the tenant a large increase of rent by this Bill, and that will involve bringing these particular occupations above the compounding limit, because of another clause in the Bill. The whole increase of rates is, therefore, thrown upon the tenant, and that will still further increase his liability. When we came to consider this in the Committee we were compelled by the justice of the case and by the necessities of the public interest to permit these large increases of rent in the cases of dwellinghouses and we felt the difficulty that the burden of the increased rent added to that of the increased rates would be a very heavy one to throw upon these tenants. The rates are going up every day all over the country, and the joint burden of increase of rent and increase of rate would be very heavy indeed on this particular class of tenant.
We were faced with this difficulty, that if we allowed the rent to go up so as to bring the houses outside the compounding limit, we would really be imposing a still further burden upon the tenants, and we felt that was more than we ought to ask Parliament to do. In this emergency—not as a principle of general legislation—we wished to avoid piling Pelion on Ossa—piling rates on rent. We thought that would be too much, and that if we could make an economy which financially would hurt nobody—neither the landlord, nor the
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
rating authority, nor the tenant—we ought to do so, and that if we did so it would be a mitigation which Parliament would probably be willing to accept.
THE EARL of MIDLETON: We all quite understand Inv noble friend's desire with regard to the sitting tenant, but I think it is an extraordinary thing that the landlord should be bound for all time to a system from which be desires to free himself. The fact that at some time or another an agreement was made with the local authority should not result in the landlord being absolutely tied to that agreement for all time unless the local authority chooses to release him. I quite understand why the Committee has allowed the increase of rates to be put on the tenant, and I see that it means a number of quite nice calculations to be made every year in the case of those who own a large number of cottages. What I object to is the perpetuation of this system. As Lord Selborne said, there is nothing in the Bill which necessitates your perpetuating it. I believe there is nothing which has done more to divert the minds of the ordinary labourers from local government, and from subjects of first importance to them, than the fact that hitherto they have not felt in the slightest degree the effect of any changes made in the rates. I hope that my noble friend will go to a Division.
On Question, whether subsection (1) shall stand part of the clause—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 11.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhad, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Dewar, L.

Stanhope, E.

Faringdon, L.

Hylton, L.

Northampton, M.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Meston, L.

Salisbury, M.

Astor, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Knollys, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Bradford, E.

Peel, V.

Rotherham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Shandon, L.

Grey, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Sinha, L.

Lovelace, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Mar and Kellie, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS

Argyll, D.

Chilston, V.

Bledisloe, L. [Teller.]

Midleton, E. [Teller.]

Charnwood, L.

Morton, E.

Askwith, L.

Lawrence, L.

Selborne, E.

Balfour, L.

Queenborough, L.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is formal.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 40, at end insert ("and if any order for possession is made any payment of rent so accepted shall be treated as mesne profit").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to omit "only recover the same costs as he would have recovered in the county court," and to insert "not be entitled to recover any costs." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a very small Amendment. Instead of providing that persons who improperly bring proceedings in the High Court shall merely be able to recover County Court costs, the Amendment proposes that they shall not be entitled to recover any costs. The original penalty does not appear a sufficient one for a course which could so easily be avoided, and which is so obviously undesirable.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 12, leave out from ("shall") to the end of subsection (2), and insert ("not be entitled to recover any costs").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Rules as to procedure.
17.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may make suoh rules and give such directions as he thinks fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act, and may by those rules or directions provide for any proceedings for the purposes of thsi Act being con-ducted so far as desirable in private and for the remission of any fees.
(2) A county court shall have jurisdiction to deal with any claim or other proceedings arising out of this Act or any of the provisions thereof, notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of claim or otherwise the case would not but for this provision be within the jurisdiction of a county court, and if a person takes proceedings under this Act in the High Court which he could have taken in the county court he shall only recover the same costs as he would have recovered in the county court.
(3) Rules made under this section may provide for enabling a court to revoke or vary any former decision of the court if if appears just to do so in view of subsequent circumstances or of material facts having been concealed from or misrepresented to the court, notwithstanding anything in this Act providing that the decision of a court is to be final and conclusive.
LORD SHANDON LORD SHANDON moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "Provided always that, except in the case of concealment or
960
misrepresentation of material facts, no former decision of the court under section five of this Act shall be altered or rescinded after the execution of an order or judgment for recovery of possession of any dwellinghouse or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom."
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is intended to raise a question which technically, I think, has to be provided for. Clause 5 deals with the case of judgments on ejectment, obtained either before or after the passing of the Act, and there is power given to the County Court Judge, provided execution has not taken place, to discharge or rescind. Clause 17 (3) seems to be not easy to reconcile with that provision, because it provides that rules may be made providing for enabling a Court to revoke or vary any former decision of the Court. That would extend to any case. Possibly it was not intended that the power of the County Court Judge in the case of concealment or misrepresentation should be limited to the mere case of judgment, and that it should extend to the case where there was an execution, and that it was certainly not proper or desirable that it should extend to any other case. In order to get rid of that anomaly I have put down this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 20, after ("conclusive") insert the said proviso.—(Lord Shandon.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: An objection, I think, was taken, or a criticism made, by the noble Earl, the Lord Chief Justice, on the last occasion, but he is not here. I do not think that the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Shandon, quite gets over the difficulty which he had pointed out. On that occasion I think he appealed to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and asked him whether he would consider before this stage as to what amendment should be made in the clause, and I thought of asking the noble and learned Lord whether he had had an opportunity of considering, and intended to move any Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Some discussion did take place on the Second Reading, and I have since carefully considered the present proposals of the Bill, and I agree with the Lord Chief Justice that the proposal contained in Clause 17 (3)

961
is not a satisfactory one. If I may, in a sentence, inform the House of the circumstances under which this proposal was made in the House of Commons it will be found relevant to the observations I have to make.
Cases were quoted in the course of the debate, in which a landlord went before the court and obtained an ejectment order against his tenant on the ground that he required the house for his own personal occupation or the occupation of his family, the tenant having disappeared in obedience to the ejectment order, and the landlord thereupon, under the pretext that his circumstances had changed, went and let the house at an enormously increased rent; and cases were vouched for by County Court Judges in which, in their opinion at least, they had been grossly imposed upon by the landlord in order to obtain an ejectment which had been subsequently abused by him. The House of Commons inserted this provision in the hope that it might be possible to deal with that case by this machinery.
It was a very unsatisfactory method, for two reasons, as we found on analysis, in the first place, because the tenant had disappeared, and there was nobody to bring into operation the legal machinery, loose as it is, provided in the subsection; and, in the second place, it would be futile in its results because the new tenant to whom the premises were let under the circumstances indicated, would, in nineteen cases out of twenty, be a tenant who had taken the premises in perfect good faith, and it would be quite impossible to eject such a tenant, however badly his predecessor bad been treated by the landlord.
And yet it is a case which, somehow or other. required treatment. It has occurred to me since the last discussion that the true method, and the only method, of dealing with this matter would be to give to the tenant who had lost his holding, by reason of the bad faith of the landlord before the Court a substantive cause of action against that landlord to recover such damages as he had sustained in consequence of an order, ex hypothesi improperly obtained. I should propose, therefore, that subsection (3) be left out, and that at the end of Clause 5, page 8, line 26, a new subsection (6) should be inserted. It carries its meaning very plainly in its language, unlike some of these clauses, so I shall be bold enough to ask your Lordships to follow me as I read it, and if it is approved of to agree to it, with-
962
out inserting the Amendment on the Paper—
"Whore a landlord has obtained an order of judgment for possession or ejectment under this section, on the ground that he requires a dwelling house for his own occupation, and it is subse quently made to appear to the Court that the order was obtained by misrepresentation or the concealment of material facts, the Court may order the. landlord to pay to the former tenant such sum as appears sufficient as compensation for any damage or loss sustained by that tenant as the result of the order or judgment."
The result will be that subsection (3) will disappear from Clause 17, and that this provision will do what the County Court Judges think it is necessary should be done, and will do it, I think, in a form which will probably not be objectionable to any member of the House. Therefore in order that the matter may be discussed further, if necessary, I move the omission of subsection (3).
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Will Lord Shandon withdraw his words?
LORD SHANDON: Yes, I am satisfied that will meet them in substance,
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Omit subsection (3).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
Application to Scotland and Ireland.
18.—(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:—

(a) "Mortgage" and "ineumbranee" mean a heritable security including a security constituted by absolute disposition qualified by back bond or letter; "mortgagor" and "mortgagee" mean respectively the debtor and the creditor in a heritable security; "covenant" means obligation; "mortgaged property" means the heritable subject or subjects included in a heritable security; "rateable value" means yearly value according to the valuation roll; "rateable value on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen" means yearly value according to the valuation roll for tip year ending fifteenth day of May nineteen hundred and fifteen; "assessed" means entered in the valuation roll; "land" means land and heritages; "rates" means assessments as defined in the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911; "Lord Chancellor" and "High Court"

963
mean the Court of Session; "rules" means act of sederunt; "county court" means the sheriff court; "sanitary authority" means the local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; "mesne profits" means profits; the Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Ministry of Agriculture; the twenty-eighth day of May shall be substituted for the twenty-fifth day of June; the reference to the county agricultural committee shall be construed as a reference to the body of persons constituted with respect to any area by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under subsection (2) of section eleven of the Corn Production Act, 1917; references to levying distress shall be construed as references to doing diligence; a reference to section five of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919, shall be substituted for a reference to section seven of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919; and a reference to section one of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, shall be substituted for a reference to section three of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869:

(b) Nothing in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the section of this Act relating to permitted increases in rent shall permit any increase in rent in respect of any increase after the year ending Whitsunday nineteen hundred and twenty in the amount of the rates payable by the landlord other than rates for which he is responsible under the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911:

(c) Subsection (5) of the section of this Act relating to permitted increases in rent shall not apply:

(d)Nothing in the law relating to tacit relocation shall prevent the landlord of a dwelling-house to which the Acts repealed by this Act applied from obtaining any increase of rent to which he would otherwise be entitled under the provisions of this Act.

(2) This Act shall apply to Ireland subject to the following modifications:—

(a) A reference to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the Lord Chancellor:

(b) A reference to section fifteen of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851, shall be substituted for the reference to section one of the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838; and a reference to the Agricultural Wages Board for Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the county agricultural committee:

(c) The expression "mortgage" includes a charge by registered disposition under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891:

964

(d)The expression "rateable value" means the annual rateable value under the Irish Valuation Acts: Provided that where part of a house let as a separate dwelling is not separately valued under those Acts, the Commissioner of Valuation and Boundary Surveyor may on the application of the landlord or tenant make such apportionment of the rateable value of the whole house as seems just, and his decision as to the amount to be apportioned to the part of the house shall be final and conclusive, and that amount shall he taken to be the rateable value of the part of the house for the purposes of this Act but not further or otherwise:

(e) The medical officer of health of a dispensary district shall be substituted for the sanitary authority under section two of this Act and the issue of certificates and the payment of fees in connection with applications by tenants under the said section shall be subject to regulations to be made by the Local Government Board for Ireland:

(f) This Act shall not apply to any dwellinghouse provided by a local authority under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1919, or under any of those Acts.

LORD STANMORE: My first Amendment on this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Clause 18, page 19, line 5, leave out ("Minister of Agriculture") and insert ("Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries").—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STANMORE: My next Amendment is to substitute June 24 for June 25
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 7, leave out ("twenty-fifth") and insert ("twenty-fourth").—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STANMORE: This is another drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 13, at end insert ("the reference to the President of the Surveyors' Institution shall be construed as a reference to the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Surveyors' Institution").—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had the following Amendments upon the Paper—
Page 19, line 26, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("twenty-one").

965
Page 19, lines 32 to 30, leave out subsection (d) and insert:
("Where any dwelling-house, to which the Acts repealed by this Act applied, is subject to a right of tenancy arising from a yearly contract or from tacit relocation, and ending at Whit Sunday, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, the year ending at the said term of Whit Sunday shall be deemed to be a period during which, but for this Act, the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession of such dwelling-house.")
The noble Lord said: I am in some difficulty to know what course to take, because I am strongly convinced that if these Amendments are not accepted very grave Injustice will be done. I shall not argue the first Amendment in detail. It was in the Act of last year, it was in the first draft of the Act this year, it was ably defended by the Secretary for Scotland up to the end of the Committee stage in the other House, but at the last moment a change was made without notice and the Amendment was rejected. With regard to the other Amendment, it was promised by the Secretary for Scotland but by some accident was omitted at the Report stage in the House of Commons. I speak with all respect, but I believe the Speaker did not know its importance and, by the "kangaroo" arrangement, it was not even argued. Perhaps I should save the time of the House if I asked the representative of the Scottish Office to say what is the position of the Government with regard to these two Amendments.
LORD STANMORE: The Government will be glad to accept the second Amendment, but not the first one.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: these circumstances I think I shall be consulting the convenience of the House if I do not occupy time in discussing now the first Amendment. I propose to put it off until the Report stage instead of taking it in the House as it is now. Consequently I do not move that Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Lord Stanmore has an Amendment on page 19 which will come before the second Amendment of Lord Balfour.
LORD STANMORE: My Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Clause 18, page 19, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert ("paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of the section of this Act relating to application and interpretation shall not apply").—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH,LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH, moved to omit subsection (d) and to insert "Where any dwelling-house, to which the Acts repealed by this Act applied, is subject to a right, of tenancy arising from a yearly contract or from tacit relocation, and ending at Whit Sunday, nineteen hundred and twenty one, the year ending at the said term of Whit Sunday shall be deemed to be a period during which, but for this Act, the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession of such dwelling-house."
The noble Lord said: I have been asked to explain what is the meaning of "tacit relocation," though I do not know whether it is of general interest to the House. It is a purely Scottish matter. If you have a lease for five years in England, I understand that it terminates at the end of the five years, but in Scotland it does not terminate unless notice is given. If notice is not given either by the owner or by the occupier it goes un by what is called in Scotland
"tacit relocation."
Amendment moved—
Page 19, lines 32 to 36, leave out subsection (d) and insert the said words.—(Lord Balfour of Barleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, in subsection (2) (b) to omit "Agricultural Wages Board for Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the county agricultural committee," and insert "Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and references to the county agricultural committee shall not apply."
The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment relating to the application of the Bill to Ireland, and is practically of a drafting character. In effect it really limits the giving of certificates to the Department which in Ireland corresponds to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in this country.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 4, leave out from ("the") to the end of line 6 and insert the said words.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: Has the noble Earl considered the effect of my Amendment to the previous clause in the Amendment he now proposes? In fact it leaves it, so far as England is concerned, entirely in the hands of the county agricultural committees when appointed.
THE EARL of CRAWFORD: Yes; and in Ireland it leaves it in the bands of the Minister.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Amendment at the end of subsection (2) (d) looks rather formidable, but in point of fact it is really quite simple. The provision does not apply correctly to Ireland, and the Amendment is proposed in order to assimilate the standardisation which exists between the two countries. Here these housing schemes are standardised through the agency of the Ministry of Health. In Ireland that would be impracticable, partly because the rents charged by local authorities in themselves under similar schemes are not standardised, partly because in Ireland these schemes are almost if not entirely exclusively in urban areas, and, finally, owing to the phrase "gross estimated rental" or "gross value" which in Irish law is meaningless.
This provision, therefore, restricts the valuation for rating purposes of the class of house dealt with in subsection (9), but it adopts a rather different standard—namely, that of the estimated pre-war rent. I should add that in Ireland for rating purposes local assessments arc not carried out by local authorities, but are in the hands of a Government Department in Dublin, that of the Commissioner of Valuation. The duty of estimating the rent in these cases will accordingly fall on that Department. I beg to move, and I would point out that owing to an Amendment previously made in the Bill it is necessary, after the word "erected" ["erected before the said date"] in the middle of the new subsection to insert the words "or so reconstructed" in order to bring the phraseology into consonance with what has gone before.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 21, at end insert:
("(e) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (9) of section twelve of this Act:
"( ) This Act shall not apply to a dwelling-house erected after, or in cou se of erection on, the second day of April nineteen hundred and nineteen, or to any dwelling-house which has been since that date or was at that date being bona fide reconstructed by way or conversion into two or more separate and self-contained flats or tenements; but the rateable value of any such dwelling-house to which
968
this Act would have applied if it had been erected or so reconstructed before the said date shall be ascertained as though the rent for the purposes of section eleven of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, were the rent for which a similar dwelling-house might have been reasonably expected to let on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, the probable average annual cost of repairs, insurance, and other expenses (if any) necessary to maintain the dwelling-house in its actual state and all rates, taxes, and public charges, if any (except tithe rentcharge) being paid by the tenant").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, in subsection (2) (e), to leave out "under section two of this Act and insert "in section two of this Act and in the First Schedule thereto." The noble Earl said: This is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, lines 23 and 24, leave out ("under section two of this Act") and insert ("in section two of this Act and in the First Schedule thereto").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule:
VISCOUNT ASTOR: In regard to the three Amendments standing in my name on the First Schedule, your Lordships will remember that an Amendment was moved to Clause 2 defining "repairs." It is because of that, and in order to make the position clear, that we propose this alteration in the Schedule. We do so also to make it plain that unless a tenant is under an express liability for repairs the landlord is entitled to the increase under Clause 2 subsection (1) paragraph (d), notwithstanding that no expenditure on repairs has been incurred during the period to which the increase of rent relates, if the house is in a reasonable state of repair. That is to say, the landlord can claim the 25 per cent. if the house is in a satisfactory condition, even though the repairs might have been executed at an earlier date.
Amendments moved
Page 22, line 27, leave out from ("Act") to ("being") in line 28.
Page 22, line 34, at beginning insert ("The increase under head (d) is on account of my responsibility for repairs, for no part. (part only) of which are you under an express liability").
Page 22, line 38, at end insert as a footnote:
("Where the tenant is under an express liability for part of the repairs, the increase under head (d) is to be settled in default of agreement by the county court").—( Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMANThe Question is that I report this Bill with Amendments to the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Upon that Motion it would be suitable, perhaps, to ask the Government not to press on the Bill with any undue despatch, because it really is impossible to legislate at this break-neck speed. It is not as though we had dealt with all the Amendments in the first instance on the Committee stage of the Bill. There are several which have not yet been touched at all, and they will be seen for the first time on Report. No one knows better than your Lordships, with your experience, that when Amendments are made in a Bill there are all sorts of consequential things which have to be considered, without which a hotch-potch piece of work will go out to the country. Besides that, there are certain points which the Government have been so kind as to say they will consider on Report. They cannot consider them between now and to-morrow at four o'clock. I venture,
970
therefore, to press them not to take the Report stage to-morrow.
Nor do I think it would be possible to take the remaining stages together afterwards, because the Third Reading is a very important stage at which all the last difficulties are arranged. May I add, that the idea that something very formidable is going to happen because there is a short interval between the expiry of one of these Rent Restriction Acts and the coming into force of this Bill is entirely illusory. No great difficulties will occur. It is one of the smaller Acts that expires. Moreover, there is no time, within the few days of interval that there may be, in which any mischief can really occur. I hope the Government will see that there is no undue precipitancy in taking the remaining stages.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I hope that your Lordships will not consider it precipitate to try to get the Third Reading with the Report stage on Wednesday. I think it is reasonable of the noble Marquess to ask us not to take the Report stage to-morrow. We have made considerable progress to-day.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: We should wish to meet the Government in any way we can, and, if the outstanding points are settled, I have no doubt it will be possible to go ahead. But my noble friends would not like to give an undertaking that they would take the Third Reading and the Report stage on the same day.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past. seven o' clock.

SHEKLETON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had received by post from the Lord Justice of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, a Report of the proceedings upon the inquiry before him in the case of Skekleton Syers.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
BELFAST WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

LAND DRAINAGE (OUSE)
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
CENTRAL LONDON AND METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COMPANIES (WORKS) BILL.
REDCAR URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS BILL.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

E. Craven,

L. Oranmore and Browne (Chairman),

L. Loch,

L. Cawley,

L. Wavertree;

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

JUVENILE COURTS (METROPOLIS) BILL. [H.L.]
Petition for amendment of; of the Mayor, Aldermen and Councillors of the City of Westminster; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.